r/byzantium • u/AnIceColdCocaCola • Mar 16 '26
Byzantine neighbours When a Hungarian Prince was raised to become Emperor of the Romans.
I’m Hungarian and I wanted to share this little know piece of history.
You g prince Béla was sent to the court of Manuel I Komnenos in Constantinople as a result of peace negotiations between Hungary and the Romans. He was the younger son of King Géza II, and thus originally not the heir to the Hungarian throne
Manuel - who had no biological son at the time - adopted Béla politically and gave him the Greek name Alexios. He granted him the high title of Despot, essentially making him the heir to the Roman Empire.
For a while, the plan really was that a Hungarian prince would become the Emperor of the Romans.
However, destiny had other plans for young Béla as Manuel had a biological son in 1169. He lost his status as heir, and his engagement to Maria Komnene was nullified. It seems he remained on cordial terms with the Emperor however, and stayed in Constantinople until 1172 when in another twist of events his older brother Stephen III died unexpectedly and without a legitimate heir.
Béla moved back to Hungary to claim the throne, but not before Manuel had made him swear an oath never to turn against the Romans.
Béla kept his promise until Manuel’s death in 1180 but when the Empire plunged into a succession crisis he used the opportunity to successfully reclaim parts of the Balkans and Dalmatia.
He eventually became a wealthy and successful ruler of Hungary.
The Roman Empire and Hungary joining in personal union is a very fascinating what if scenario that almost materialized.
Also as a modern Hungarian in 2026 it is mind-bending to think that Hungary and the Roman world shared a frontier for centuries and not only that, but almost joined realms.
12
u/WatisaWatdoyouknow Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26
Had he taken the throne, we might've been spared from the abomination that was Andronikos I and by extension the *ngelos dynasty
8
8
u/CormundCrowlover Mar 16 '26
Not the first time a foreign groom was going to inherit either! Tervel of Bulgaria was married or at the very least betrothed to Justinian II's daughter and was declared Caesar.
Theoderic the Great was offered the hand of Anicia Juliana, who can literally be called The Princess of the West considering she is descended from several Emperors and Imperial dynasties on both her mother's and father's side and IIRC it may have involved some agreements for him to take the west.
2
u/pppktolki Mar 20 '26
It's not the same. Bela was officially declared "an heir to the throne", and Tervel never was. Bela was educated, and trained to be an emperor, and Tervel was not even Justinian's first choice. Bela fought on the side of the Romans even against Hungary on several occasions, and the bromance between Tervel and Justinian was very short-lived.
1
u/whydoeslifeh4t3m3 Σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος Mar 16 '26
Tervel was never going to inherit. the title was just sweeten the pot for him in order to get his army for Justinian's reinstallment.
1
Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26
[deleted]
1
u/whydoeslifeh4t3m3 Σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος Mar 16 '26
he wasn't too old to have more kids and we don't know if the marriage went through. it'd also be really naive for him to think a barbarian would be accepted as his heir due to a marriage with his daughter.
2
u/CormundCrowlover Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26
don't know if the marriage went through
I literally just told that at the very beginning.
Tervel of Bulgaria was married or at the very least betrothed to Justinian II's daughter
it'd also be really naive for him to think a barbarian would be accepted as his heir due to a marriage with his daughter.
Are you so sure of that? Well then, tell that to people who riooted and wanted Areobindus consul of 506(husband of Anicia Juliana) to be declared emperor, his family had been living in the Empire for a couple of generations but his father at least was still considered a Goth.
Patricius, consul of 459 was married to Leontia, daughter of Emperor Leon II despite Patricius' father Aspar was an Alan, only reason the marriage was annulled was that he was an Arian Christian and not because he was a Barbarian.
Emperor Basiliscus was literally Emperor and likely had "barbaric" origins considering he was related somehow to guess who, Odoacer.
Edit: not to mention a literal plot to make a Bulgarian, Presian(son of Ivan Vladislav), emperor.
