No Manzikert: What happens to the West and the Crusades?

If the Battle of Manzikert was never fought, or it was a Byzantine victory, How would this efect Western Europe? If there were Crusades, surely they would be quite different…






Opinions? Speculation?

In my "Great North African Crusade" TL, I have the Crusades launched in response to piracy from North Africa, which was a major problem up until sometime in the 1800s. However, the POD from that TL is that the Seljuks are contained in Central Asia by the Ghaznavids, which is a bit more radical.

How does the "No Manzikert" scenario come around? If the Seljuks lose at Manzikert, that's one thing, but if the battle is never fought, there's still going to be a frontier war between the Byzantines and the Seljuks, and that could cause stuff to happen later.

MerryPrankster said:

In my "Great North African Crusade" TL, I have the Crusades launched in response to piracy from North Africa, which was a major problem up until sometime in the 1800s. However, the POD from that TL is that the Seljuks are contained in Central Asia by the Ghaznavids, which is a bit more radical.

How does the "No Manzikert" scenario come around? If the Seljuks lose at Manzikert, that's one thing, but if the battle is never fought, there's still going to be a frontier war between the Byzantines and the Seljuks, and that could cause stuff to happen later.

Click to expand...

I think it is just a matter until a relatively popular and able Emperor is able to retain the throne in Byzantium... Romanus IV seems to have been somewhat able, but unpopular with aristocracy, which spelled his doom... on the other hand someone like Alexius Comnenus would have had a greater chance of succeeding him should Romanus linger on the throne for another 10 years or so, and still be removed via internal machinations.

The Crusades would still likely to happen, although possibly a bit later, and somewhat differently... the impetus would come from Western Europe, not from the East, and the target would likely have been Egypt or something along those lines. I would imagine much worse consequences for the Muslims, because they would not only face the Western Europeans, but also the strong and undiminished Byzantium that would try its best to grab whatever land it could in overall chaos.

Now, the West/Eash schism would likely to have been at least outwardly diminished (although eventually there is likely to have been a Crusade or two against Byzantium, simply because of its riches and of its "schismatic" faith). If Byzantium of 1070 or so more or less survives intact until the 1400s or later, then there is lesser impetus for the Age of Discovery (which had been partially brought on by Turkish conquest of the trade routes), thus Americas may not be discovered until much later, and possibly with less harmful effects on the Native Americans.

If the conflict between the Seljuks and Byzantium does not exceed border skirmishes, then we are likely to see the Seljuks put their attention more on Egypt, possibly even with Byzantine help (if it proves advantageous to Constantinople for whatever reason). The Byzantine Renaissanse of the Macedonian Dynasty is likely to be revived and much of Southern Italy might be once again Byzantine, although in a long run, I don't see the Byzantines keeping it. Eventually, the Byzantines will have a period of internal strife, a civil war or two, and at those moments the opportunists will try to get some of the outlying territories, although in the "no Manzikert" TL, it is likely to be more of a back-and-forth movement than permanent conquest.

Hermanubis said:

If the Battle of Manzikert was never fought, or it was a Byzantine victory, How would this efect Western Europe? If there were Crusades, surely they would be quite different…






Opinions? Speculation?

Click to expand...

Arp Arslan wanted a peace treaty with Romanos Diogenes, but there was either a communications snafu, or Diogenes thought he needed a victory to consolidate his position. So, it's possible for peace to be effected between the two empires, which could give the emperor more time to reform the army and restore the empire's strategic posture.

As Arp Arslan was not capable of totally restraining the Turcoman raiders that were pouring across the frontier, it's still possible that the Byzantines would call for help from the West, but unlikely. This would probably mean no Crusades, or at least nothing resembling OTL crusades.

If there is a Battle of Manzikert ending in a Byzantine victory, it will not be decisive, since the Seljuk army is too mobile to be destroyed. This would be a huge boost for the emperor and make a Byzantine revival much more likely. This would also probably not lead to Crusades.

In either case, with the empire much stronger, any Crusade that does occur will be much more under the control of the Byzantines and much less injurious to their interests.

In any case, the effect on the West in incalculable. There could be an end to the schism, a worsening of the schism, a Crusade against Constantinople (which would likely be crushed), and a totally different political development for Europe.

