Our Fractured Crown: An Eastern Roman Timeline
- Thread starter Averious
- Start date
I'll be honest, I think people are a bit too harsh on Andronikos II and not harsh enough on Michael VIII.
Yes, his reign was generally a disaster for the Empire, but many of the failings of Andronikos II were the direct result of Michael VIII's policies.
Also, you really like the word, "akin".
Yes, his reign was generally a disaster for the Empire, but many of the failings of Andronikos II were the direct result of Michael VIII's policies.
Also, you really like the word, "akin".
Michael VIII was an incredibly ambitious, cunning and diplomatically skilled Emperor with a proven record as a general and warrior.
He made several bad decisions as Emperor that started the trend of the citizens of the Empire hating the Palaiologi that continued all the way to Constantine XI.
These decisions included;
- Blinding John IV Laskaris, thus losing himself the Akritai and being known as a usurper.
- Abandoning the Anatolian lands in favour of Europe, which without the Akritai began to fall rapidly.
- Forcing a union between the Catholics and Orthodox that destroyed the religious and cultural identity of the Empire and left him and his dynasty hated by the citizens until 1453.
In this—the middle point that people often give him ‘grief’ for, because for some reason the union isn’t what they think on, is with hindsight. We know that Europe didn’t need that much attention, he didn’t—he genuinely feared European intervention after he retook Constantinople.
As Emperor, besides the above faults, he was a highly skilled diplomat, who ran circles around his enemies and even, for the first time since Manuel I (an Emperor I consider quite bad) actively influenced the Known World when he started a full-blown civil war (Sicilian Vespers) in Charles of Anjou’s lands that permanently lost him Sicily—all as a punishment and pre-emptive strike against the King of Sicily/Naples for his threats and plans to steal back Constantinople.
His record is full of a lot of questionable decisions you can only understand by putting aside hindsight—and while some, such as the Church Union and blinding of John IV, would be terrible even without it, they’re not on the scale of Andronikos II’s idiocy.
An idiocy that destroyed the state because the man ruled as Emperor for 50 years. 50 years of defence budget cuts, wasting of money, and bad decisions that created several needless enemies and actively crippled the state. Had Andronikos II lived in a time of peace, without enemies on every border, or for a decade, he wouldn’t be worth the bile that’s flung at him.
But he wasn’t a ruler in peacetime, and he lead for 50 years—near-every-day of which he further chipped away at the Empire instead of rebuilding it.
He had some ‘shrewd’ moments such ensuring Thessaloniki’s rights of rule were directly inherited by the Romans, so Latin claims were moot—but this was the outstanding exception, not the rule to any degree.
Michael VIII was cunning, and diplomatically skilled in a way I think was OTL only matched by his descendant Manuel II (who despite ruling a polity on the verge of death bought it another 50 years through sheer will and effort) in diplomatic skill. Had he been directly followed by a military man, like Andronikos III, or by a polyglot-polymath diplomatic master like Manuel II, the Empire would have gotten fully back on it’s feet.
Instead it got the Angeloi personified for 50 years.
——
Addendum; yes I use akin a lot—it’s a neat word, lol.
Last edited:
Care to elaborate on why you consider Manuel I to be a shitty Basileus despite his reputaiton, then?
He had delusions of the Empire that weren’t reality; viewing it as the juggernaut power it had been under Basil II (and thus himself as the strongest ruler in the world) rather than the strong but precarious power it was in reality.
Thus, rather than continue the careful work of his father and grandfather Manuel spent the strength of the Empire playing at being a Latin Knight—gallivanting in Italy and therein wasting blood and treasure, wasting the same on an Egypt he had no chance of reconquering, and more akin in the Balkans.
His biggest blunders were two key ones; he actively refused to focus on Anatolia until it was far too late—wasting the work of his father, and grandfather, by giving the Turks the time needed to catch their breath, which resulted in them defeating him and permanently losing the Empire Anatolia (in hindsight) when Manuel finally stopped playing Latin long enough to realise he really ought to take care of Anatolia.
The second? He feudalised the Empire; leaning into his Latin preferences and starting the process which turned the Pronoia from temporary land grants to create a military aristocracy with army retinues into a bastardised fusion of hereditary feudalism and semi-independence that robbed the Emperor of much needed resources and taxes because unlike western nobles the Pronoiar didn’t have to pay their liege anything in men, material or currency.