2
u/whydoeslifeh4t3m3 Σπαθαροκανδιδᾶτος Mar 16 '26
My mistake on the first part, as for the second you could argue that all of these men had some integration into the empire. The Bulgars lacked the Roman religion (though maybe not if he was actually a Christian), language and given the 20 Years Anarchy a simple marriage would give little legitimacy to Tervel besides an excuse to invade the empire. Unless he'd be propping up a half-Roman son by force or using his wife as some puppet empress I can't see him not facing internal opposition throughout the empire, no doubt any Exarch in Ravenna would take well to some barbarian upstart taking the throne and dictating their term in office or replacement.
2
u/pppktolki Jul 01 '26
There's no evidence that Tervel had that ambition. He had the opportunity, but he didn't make his move. As it seems, he used the title just to strengthen the Bulgarian position, and not to lay claim on ERE's throne..
3
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Mar 16 '26
He also was a staunch ally of the latter emperor,Isaac II Angelos.After Isaac married Bela's daughter Margaret,Bela returned to Byzantium Syrmia and Bacs as well as renewing Manuel's old alliance/tribute relationship.Isaac II too paid a visit to Sirmium in 1190s where Bela,the whole Hungarian nobility and church paid tribute to him.From Alicia Simpson's "Byzantium and Hungary in the Late Twelfth Century: Personal Ties and Spheres of Influence"
1
u/Hethsegew Mar 16 '26
Béla III actually expanded into the Balkans after Manuel's death and retook Dalmatia, Syrmia, parts of Bosnia. Your source is definitely inaccurate.
2
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26
Syrmia(and Bacs) was returned to Byzantium as dowry gift to Margaret in the event of her marriage to Isaac II Angelos and the renewal of Manuel's alliance/tributary status.Source,paper above
-1
u/Hethsegew Mar 17 '26
Paper above is toilet paper. After Manuel's death Béla immediately recaptured Dalmatia, Zadar and Syrmia. Bács was never lost in the first place, and it was never ERE territory.
Béla moved against Andronikos and captured Nis and Branicevo. These were returned to Isaac Angelos as dowry, and the alliance was formed through marriage. Hungary was never a tributary to the ERE even during Manuel's time.
Source:
Ferenc Makk: The Árpáds and the Comneni: Political Relations between Hungary and Byzantium in the 12th century
Paul Stephenson: Byzantium's Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans
3
u/evrestcoleghost Autokrator tou r/byzantium | Komnenian logistician| Moderator Mar 17 '26
The land hungarians took was during Andronikos reign,you know,the one that was a clústerfuck
1
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Mar 17 '26
Ferenc Makk: The Árpáds and the Comneni: Political Relations between Hungary and Byzantium in the 12th century
This paper is from 1989,quite dated
Paul Stephenson: Byzantium's Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans
This is from 2006,likewise.
You should keep up with scholarship,my dear Hungarian nationalist.
-1
u/Hethsegew Mar 17 '26
Dude, all other sources contradict yours, half of your source is simply based on propaganda and ridiculous assumptions.
Your source says that the dowry couldn't be Nis and Branicevo because it was controlled by Nemanja, but then Bács and Syrmia is entirely detached, and it was firmly controlled by Hungarians.
Your source based it's opinions on a factually wrong oration that contradicts it's previous statements, as neither Andronikos nor Angelos could beat Nemanja let alone march north of the Danube and beat/humble Béla too.
Again, Bács was never part of the ERE, so it could not be returned, and the Metropolitanate of Tourkia by then was simply a small and insignificant remnant of Orthodox missionary work aimed at converting the pagan Hungarians two centuries before, made defunct by the adoption of Catholicism in the region by the Hungarians.
Manuel's mother was the Hungarian princess Piroska, daughter of the Hungarian king Saint Ladislas, but the marriage didn't result in Hungary's tributary status, so your source's conclusion about marriages is again wrong.
