I'm sure this topic has been covered somewhere on the board before, but I'm too lazy to use the "search" function. Okay, suppose instead of a horrendous defeat for the Eastern Roman Empire, the invasion of Anatolia by the Seljuk Turks was a complete disaster of a campaign? Suppose there was no dissention or rebellion in the Armenian ranks, and the Seljuks are crushed, Alp Arslan is killed in battle, etc. How will history play out from here?
Seljuks fail completely in Anatolia
- Thread starter reddie
- Start date
Hmm... read the novel in my signature for an answer to that one
Seriously, Manzikert going the other way or even more competent leadership past-Manzikert until Alexios I ascended the throne would mean the Byzantines stay strong, and dominate the Eastern Med. No Crusades too... which makes things rather interesting.
Keenir
Banned
another Seljuk leader will lead the Seljuks into Anatolia.
(what?, you thought Alp Arslan was the only one?)
The circumstances surrounding Manzikert were rather unique - it took not only an unpopular Byzantine Emperor in a weak position in first place, but also it took a coup in Constantinople, and ascention of thoroughly incompetent Michael VII (Parapinaces) who screwed things up on an unimaginable scale, refusing to honor the treaty with Asp Arslan that would have been moderately humiliating, but very, very far from catastrophic by any means, and would have allowed the Byzantines to keep some of their prestige intact while preserving much of their empire. Worse yet, it was a matter of Michael VII being overthrown in such a manner that the successor (Nicephorus III) was not much of an improvement - for all intents and purposes, Byzantium was out of the picture for ten years due to a unique combination of factors, during which the Seljuks had free hand.
If Manzikert is a Seljuk defeat, then Romanus IV keeps his throne, and has a good shot at overcoming disloyal aristocrats, and strengthening his regime. If that happens, and his (intended, but not properly finished) reform of the army is successful, then Byzantium would be back in a position where even a major military defeat would not spell the beginning of Seljuk ascendancy. In other words, had Manzikert happened with a stronger Emperor on the throne, who had better political position, and would not have been easily overthrown, it would have been but a minor footnote in the Empire's history.
If Manzikert is a Seljuk defeat, then Romanus IV keeps his throne, and has a good shot at overcoming disloyal aristocrats, and strengthening his regime. If that happens, and his (intended, but not properly finished) reform of the army is successful, then Byzantium would be back in a position where even a major military defeat would not spell the beginning of Seljuk ascendancy. In other words, had Manzikert happened with a stronger Emperor on the throne, who had better political position, and would not have been easily overthrown, it would have been but a minor footnote in the Empire's history.
I couldn't possibly have said that any better Midgard.
And indeed, the circumstances of Mantzikert were certainly so bizarre that if it would just have been written in one of the timelines here, everybody would have complained about how dreadfully unlikely and illogical such developments are.
The sheer scale and magnitude of the mismanagement of the Empire at the hands of Emperor Basil's II successors is just beyond belief, and even if he would have had heirs that were only half as competent as he was for the century following his death, then Mantzikert would propably not even happen in the first place, since the main reason why Romanos IV Diogenes declared war on the Seljuks, was because small hordes of Turcoman bandits kept raiding Byzantine territories.
And only if the strong fortresses and other defenses in the Byzantine part of the Caucasus and the rest of the eastern border hadn't been neglected or even dismantled by Basil's successors, then these Turcoman bandits (that weren't even under control of the Seljuks) wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.
And Romanos IV Diogenes greatest mistake was to hold the sultan of the Great Seljuk responsable for these Turcoman raids,
and declaring war on him to put an end to those raids.
MUCH NEEDED EDIT:
You're right, Abdul!
I forgot to type "successors", and appearantly missed the mistake when checking the preview...
... my deepest apologies for this horrible mistake.....
And indeed, the circumstances of Mantzikert were certainly so bizarre that if it would just have been written in one of the timelines here, everybody would have complained about how dreadfully unlikely and illogical such developments are.