His Latinism had some bonuses; no Emperor before him or since was liked as much in the West, or Crusader States—but that meant very little when his preferential treatment of them ended up also putting the Empire on hooks and leaving his own citizens priced out; which eventually allowed the horrid figure of Andronikos I to rally them into a mob and take over the Empire—leading directly to 1204.
Last edited:
So, do you think the empire would have been better off if John II had been succeeded by one of his three older sons (or just Isaac if Alexios and Andronikos still died of illness)?
Great TL, by the way.
Thanks!
From what little we know of all three—of the lot Alexios was the best choice; a man trained from birth to rule, who seemed to share his father’s qualities.
Andronikos, in turn, comes off to me as the dutiful middle-brother who would have been a fine stop-gap Emperor, but not necessarily an impressive one.
Isaac on the other hand, from what we know, extolled his father’s martial virtues and very little else—going so far as outright attacking his brother verbally for not living up to their father’s military memory, and then physically—which Manuel only survived because the future Andronikos I deflected the blow.
Isaac may not have been a well-rounded Emperor, but if he’d ruled instead of Manuel then we can at least say he’d have done his best to continue on his father’s, and grandfather’s, dream of reconquering Anatolia; mimicking his father as closely as possible in matters of war. This, at least, barring anything else, might have seen Anatolia reclaimed—for good or ill.
Last edited:
Sorry if I'm commenting for the first time in this TL, which for now I consider almost perfect in its very organic and realistic development ( although I hope to see some Paleologos, Kantakuzenos or perhaps Komnenos cadet, obtain their own personal fiefdom in Italy or even Germany, in the manner of Otl Monferrato ) now regarding the evolution of the Empire, it seems that the fusion / amalgamation of the Rhomanois and Latin traditions is continuing in its process, bringing an interesting cultural mix that I don't often see, for the rest I believe that the If Michael VIII's idea of the Union of Churches was not actually a heavy idea on paper, but rather an intelligent ( albeit very risky ) way of diplomatically protecting his western flank from any would-be imitators of Charles of Anjou, he certainly could improve the basic agreement ( as later happened in the Council of Ferrara ) to make it more digestible by the imperial population, I certainly agree that Manuel I made mistakes during his reign, but I don't see his Latinophilia as a problem ( considering that in the original idea of John II, Manuel had to end up governing an independent state including Armenian Cilicia and Antioch ( in some sources it is also said that he should also eventually have Edessa ), places with a high population of Latins, therefore quite suited to his way of governing ) but rather a precise policy with the aim of easing relations between Constantinople and Latin Europe, certainly some of his military campaigns were very reckless ( like the second in Egypt ) but for the rest they were all very juicy for the fate of Byzantium, in case of actual success ( which is very possible, if we consider that in the Italian campaign and in the 1st Egyptian , ended unluckily but started from extremely promising beginnings )
The issue with the Union of the Churches is that by that point the Latins had sacked Constantinople, and then brutalised much of the population for 60 years; when combined with the cultural-religious identity of the Romans, who saw themselves as the correct ones in the Schism, and you have a population that will see any agreement with the Latins in this way--in a way that places them below the Pope, as all the Union agreements did--as utterly abhorrent.
Throughout the remaining years of the Empire the population, as attested to in the sources, disliked their Emperors--regardless of how 'equitable' the agreement became.
We'll have to agree to disagree on Manuel, because as far as I've read within the sources, his Latinophilia was at the expense of his own native Romaioi people--and every expedition undertook that drew him away from the important goal of reclaiming Anatolia a wasted one. His high-risk personality isn't something I see as a boon--because it was borne of a delusion of where the Empire was at; he saw it, and himself, as greater than in reality.
John II, his direct predecessor and in my opinion one of the best Emperors the Empire ever had, would never have considered wasting the resources of the Empire outside of its corelands--almost none of them would have, not Alexios I, not Basil II--because they actually knew the state their Empire existed in at the time.
P.S - thanks for the compliments, lol.
Book 2; 1355 - Kings and Pawns
"Better to make of a man either truly dead, or a reliant supplicant, than to allow martyrdom or rebelliousness" - John V Palaiologos.
1355
The Holy Roman Empire was bathed in turmoil; civil war had plagued it for a decade with the election of Charles IV of Luxembourg as anti-King to Emperor Louis IV in 1346--starting an on-again, off-again, skirmish which even bled into the ongoing Hundred Years War.