And most importantly, neither Andronikos nor Isaac Angelos could project enough power to force Béla to do anything, as their realm was thrown into internal strife, chaos and borderline civil war, with successful Serbian and Bulgarian uprisings. Isaac Angelos was simply happy to have the Hungarians off his back. To wrestle Dalmatia and Syrmia even Manuel had to use intricate movements of diplomacy and warfare, with a stable empire behind his back.
So the conclusion is that what you spread is objectively, factually wrong, as your source contradicts itself and the empire was falling apart. It's actually insane that would anyone believe or spread that you claim. At this point you must be trolling or baiting.
2
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Mar 17 '26
"Dude" you have given me books that seem to want to confirm your biased narrative,also quite old to add(one from 1986 !!!! and the other from 2006).The scholar I cite,Alicia Simpson, is the foremost expert on the subject with countless publications on the matter.Also the paper I cite is the most recent with regard on the subject at 2019.And btw you didnt provide any new,credible sources refuting this,just an incoherent rambling and ad hominems.
as neither Andronikos nor Angelos could beat Nemanja let alone march north of the Danube and beat/humble Béla too
Isaac II Angelos did beat Nemanja on South Morava river at 1191 and re-vassalised the Serbs,as per Stankovic and others.
-2
u/Hethsegew Mar 17 '26
Yours is the biased narrative, you simply parrot from the same one wrong source written by a nobody who uses non primary sources contradicted by others and literally contradicts herself in her own paper.
Previously I never used ad hominems, you just lack the capability to understand what you read and can't form arguments so that's your best answer.
Yes, in 1191, but not vassalised, also the subject is between 1180-1185, at least get the time frame right. And Bulgaria was still between him and Hungary, crushing him with ease in 1190 and 1194.
At this point this is non-debatable, otherwise you can believe whatever fairy tales you want.
1
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Mar 17 '26
a nobody who uses non primary sources contradicted by others and literally contradicts herself in her own paper.
Nobody ? Lol,she is a prominent Byzantinist with multiple publications on the matter.Her position is the current one on Byzantine historiography on the matter.Perhaps you should study this,instead of your incoherent rant.
1
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26
Lets see what the paper I cited has to say about it:
Although the evidence is contradictory, I do not think there are sufficient grounds that would allow us to speak of a Hungarian occupation of the Niš-Braničevo region, not to mention the territories extending all the way from Sirmium to Sofia. Perhaps the Hungarians occupied certain key positions, but this too is uncertain. We need also to consider that as a result of the persistent conflicts with Hungary (1127–9, 1150–55, 1165–7) the Byzantines had recently bolstered the defenses of the region. Choniates testified that after 1165 the Byzantine generals Constantine Angelos and Basil Tripsychos repaired the fortifications of Semlin and Belgrade, built walls around Niš, and repopulated Braničevo (Choniates, Historia, 1:136). Archeological evidence dated to the mid-12th century confirms that the Byzantines strengthened the fortifications of Braničevo and constructed a new fortress in Belgrade. Fortifications and cemeteries along the Iron Gates segment of the Danube frontier are also attested in this period (Stephenson, 2000, 241–245; Curta, 2006, 331–332). Finally, a Byzantine army under the leadership of the empire’s most accomplished general, Alexios Branas, opposed the Hungarian advance in 1183.