The sheer scale and magnitude of the mismanagement of the Empire at the hands of Emperor Basil's II successors is just beyond belief, and even if he would have had heirs that were only half as competent as he was for the century following his death, then Mantzikert would propably not even happen in the first place, since the main reason why Romanos IV Diogenes declared war on the Seljuks, was because small hordes of Turcoman bandits kept raiding Byzantine territories.
And only if the strong fortresses and other defenses in the Byzantine part of the Caucasus and the rest of the eastern border hadn't been neglected or even dismantled by Basil's successors, then these Turcoman bandits (that weren't even under control of the Seljuks) wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.
And Romanos IV Diogenes greatest mistake was to hold the sultan of the Great Seljuk responsable for these Turcoman raids,
and declaring war on him to put an end to those raids.
MUCH NEEDED EDIT:
You're right, Abdul!
I forgot to type "successors", and appearantly missed the mistake when checking the preview...
... my deepest apologies for this horrible mistake.....
Last edited:
I wrote a 50 year timeline for after a reversed Manzikert. By 1125:
-Romanus IV keeps the throne, marries a Bulgar woman to instill loyalty among those people
-Eventual reconquest of Syria, Levant, Jerusalem, southern Italy, Sicily, Wallachia, Sardinia, Corsica, Caucasus region, SE Spain, colonize much of southern Ukraine after alliance w/ Rus as buffer to northern barbarians. -Byzantine Protectorates over Moldavia, modern Jesidian, east-central Italy, Venice, Tunis/Carthage, Kiev Rus
-Scattered Byzantine colonies throughtout world
-Greeks launch expeditions into Atlantic Ocean (one lands in Canaries, another in the Azores, a few chart eastern Atlantic ocean the is lost after catching ocean currents to modern Brazil near Recife where crew builds new town)
-Byzantines back Persian revolution from Kaliphate, uneasy truce between them
-Normans take Corfu and try to land in Greece, fail, attract Byzantine invasion later on
-Byzantines like Chinese idea of a civil service complete w/ exams and wooden printing press, they decide to use metal type instead
-gunpowder brought over early, used for fireworks initially
-mild Renaissance begins early as cultural exchanges between Byzantines and Arabs accelerate with some Chinese tech/ideas added in
-More unified HRE in face of Byzantine borders and allied-then-crushed Northern Italy
-France, England, Castile, Aragon begin forming defensive alliance to tsay out of Muslim, HRE, and Byzantine hands
-Byzantine engineers study and eventually start rebuilding (small) aqueducts, sewer systems, and Roman-style roads with curves
-Seven Imperial Libraries, designed to store knowledge as the Great
Library did
-Romanus IV keeps the throne, marries a Bulgar woman to instill loyalty among those people
-Eventual reconquest of Syria, Levant, Jerusalem, southern Italy, Sicily, Wallachia, Sardinia, Corsica, Caucasus region, SE Spain, colonize much of southern Ukraine after alliance w/ Rus as buffer to northern barbarians. -Byzantine Protectorates over Moldavia, modern Jesidian, east-central Italy, Venice, Tunis/Carthage, Kiev Rus
-Scattered Byzantine colonies throughtout world
-Greeks launch expeditions into Atlantic Ocean (one lands in Canaries, another in the Azores, a few chart eastern Atlantic ocean the is lost after catching ocean currents to modern Brazil near Recife where crew builds new town)
-Byzantines back Persian revolution from Kaliphate, uneasy truce between them
-Normans take Corfu and try to land in Greece, fail, attract Byzantine invasion later on
-Byzantines like Chinese idea of a civil service complete w/ exams and wooden printing press, they decide to use metal type instead
-gunpowder brought over early, used for fireworks initially
-mild Renaissance begins early as cultural exchanges between Byzantines and Arabs accelerate with some Chinese tech/ideas added in
-More unified HRE in face of Byzantine borders and allied-then-crushed Northern Italy
-France, England, Castile, Aragon begin forming defensive alliance to tsay out of Muslim, HRE, and Byzantine hands
-Byzantine engineers study and eventually start rebuilding (small) aqueducts, sewer systems, and Roman-style roads with curves
-Seven Imperial Libraries, designed to store knowledge as the Great
Library did
Even though the Byzantine government was heinously inept, there were efforts by locals to defend against Seljuk raiders. I believe they were called the akritai--think the Minutemen, only more overtly warlike.