But Louis IV had died of a stroke in 1347, and thus much of the civil war had been contesting princes of the Empire. Finally however, after months of plotting, Charles would become Emperor in truth, rather than just an anti-King; being crowned by Innocent VI, successor of Clement VI, on April 5th 1355 in Rome (one of the rare occasions the Papacy had bothered to return to the city in recent years).
In the south however, things began to boil, as Robert II of Taranto, after securing a needed marriage for his younger brother Philip to Maria of Calabria, would rally to meet his forces in the city of Taranto; readying for war.
The muster had started earlier that year, right after Christmas celebrations, as of course, Robert had heard of what his disloyal Barons and Knights had done in Achaea--that they'd given away what was rightly his to the heretic Greek Emperor; his honour demanded that there be a reprisal, as why would one bother negotiating with a heretic?
Sadly for Robert, Naples as a whole was far too fractious to offer him any actual support, and so he would simply go with his own forces.
A week later the troops of Robert landed in western Achaea, quickly taking Glarentza, and putting to the sword several nearby noble estates as revenge against his treacherous Barons; a firm foothold had been established. Thereafter, in late April the Angevin forces rallied and made to take the Achaean capital of Andravida.
They were met en route to Andravida by Philippe Durand, effective 'regent' of Achaea in John V's name; Durand had mustered what forces he could on such short notice in an attempt to rout Robert's forces from the city--and battle ensued.
Latin killed Latin on the hills and fields outside Andravida; Robert at the head of a force of around 2,000, and Durand in turn heading 800 Knights, Men-at-Arms and levy infantry.
Bloody was the battle, and for a time it seemed Durand's force, which in terms of elite numbered higher than Robert, might rout the Neapolitan invaders--only that isn't how fate wove itself that day; the histories saying Robert rode to confront Durand himself, and in the knightly melee the Prince of Taranto would cave in Durand's head with his mace.
That blow, and the following crumpling crack of a body hitting the ground, would rout Durand's forces--who fled southward into Romaioi Morea, as Robert put Andravida to siege.
Roughly a week later, John V would receive news in Constantinople of the invasion, and a week after that news of Durand's defeat--from Matthew and Manuel, sons of John Kantakouzenos, whom John V had put there to govern Morea in counterbalance to the recently 'integrated' Latins.
Orders came from John then for the invader to be cast out, and in the time it took all this to happen the brothers had mustered the forces available to them in Morea--and more still.
Durand's son, and heir, Reynard, would join them at the head of those who had fled, amongst his own retinue.
Thus, in mid-May, the Roman forces of Morea, under the leadership of the three, would depart for Andravida, which was languishing under Robert's siege--a siege in which the Angevins had made a point of continuing to loot, and ravage, the nearby lands.
Matthew had called Robert to parley upon their arrival, and the by-now bloodied Robert had agreed; the Roman pressing the Latin to leave, with everything he had looted, in the name of peace. Robert refused and insulted Matthew; departing.
Battle would come the following morning; Robert's rough 2,000 (reinforced by some latecomers), and the Roman's rough 1,500.
Bloodier than the first, the battle would fall into a back and forth--as riders crashed against one another, infantry clashed back and forth, and bowmen fired off their arrows; Matthew's horse being killed beneath him by a stray arrow, and in turn crushing the eldest of Kantakouzenos' boys to death.
Rallying his brother's retinue to continue fighting, as Reynard himself shattered Robert's right wing with a charge, Manuel made for the Prince of Taranto--and was flung from his horse after Robert attempted to do to him what he had to Philippe; missing Manuel's head and instead killing his horse with the blow.
Manuel shook off his daze and readied his blade; bringing to bear and cutting out Robert's horse from under him when the Prince went for the charge--the Roman forced away when Robert's retinue rode in to rescue their Prince.
The battle broke thereafter, as Reynard rallied the entire Roman force around Manuel, and then against Roberts; routing them.
For the next week the two would pursue the Angevins to the sea, and finally, after much blood, see them off from the lands of Rome; honoured in a private ceremony at the Boukoleon the following month.
Matthew would be buried with honours befitting a fallen Roman hero, and Manuel invested officially as Regent of Morea, alongside Reynard; the two sharing the responsibility of the now-united peninsula.
In France, Edward of Woodstock would rightly earn his epithet as the Black Prince that November; starting what would become known as his first 'chevauchée' across southern France for a month, even as in Constantinople the Emperor would receive, in short order, three separate bits of news.