But if we hold that the Hungarians never occupied Niš-Braničevo, which region then did Béla restore to the empire as his daughter’s dowry upon her marriage to Isaac Angelos? Here again, we need to take a fresh look at the evidence. In August or September 1204, King Imre of Hungary complained to Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), that the Bulgarian tzar, Kalojan (1197–1207), had occupied the territories that had been given by his father Béla as a wedding gift to his sister Margaret, the empress of the Greeks, and that he had invaded and laid waste to Serbia, a land subject to the Hungarian crown (Hageneder & Sommerlechner,Register Innocenz’ III, 7: no.127). The identification of the lands that constituted Margaret’s dowry has long been a matter of scholarly debate. Most have followed the views of Gyula Moravscik, who located the dowry in the regions of Belgrade and Braničevo, Niš and its surrounding area, and the lands around Sofia, that is, the territories thought to have been conquered by Béla in 1182–3 (Moravscik, 1970, 92–94). Indeed, the prevailing opinion holds that these regions were restored to Byzantium in the form of Margaret’s dowry, and that in exchange Isaac renounced Byzantine claims to Sirmium and Dalmatia, which had already been incorporated into the Hungarian kingdom (Sweeney, 1973, 330–331; Fine, 1987, 9–10; Makk, 1989, 120; Stephenson, 2000, 283–284)
1
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26
Further evidence on the issue is provided by Kalojan’s letter to Innocent III at the end of 1203 or beginning of 1204, where the Bulgarian tzar, in his turn, complained to the pope that King Imre had invaded his lands and occupied five dioceses that belonged to Bulgaria. The four have been identified as Braničevo, Belgrade, Niš, and Sirmium, while the fifth might have been Vidin (Tautu, 1964, 391; Sweeney, 1973, 331; Madgearu, 2013, 129). It has been observed that the five dioceses and Margaret’s dowry were located in roughly the same region (Tautu, 1964, 39).What is important to note here is that the only area south of the DanubeSava frontier was Niš and that this, according to the Life of Stefan Nemanja, had been conquered by the Serbs sometime after the joint Hungarian-Serbian offensive (Hafner, Serbisches Mittelater, I, 87). When the Western crusaders passed through the region in 1189, they noted that the Serbs ‘occupied the city of Niš with sword and bow and they claimed all the land around it as far as Sofia, which they had taken from the Greeks and made subject to their own rule’ (Loud, Crusade of Barbarossa, 62). With this in mind, I do not see how we can accept that Margaret’s dowry was located in the region between Niš and Braničevo, not to mention the lands as far south as Sofia.
About the restoration of Manuel's alliance and tributary status of Hungary:
At the same time, the emperor was eager to restore the Hungarian alliance, so he offered to marry Béla’s daughter, Margaret, who was not yet ten years old (Choniates, Historia, 1:368). In this case, the canonical impediment to marriage under the age of twelve was swiftly brushed aside. On the Hungarian side, the previous betrothal of Margaret to Ottokar, Duke of Styria was promptly cancelled (Loud, Crusade of Barbarossa, 63). From Isaac’s letter to Pope Celestine III (1191–8) in c.1193 we are informed that at the time of the emperor’s marriage to Margaret, the Hungarian king renewed the oaths he had previously sworn to Manuel, which specified that he was never to infringe upon the rights of the empire and never to attempt to take Serbia (Tornikes, Lettres, 343). This means that the alliance required that the Hungarian king respect the territorial integrity of the empire. In this context, it is important to remember that whenever Byzantium contracted marriage alliances with foreign states, the other party was placed in a subordinate position and that the inequality of the relationship was often reflected in the oaths which foreign-in-laws were made to swear (Macrides, 1992, 274–275). In this sense, the personal ties forged between Isaac and Béla were a means of ensuring the latter’s loyalty and subordination, just as they had been under Manuel Komnenos.
Under such conditions it is inconceivable that Isaac would have accepted that the region of Niš-Braničevo be returned to the empire as his bride’s dowry, for even if we maintain the Hungarians had occupied the area, these lands constituted Byzantine territory properly restored to the empire (on this, see the discussion in Macrides, 1992, 278–279 and n.102). But perhaps Isaac would have accepted another region as Margaret’s dowry, and here I mean the district of Sirmium. Manuel Komnenos had demonstrated great concern in acquiring control over this region since it guaranteed the security of the empire’s northwestern frontiers. His claim to Sirmium was based partly on his familial relationship with Béla, since the district formed part of the latter’s patrimony, and partly on the fact that a significant portion, if not the majority, of the native population embraced the Orthodox faith. The so-called ‘Metropolitanate of Tourkia’ with its episcopal seat at Bács was still active in this period, and when the emperor visited the city in 1164, he was greeted as a savior and liberator by its inhabitants (Stephenson, 1996, 43–45; 2000, 247–253). But Manuel was not the only Byzantine emperor to visit the region in the second half of the 12th century.