Without the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, most of classical knowledge would be preserved (contrary to common knowledge, just about everything lost in Alexandria survived in Constantinople until the Fourth Crusade), so that could seriously affect the intellectual development of Europe and Constantinople's place in it. No Crusades could mean no introduction of the concept of "zero", so no advanced math and science, or it could be limited to the Byzantines, or any number of outcomes politically, religiously, intellectually, and scientifically.

I think that, sooner or later, Byzantium was going to be crushed. Remember Mykrocephalon, for instance. If Manzikert is avoided it was just a question of time until some enemy finds the soft belly of the Empire. But, the later it happens, the better -or not- for the crusaders. The better, they have a powerful ally. The worse, they have a too powerful and too interested-in- them neighbour

We have a unitarian Greek oriented Balkan and Anatolian civilisation, with a Roman oriented fragmented culture in the west. No Turkish influence in Europe except along the Volga. Two competing trade routes for Chinese and three for Indian trade goods, so no monopoly hiking of prices to force the exploration of the oceans that happened three hundred twenty years later in 1492.

Kurt_Steiner said:

I think that, sooner or later, Byzantium was going to be crushed. Remember Mykrocephalon, for instance. If Manzikert is avoided it was just a question of time until some enemy finds the soft belly of the Empire. But, the later it happens, the better -or not- for the crusaders. The better, they have a powerful ally. The worse, they have a too powerful and too interested-in- them neighbour

Click to expand...

The problem with Byzantium was that they had too many enemies, and very few friends abroad - any time less than competent Emperor ascended the throne, troubles started almost immediately. Accordingly to some sources, however, from economical and political standpoint XIth-XIIIth century Byzantium was developing the kind of institutions that would later become synonymous with the pinnacle of Western civilization of the time, pre-Renaissanse Italy - in particular dealing with primitive representation systems for the citizens, and certain kinds of commerce not practiced until then.

The very cornerstone of Byzantine power, the absolute authority of the basileus was one of the causes for its downfall, as there was nothing to compensate for incompetent individuals on the throne; should more effective limitations be placed, the Byzantine Magna Carta or the equivalent could be created (possibly even as an eventual compromise to Romanus' - or another unpopular ruler's continued reign!), and it could ensure the survival of the Empire in years to come.

As for Myriocephalon, it was one of the effects of Manzikert, a century later... the migration of Turkic tribes into the interior of Anatolia destroyed much of the land's value to the Empire - being that the Turks mainly used the land for feeding their herds of cattle and sheep, and the Byzantines used it for farming, after a period of the former use of land it would be rather useless for the latter. When John II and Manuel I reconquered the lost lands, the lost lands were more of an obligation than any real boon to the Imperial economy, manpower, and resources - as such the reconquest campaigns were costly, inefficient, and resulted in expending the resources that could have been used in consolidating the remainder of Asia Minor and Europe. No Manzikert=no Turkic migration=Anatolia still suitable for large-scale farming=Empire's population, resource, and economy base is intact. The particular use of land by the Turkic tribes was just as damaging to the Byzantines as the military defeats - during the reconquest, the lands they got back were rather worthless to them, whereas the Turkish tribes could still use the land efficiently.

Kurt_Steiner said:

I think that, sooner or later, Byzantium was going to be crushed. Remember Mykrocephalon, for instance. If Manzikert is avoided it was just a question of time until some enemy finds the soft belly of the Empire. But, the later it happens, the better -or not- for the crusaders. The better, they have a powerful ally. The worse, they have a too powerful and too interested-in- them neighbour

Click to expand...

But a battle like Mykrocephalon would likely have gone a different way if the Byzantine army hadn't been destroyed at Manzikert. Manzikert wasn't just a disaster, it was totally destroyed the entire Byzantine military system. The army at Mykrocephalon was a feeble shadow with none of the continuity that the army had before.

The Byzantines had always had "too many enemies", and always managed to soldier on. It was the disbanding of the eastern army guarding the routes into Anatolia for purposes of economy that led to the empire's undoing. without this error, I don't see the collapse as inevitable in the slightest. Contemporary states like France and England are still around, after all.

Thanks for Contributing, everybody.