Two in the form of letters, and the latter as mercantile jabber.
Doge Marin Falier of Venice had been beheaded by the city's own council for his acts of conspiracy; John rewarding the merchant to bring this news to him with a handful of silver.
The letters? One from Manuel of Bitola, the aged guardian of the north... and the other writ in the hand and seal of Edward of Windsor, King of England.
John, first giving to his aid a letter of his own to pass on [1], would pull open the letter from Manuel of Bitola in anticipation of horrid news, but no; the clatter of a goblet, and the fall of a body, had been heard across the Balkans--Stefan Dusan, King of the Serbs, was dead [2]; leaving his realm to civil war.
And the second letter? Well, a proposition from the English.
---
[1] Starting in 1355 the Emperor would rekindle contact with his Latinised cousins in Montferrat; inspired to do so by the attack of Robert II of Taranto, as John wished to cultivate western allies, with the Palaeologus-Montferrat a good place to start.
[2] There are many theories as to how Stefan Dusan died. Some push that he died of illness, but many sources support poisoning; either from the Venetians he had so recently snubbed while making war with Magyar-Croats of Charles of Hungary, or by his own wife in favour of their weak son. Regardless of who did it, his death spelt the end for his dynasty in the long term, and the independence of his realm.
1355
The Holy Roman Empire was bathed in turmoil; civil war had plagued it for a decade with the election of Charles IV of Luxembourg as anti-King to Emperor Louis IV in 1346--starting an on-again, off-again, skirmish which even bled into the ongoing Hundred Years War.
But Louis IV had died of a stroke in 1347, and thus much of the civil war had been contesting princes of the Empire. Finally however, after months of plotting, Charles would become Emperor in truth, rather than just an anti-King; being crowned by Innocent VI, successor of Clement VI, on April 5th 1355 in Rome (one of the rare occasions the Papacy had bothered to return to the city in recent years).
In the south however, things began to boil, as Robert II of Taranto, after securing a needed marriage for his younger brother Philip to Maria of Calabria, would rally to meet his forces in the city of Taranto; readying for war.
The muster had started earlier that year, right after Christmas celebrations, as of course, Robert had heard of what his disloyal Barons and Knights had done in Achaea--that they'd given away what was rightly his to the heretic Greek Emperor; his honour demanded that there be a reprisal, as why would one bother negotiating with a heretic?
Sadly for Robert, Naples as a whole was far too fractious to offer him any actual support, and so he would simply go with his own forces.
A week later the troops of Robert landed in western Achaea, quickly taking Glarentza, and putting to the sword several nearby noble estates as revenge against his treacherous Barons; a firm foothold had been established. Thereafter, in late April the Angevin forces rallied and made to take the Achaean capital of Andravida.
They were met en route to Andravida by Philippe Durand, effective 'regent' of Achaea in John V's name; Durand had mustered what forces he could on such short notice in an attempt to rout Robert's forces from the city--and battle ensued.
Latin killed Latin on the hills and fields outside Andravida; Robert at the head of a force of around 2,000, and Durand in turn heading 800 Knights, Men-at-Arms and levy infantry.
Bloody was the battle, and for a time it seemed Durand's force, which in terms of elite numbered higher than Robert, might rout the Neapolitan invaders--only that isn't how fate wove itself that day; the histories saying Robert rode to confront Durand himself, and in the knightly melee the Prince of Taranto would cave in Durand's head with his mace.
That blow, and the following crumpling crack of a body hitting the ground, would rout Durand's forces--who fled southward into Romaioi Morea, as Robert put Andravida to siege.
Roughly a week later, John V would receive news in Constantinople of the invasion, and a week after that news of Durand's defeat--from Matthew and Manuel, sons of John Kantakouzenos, whom John V had put there to govern Morea in counterbalance to the recently 'integrated' Latins.
Orders came from John then for the invader to be cast out, and in the time it took all this to happen the brothers had mustered the forces available to them in Morea--and more still.
Durand's son, and heir, Reynard, would join them at the head of those who had fled, amongst his own retinue.
Thus, in mid-May, the Roman forces of Morea, under the leadership of the three, would depart for Andravida, which was languishing under Robert's siege--a siege in which the Angevins had made a point of continuing to loot, and ravage, the nearby lands.
Matthew had called Robert to parley upon their arrival, and the by-now bloodied Robert had agreed; the Roman pressing the Latin to leave, with everything he had looted, in the name of peace. Robert refused and insulted Matthew; departing.