They were the Christian counterparts to the Turkish ghazi and in many respects, had more in common with the Turks than with the aristocracy in Cosntantinople.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazi_warriors
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst373/readings/lindner.html
http://www2.fhw.gr/chronos/09/en/glossary/main/am.html
http://www.friesian.com/turkia.htm
Perhaps we can invent a Great Man who can organize the akritai into a Taiping-like regime opposed to the Turkish invaders AND the ineffective government of Constantinople.
Wouldn't that be fun?
They were the Christian counterparts to the Turkish ghazi and in many respects, had more in common with the Turks than with the aristocracy in Cosntantinople.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazi_warriors
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst373/readings/lindner.html
http://www2.fhw.gr/chronos/09/en/glossary/main/am.html
http://www.friesian.com/turkia.htm
Perhaps we can invent a Great Man who can organize the akritai into a Taiping-like regime opposed to the Turkish invaders AND the ineffective government of Constantinople.
Wouldn't that be fun?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Mismanagement by Basil II?!? I think you may be thinking of someone else.
The cricumstances of Manzikert weren't really that bizarre at all. Romanos was in a weak position like all post-Basil II emperors were, and 50 years of neglect of the army had taken its toll.
A Byzantine victory at Manzikert could never have been crushing because of the nature of the Seljuk army, which as light cavalry would just have retreated.
But still, a victory might have given the empire a bit of breathing space in which to restore the potency of the army - although I don't think Diogenes had the political base or skills to hold the throne, even with the prestige of a victory.
As Arp Arslan considered his treaty with the emperor a personal arrangement, the removal of either, both of which seem highly likely in a Seljuk defeat, could lead to renewed war before the empire is ready.
Obviously a victory at Manzikert is better than a defeat, but it wouldn't guarantee the survival of the empire, it would just make it possible.
The cricumstances of Manzikert weren't really that bizarre at all. Romanos was in a weak position like all post-Basil II emperors were, and 50 years of neglect of the army had taken its toll.
A Byzantine victory at Manzikert could never have been crushing because of the nature of the Seljuk army, which as light cavalry would just have retreated.
But still, a victory might have given the empire a bit of breathing space in which to restore the potency of the army - although I don't think Diogenes had the political base or skills to hold the throne, even with the prestige of a victory.
As Arp Arslan considered his treaty with the emperor a personal arrangement, the removal of either, both of which seem highly likely in a Seljuk defeat, could lead to renewed war before the empire is ready.
Obviously a victory at Manzikert is better than a defeat, but it wouldn't guarantee the survival of the empire, it would just make it possible.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
No. At Manzikert, the army wasn't just defeated, it was destroyed. While the empire had manpower reserves, it lost all the tagmata, and lacked the cadres to rebuild. Military units with an unbroken lineage of centuries were all lost in a day; it was a crushing blow from which the empire could never recover - or at least not for decades.
A stronger emperor losing at Manzikert would probably still be screwed, but even if not, its possible a political solution could be achieved that might buy time for the empire, but recall that Arp Arslan only lived very briefly after the battle and his heir renewed the conflict.
Actually AFAIK the Empire still had considerable manpower reserves, and the reason the army evaporated after Manzikert as it had was because much of it trickled down into personal armies of the various nobles; there was at least one other major Byzantine army in the area (commanded by Nicetas Tarchaniotes, if I recall correctly) that never joined the battle, and Andronicus Dukas managed to escape with most of "levies of nobility" - so the Byzantine army proper was not destroyed; it merely lost cohesion, but could have been reorganized by any moderately competent Emperor.