MerryPrankster said:

In my "Great North African Crusade" TL, I have the Crusades launched in response to piracy from North Africa, which was a major problem up until sometime in the 1800s. .

Click to expand...

Yeah, how is that doing?

But a battle like Mykrocephalon would likely have gone a different way if the Byzantine army hadn't been destroyed at Manzikert. Manzikert wasn't just a disaster, it was totally destroyed the entire Byzantine military system. The army at Mykrocephalon was a feeble shadow with none of the continuity that the army had before.

The Byzantines had always had "too many enemies", and always managed to soldier on. It was the disbanding of the eastern army guarding the routes into Anatolia for purposes of economy that led to the empire's undoing. without this error, I don't see the collapse as inevitable in the slightest. Contemporary states like France and England are still around, after all.

I agree with much of this.
Myriocephalon is muh exaggerated as a defeat anyway - the Sultan is paying tribute within a year.
The too many enemies issue is not decisive. Even the Late Byzantine Empire holds off all its western enemies, it is only the Turks they cannot stop - and no one else does either before Vienna remember.

It is hard to see how the Byzantines can stop Turkish mobiliy in the long-term. However, winning/preventing Manzikert, holding the Anatolian plateau and being in a stronger position to absorb the Turks might have made the difference

The old Byzantine army destroyed at Manzikert was designed to face armies like those of the Turks. While it will always be difficult to inflict crushing blows on them, nomad armies are generally "bullies". Fight back successfully and they'll go pick on someone smaller.

That's distinguishing between the Turcoman raiders, which were the real problem, and the central Seljuk army, which was another matter, but the Seljuks weren't very interested in Byzantine domains, so it should have been possible to deflect them diplomatically. Remeber that the Byzantine system was able to repel the Caliphate at its height and the Avars, simultaneously, with far lesser resources than they had in 1071. If there had been time to pull the army back up to snuff, then only the Mongols remain to be dealt with, and I think the empire can easily weather that storm.

Wozza said:

But a battle like Mykrocephalon would likely have gone a different way if the Byzantine army hadn't been destroyed at Manzikert. Manzikert wasn't just a disaster, it was totally destroyed the entire Byzantine military system. The army at Mykrocephalon was a feeble shadow with none of the continuity that the army had before.

The Byzantines had always had "too many enemies", and always managed to soldier on. It was the disbanding of the eastern army guarding the routes into Anatolia for purposes of economy that led to the empire's undoing. without this error, I don't see the collapse as inevitable in the slightest. Contemporary states like France and England are still around, after all.

I agree with much of this.
Myriocephalon is muh exaggerated as a defeat anyway - the Sultan is paying tribute within a year.
The too many enemies issue is not decisive. Even the Late Byzantine Empire holds off all its western enemies, it is only the Turks they cannot stop - and no one else does either before Vienna remember.

It is hard to see how the Byzantines can stop Turkish mobiliy in the long-term. However, winning/preventing Manzikert, holding the Anatolian plateau and being in a stronger position to absorb the Turks might have made the difference

Click to expand...

I am not sure it is the "old" army at Manzikert. The defence in depth offered by the themes had long faded away, and later efforts to revive it under Manuel and then Michael VIII.
Without such a system will the Turkomans not roam at will?

Battle of Manzikert

The Byzantine Empire wasn't able to lose army after army, it couldn't afford to fight a Long War at this time. The battles it fought were against raiders and nomads, I like the idea of the Byzantine farms vs Turkish herders , and the breakdown of the farming social order in Asia Minor, very good point.

Wozza said:

I am not sure it is the "old" army at Manzikert. The defence in depth offered by the themes had long faded away, and later efforts to revive it under Manuel and then Michael VIII.
Without such a system will the Turkomans not roam at will?

Click to expand...

The defense in depth was still around in the eastern border provinces. But I was also talking about the tactical system.

I always thought Monomachus disbanded the defence in depth - certainly in the Armenian part of ther frontier

I am not sure we know much about Byzantine tactics, what were you thinking of?

Wozza said:

I always thought Monomachus disbanded the defence in depth - certainly in the Armenian part of ther frontier

I am not sure we know much about Byzantine tactics, what were you thinking of?

Click to expand...

He did; that's what caused the problem in the first place. Diogenes was trying to repair the problem.