Battle would come the following morning; Robert's rough 2,000 (reinforced by some latecomers), and the Roman's rough 1,500.
Bloodier than the first, the battle would fall into a back and forth--as riders crashed against one another, infantry clashed back and forth, and bowmen fired off their arrows; Matthew's horse being killed beneath him by a stray arrow, and in turn crushing the eldest of Kantakouzenos' boys to death.
Rallying his brother's retinue to continue fighting, as Reynard himself shattered Robert's right wing with a charge, Manuel made for the Prince of Taranto--and was flung from his horse after Robert attempted to do to him what he had to Philippe; missing Manuel's head and instead killing his horse with the blow.
Manuel shook off his daze and readied his blade; bringing to bear and cutting out Robert's horse from under him when the Prince went for the charge--the Roman forced away when Robert's retinue rode in to rescue their Prince.
The battle broke thereafter, as Reynard rallied the entire Roman force around Manuel, and then against Roberts; routing them.
For the next week the two would pursue the Angevins to the sea, and finally, after much blood, see them off from the lands of Rome; honoured in a private ceremony at the Boukoleon the following month.
Matthew would be buried with honours befitting a fallen Roman hero, and Manuel invested officially as Regent of Morea, alongside Reynard; the two sharing the responsibility of the now-united peninsula.
In France, Edward of Woodstock would rightly earn his epithet as the Black Prince that November; starting what would become known as his first 'chevauchée' across southern France for a month, even as in Constantinople the Emperor would receive, in short order, three separate bits of news.
Two in the form of letters, and the latter as mercantile jabber.
Doge Marin Falier of Venice had been beheaded by the city's own council for his acts of conspiracy; John rewarding the merchant to bring this news to him with a handful of silver.
The letters? One from Manuel of Bitola, the aged guardian of the north... and the other writ in the hand and seal of Edward of Windsor, King of England.
John, first giving to his aid a letter of his own to pass on [1], would pull open the letter from Manuel of Bitola in anticipation of horrid news, but no; the clatter of a goblet, and the fall of a body, had been heard across the Balkans--Stefan Dusan, King of the Serbs, was dead [2]; leaving his realm to civil war.
And the second letter? Well, a proposition from the English.
---
[1] Starting in 1355 the Emperor would rekindle contact with his Latinised cousins in Montferrat; inspired to do so by the attack of Robert II of Taranto, as John wished to cultivate western allies, with the Palaeologus-Montferrat a good place to start.
[2] There are many theories as to how Stefan Dusan died. Some push that he died of illness, but many sources support poisoning; either from the Venetians he had so recently snubbed while making war with Magyar-Croats of Charles of Hungary, or by his own wife in favour of their weak son. Regardless of who did it, his death spelt the end for his dynasty in the long term, and the independence of his realm.
Last edited:
I quite agree with your ideas, although I believe that the tragic sack of 1204 is actually to be blamed on both parties involved in the affair ( Latins and "Byzantines" ) in equal measure, since it was the result of centuries of terrible relations between the two factions, which were amplified by the greater interaction due to the crusades, reinforcing the feeling of xenophobia, hostility and suspicion already present, is that with the wicked policies of Andronikos I and the Angelos caused the tragic event in question ( the deviation on the Venetian side of the 4th crusade ) which was truly the moment in which the Great Schism of 1054 really materialized as an almost irreparable fracture, for the rest certainly some foreign policy choices implemented by Manuel were somewhat bizarre, but it must be considered that already held the most important and richest possessions in Anatolia, therefore he did not see the importance of going further inland, to capture territory that was difficult to defend and had become hostile to the imperial government ( not to mention unprofitable ) and also the failure of the 2nd crusade, allowed him to fill the role of protector of Outremer, increasing his influence in the region ( even surpassing his father's successes in this area, and even gaining the fear of Saladin and his associates ) now his policies in Italy were mainly based on avoiding that a formidable adversary consolidated and strengthened on its western borders ( see first the Normans and then subsequently Frederick I (1)
for the rest I agree that we don't agree on Manuele 😅😜
1) with the latter, at the beginning I tried to implement a policy of cooperation, along the lines of that cultivated with Conrad III, with an anti-Norman function ( who were the major supporters of the internal revolts of the empire, in particular the Serbian one of 1148 and the minor ones organized by the Bulgarians ), even proposing a marriage agreement, but then seeing that their ideologies and imperial ambitions were naturally in conflict, I rightly thought of cultivating a network of alliances to contain him ( with the Papacy, the Lombard League, William of Altavilla and even Henry the Lion, going so far as to propose himself to Pope Alexander III as an aspiring HRE Emperor, even managing to obtain supporters in Germany... ) given that until Legnano, Frederick had remained mainly undefeated
P.s
is there any chance of seeing a scion of John V or John Kantakuzenos being able to inherit an estate in Latin Europe through marriage ?, particularly if it was in HRE, that would be really fun to read
Fair points all around, although we could argue back and forth on who was to blame for what, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, as it all adds up to the citizens of the Empire being unwilling to reconcile in any way that put them below the same Latins that had sacked their capital and oppressed them for 60 years.