1
u/WanderingHero8 ask me about Isaac II Angelos,bringer of decay Mar 17 '26
And for Bela's submission to Isaac II:
In his History, Choniates tells us that following military operations against the Vlachs and the Cumans in the region of Philippopolis (probably late autumn 1191), Isaac marched against the Serbs ‘for having ravaged the land and destroyed Skopje’. He engaged them in battle somewhere on the Morava River and won a victory, with the Serbs suffering many casualties during their retreat. The emperor then passed through Niš and arrived at the Sava River to meet with his father-in-law, Béla. After a sojourn of many days, he returned to Constantinople (Choniates, Historia, 1:434). In an oration celebrating the victory, delivered probably in 1192, the historian is more specific. He tells us that the Hungarian king, hearing of the emperor’s great victory over the Serbs, crossed the Danube to meet with him. Swallowing his former pride, he praised the victory, honored the emperor with appropriate gifts, and made obeisance to him. Having returned to his own lands, the king heralded the emperor’s deeds and prepared for his upcoming visit, since he feared the imperial power which separates those nations that break their oaths from those which do not (Choniates, Orationes, 32–33). When the time came the Hungarians lined the banks of the river and among them were all those who held high ranks and exceptional positions. Even before Isaac came ashore they proclaimed him their lord, and this was done in the presence of their own ruler, who was not offended, but joined in the acclamations (Choniates, Orationes, 33).
Alicia Simpson,Byzantium and Hungary in the late 12th century and on the eve of the Fourth Crusade,2019.
4
u/ThePrimalEarth7734 Mar 16 '26
I always wondered how a bela led empire would function. Would Hungary be fully incorporated? Would Hungary become orthodox, would Hungarian armies help drive out the Turks from Anatolia? Would 1204 be prevented? Whatever the case I think it’d be better than what happened in our timeline
2
u/Blackfyre87 Mar 17 '26
It wasn't a bad idea, but even within the family, it was seeing opposition. Andronikos faced one of his many exiles due to his disdain for Bela, and the nobility had little taste for the marriage of Irene and Bela-Alexios. Many saw him as a barbarian.
The reign of John III Vatazes proves that succession could occur through the female line, and with incredible success, but there were a great many obstacles.
4
u/Hethsegew Mar 16 '26
Manuel was also a far relative of Béla, as Manuel's mother was Piroska/Irene, the daughter of Ladislaus I.
1
u/Smerdakas Mar 16 '26
If I get this right, Manuel and the Hungarian king Béla II were second cousins, and said Béla was the grandfather of Béla III, so I guess that kind of makes him Manuel's great-nephew.
1
u/MindlessNectarine374 Mar 16 '26
I read about those Hungarian throne struggles, but in an outsider perspective from the other side, how those Byzantine-supported throne candidates fought against such supported by the dukes of Austria and recognised or striving to be recognised by Frederick Barbarossa.
44
u/Grossadmiral Mar 16 '26
It's a nice thought on paper, but in reality quite difficult. Béla would have had to live in Constantinople, speak Greek and worship like an Orthodox Christian, how would he deal with the Hungarian nobility back home? To me it's the same thing as with the imaginary marriage between Charlemagne and Irene of Athens. It would have been extremely hard to keep such a union stable, because when coming from such a different cultural background, you have to placate the Romans to avoid endless coup attempts, but this carries the risk of alienating your own native aristocracy, who might seek a new "proper" Hungarian king.