Well, for the Romans winning the battle, have Romanos IV Diogenes bring along his best commander, Nicephorus Botaniates, rather than Andronicus Ducas, his lifelong enemy. Diogenes had doubts about Botaniaties, but he was certainly more loyal than Ducas, who's refusal to cover Diogenes's retreat in the face of the Seljuks lead to the catastrophe. Maybe Botaniates can help keep Diogenes's army together and allow it to fight the Seljuks to a draw, or even decisively beat them?

Romulus Augustulus said:

Well, for the Romans winning the battle, have Romanos IV Diogenes bring along his best commander, Nicephorus Botaniates, rather than Andronicus Ducas, his lifelong enemy. Diogenes had doubts about Botaniaties, but he was certainly more loyal than Ducas, who's refusal to cover Diogenes's retreat in the face of the Seljuks lead to the catastrophe. Maybe Botaniates can help keep Diogenes's army together and allow it to fight the Seljuks to a draw, or even decisively beat them?

Click to expand...

From the accounts of the battle I've read, all Ducas had to do to turn the battle into a victory (and, as a matter of fact, all he was supposed to do) was to advance to help Romanus, who was engaging the Turks - this move would have trapped the Seljuks between the avantgarde of the army, and the rearguard (commanded by Ducas), and would have left Asp Arslan with no choice but to seek terms favorable to Byzantium, or to surrender altogether. In other words, the conditions for victory were there - had a commander with a decent understanding of his duty was in charge of the rearguard, Manzikert would have been a Byzantine victory. Therefore, Botaneiates as a rearguard commander is a good POD, IMO.

Diogenes was withdrawing because it was too late in the day to achieve a positive result and his needed to get the army into fortified positions for the night. Doukas apparently spread the rumor that Diogenes was dead, which led to a rout, and he withdrew with the reserves, with which he might have been able to salvage something. It wasn't a case of throwing away a victory so much as preventing a total disaster.

In any case, a fighting withdrawal with such an inexperienced army was extremely dangerous; just 20 years prior to this it would have been a piece of cake.

Even then, with Arp Arslan's complete victory, very little was lost to the empire as his terms were very lenient, but as the Sultan then considered Diogenes a close personal friend, his betrayal and murder by the Doukades was viewed by Arp Arslan as an invalidation of their treaty and as a crime he needed to avenge, leading to the dissolution of the Byzantine position in Anatolia forever.

midgardmetal said:

From the accounts of the battle I've read, all Ducas had to do to turn the battle into a victory (and, as a matter of fact, all he was supposed to do) was to advance to help Romanus, who was engaging the Turks - this move would have trapped the Seljuks between the avantgarde of the army, and the rearguard (commanded by Ducas), and would have left Asp Arslan with no choice but to seek terms favorable to Byzantium, or to surrender altogether. In other words, the conditions for victory were there - had a commander with a decent understanding of his duty was in charge of the rearguard, Manzikert would have been a Byzantine victory. Therefore, Botaneiates as a rearguard commander is a good POD, IMO.

Click to expand...

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

Diogenes was withdrawing because it was too late in the day to achieve a positive result and his needed to get the army into fortified positions for the night. Doukas apparently spread the rumor that Diogenes was dead, which led to a rout, and he withdrew with the reserves, with which he might have been able to salvage something. It wasn't a case of throwing away a victory so much as preventing a total disaster.

In any case, a fighting withdrawal with such an inexperienced army was extremely dangerous; just 20 years prior to this it would have been a piece of cake.

Even then, with Arp Arslan's complete victory, very little was lost to the empire as his terms were very lenient, but as the Sultan then considered Diogenes a close personal friend, his betrayal and murder by the Doukades was viewed by Arp Arslan as an invalidation of their treaty and as a crime he needed to avenge, leading to the dissolution of the Byzantine position in Anatolia forever.

Click to expand...

Not to mention Michael Parapinaces' handling of the subsequent crisis, which made a bad, but easily repairable situation much worse. For one, had he simply recognized Romanus' treaty as valid, things would have probably been restored to status-quo fairly easily... I am sure Asp Arslan would have gladly obliged to recognize Michael should Michael have decided to live up to the Byzantine end of the bargain - friendship with Romanus or not.