As for Malik Shah, consider that he had a great casus belli - Michael Parapinaces' refusal to honor the treaty with Asp Arslan. Along with ten years of inaction by the Byzantines, that pretty much did them in. Consider that the Byzantines suffered worse military defeats in the past, and yet managed to rally.
In my novel "Nikaia" (link in my signature), the premise is that the Byzantines, not the Seljuks, win a crushing victory - but Romanus IV is still assassinated not long thereafter; this time, however, he is replaced by Alexius Comnenus after somewhat of a civil war. Because of victory at Manzikert, there is just enough breathing space for the Byzantines to conduct their business and their civil war before the Turks manage to renew their offensive, and without ten years of mismanagement by Michael VII and Nicephorus III, Alexius is in much stronger position to do something about restoring the Empire's fortunes.
Granted, it is somewhat of a Byzanti-wank by 2004, but there are good reasons for that... the novel is about the fall of such an Empire.
Perhaps because it is rather disregarded everywhere else? I think we just have a number of posters like myself, a fairly small percentage, but nevertheless, very vocal, who have interest in Byzantium. It is like asking why WWII or CSA are so popular...
Because it is just legendary, Communist Wizard!
I mean - just look at it!
It is the surviving Eastern Roman Empire we're talking about - the oldest medieval empire in Europe!
And not only is the history of the Byzantine Empire well documented and well known (which makes AH scenario's much easier - and lack of information is one of the main reasons why one sees so few West Africa or Central Asia wanks), but the Empire is also an empire that has been completely destroyed, so creating TL's and scenario's in which it survives is not only much easier, but it is also a rather obvious thing to do, since it is not all that hard to imagine what a surviving Byzantine Empire could look like, while the Byzantine Empire still has such a unique and highly developed culture and civilisation that it would be nothing like any surviving OTL nation or empire. (reconstructing an empire is far easier than trying to build one yourself, you know - I am *trying* to create a TL with an all-new empire in it, and I've spent the last two months researching, and only about now am I beginning to get a picture of what this new empire will look and be like...)
And the Byzantine Empire also fascinates historians and alternate historians alike just because it is a fallen empire and because it represents a lost civilisation. And because of that, many alternate historians feel that the Byzantine Empire deserves a second chance, and this Empire certainly has major possebilities.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I think maybe because people tend to gravitate toward the underdog... and the Byzantines are just so cool. They had the Greek fire thing, the impregnable capital thing, the coming back from the brink of doom over and over again thing... and bling. Lots of bling.
regiggii
Banned
Oh exactly..
Am reading Keagi's Heraclius book-have personally always wondered about how things would have gone if either A: they'd Lost that great seige of Constantinople in 626, or Won at Yarmuk. Either way, a much different world am sure.
The Byzantines frankly are just plain Great to do counterfactualing about...Midgard, nice stuff by the way.
Am reading Keagi's Heraclius book-have personally always wondered about how things would have gone if either A: they'd Lost that great seige of Constantinople in 626, or Won at Yarmuk. Either way, a much different world am sure.
The Byzantines frankly are just plain Great to do counterfactualing about...Midgard, nice stuff by the way.
Sometimes I root for the underdog.
Romania is one of the principal underdogs of history. All the bad luck, how historians in west have treated "Byzantine", and how the Empire is treated in history class.
Do you know how much we got to learn about Romania in school? I don't remember a thing. Even when we learned about the crusades, I don't remember them teach us about the betrayal in 1204.
"Ever since our rough crusading forefathers first saw Constantinople and met, to their contemptuous disgust, a society where everyone read and wrote, ate food with forks and preferred diplomacy to war, it has been fashionable to pass the Byzantines by with scorn and to use their name as synonymous with decadence."
Max Sinister
Banned
@At-Bari: If you say "Romania", you mean what others call "Byzantium" or "Eastern Roman Empire", but not the Balcan country of which Ceaucescu was dictator?