As for if a scion of John V or Kantakouzenos might come to inherit an estate in Latin Europe? As of now I do have plans for the Kantakouzenoi, but that's oriented more so in the Balkans--maybe in time a descendant of either might come to possess estates in Latin Europe, although as of now only the Palaeologus-Montferrat come close; being within HRE-held Italy as Marquesses.
Really interesting chapter, I especially like the evolution of the situation with the brief Neapolitan invasion in Morea and the letters coming from Europe ( the English one intrigues me a lot, but also the one directed to Monferrato, because few people know that Ludovico IV was playing with the idea of creating a previous Golden Bull, which would also include an Italian electorate ( to strengthen the imperial government in the region, but through indirect means, using the main Ghibelline exponent on site ) is the three favorite candidates for this were the Visconti, the Scaligeri and finally Monferrato itself ( which due to its being quite neutral in the Guelph and Ghibelline conflict ( in the sense of being on good terms with Avignon despite being a main exponent of the pro-imperial party ) and located in a strategic position in the peninsula ( since it controls the main fortresses and the quickest access to the Po Valley in case an army coming from France were to invade the peninsula ) if we consider this, we can imagine that Charles IV might want to dust off this idea, considering it a good compromise to maintain imperial influence in Italy, without naturally having to resort to violence ( with the risk of having to start from scratch ) furthermore this allows John to have a direct channel to influence European politics in his favor ( where possible ) so I can easily see him very supportive of this project
p.s
if you want to know more, I also made a discussion on this topic
Last edited:
Great chapter, good on the Romans in defending themselves from invasion by Robert of Taranto, no longer will the Empire just take it when a Latin decides to arrogantly invade expecting easy glory. This isn't the old days when the Empire was divided, the Romans are a strong unit. I can't wait to see how John V plans to get involved in Italian affairs. With Stefan Dusan dead, John needs to take advantage an partition the Serbian realm to his benefit before the Hungarians take the lion's share.
Possible English Marriages:
It would be awesome seeing the English establish a stronghold throughout Rhomania. It certainly makes things interesting if the Plantagenets have their occasional family feuds and the Palaiologoi have to play mediator.
Keep up the amazing work 👍👍👍👍
I wonder what's in Edward III's letter? I think it might be a proposition for a marriage, with John V's eldest son Andronikos the Younger (who should be 7-8 by now, born around 1347).
Possible English Marriages:
- Blanche (1342–1342), born in the Tower of London, died shortly after birth and was buried in Westminster Abbey.
- Mary of Waltham (1344–1361), born at Bishop's Waltham. OTL she married John IV, Duke of Brittany.
- Margaret (Countess of Pembroke) (1346–1361). OTL in 1359 she married John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke.
It would be awesome seeing the English establish a stronghold throughout Rhomania. It certainly makes things interesting if the Plantagenets have their occasional family feuds and the Palaiologoi have to play mediator.
Keep up the amazing work 👍👍👍👍
Thinking about it, I believe John V would find a great deal in common between Edward III and his own father Andronikos III. Both men had to seize power from their parents (or grandparent in the case of Andronikos) and lead a once respected realm back to glory with great battles (though a lot more administrative work was needed for the Empire). Edward the Black Prince and John V are of a similar age with both being born in 1330. I wouldn't be surprised if the two young men carry on with writing letters towards each other. I see Edward giving battle tips while John giving advice on ruling. It's the start of the modern Anglo-Rhoman Alliance, similar to what England and Portugal have, only more equal between the two states.
Exactly, Love the idea! Although can't see rome giving england assistance until they have secured Anatolia and the balkans well enough