Battle of Manzikert

What if this battle had never been fought? After some initial raids in Anatolia, the Turks withdraw. I don't enough of the career of Alp Arslan to know if this is feasible.
 
It should be quite easy to avoid Manzikert. IIRC Alp Arslan considered Egypt to be his primary priority. The Romans were the ones who escalated the conflict by marching an army east and forcing an open battle. If they'd been less confrontational there'd likely just have been some raiding while the Seljuks fought the Fatimids.

However, Manzikert was hardly a singular unique turning point of history. Losing it did not instantly cause the Roman Empire to dissolve; similarly, avoiding it will not ensure its eternal prosperity. Even if you do avoid it, there's still gonna be issues with Turks raiding Anatolia, the Roman military been ill-equipped to stop them and the internal politics of the Empire being quite byzantine..
 
Why would the Turks withdraw? Do they suffer heavy losses during raids? There needs to be a reason. Arslan was pretty determined on conquest of Byzantine lands, in the name of both his people and his faith.
 
Manzikert

Why would the Turks withdraw? Do they suffer heavy losses during raids? There needs to be a reason. Arslan was pretty determined on conquest of Byzantine lands, in the name of both his people and his faith.

As an Orthodox Muslim, wouldn't he also be interested in driving the heretical Fatimids out of Egypt?
 
Why would the Turks withdraw? Do they suffer heavy losses during raids? There needs to be a reason. Arslan was pretty determined on conquest of Byzantine lands, in the name of both his people and his faith.

I'm pretty sure his first and primary priority was taking on Egypt.
 
Why would the Turks withdraw? Do they suffer heavy losses during raids? There needs to be a reason. Arslan was pretty determined on conquest of Byzantine lands, in the name of both his people and his faith.

Where are you getting your info on that? Arslan definitely focused on gaining Egypt, and was averse to fighting the Romans in a pitched battle right up until Manzikert.
 
Where are you getting your info on that? Arslan definitely focused on gaining Egypt, and was averse to fighting the Romans in a pitched battle right up until Manzikert.

Indeed, the Romans and the Seljuks had signed a peace treaty which the Romans actually betrayed by attacking the Turks. If the Empire had not broken the treaty and deliberately provoked this battle, it would not have happened.

Of course, getting rid of this single battle does not mean that the problem is suddenly solved. Avoiding the disaster of Manzikert can only be a good thing for the Romans, but Romanos still faces significant opposition at home and the Turks will still attempt to move into the wealthy Anatolian provinces. These problems must still be resolved one way or the other.
 
Indeed, the Romans and the Seljuks had signed a peace treaty which the Romans actually betrayed by attacking the Turks. If the Empire had not broken the treaty and deliberately provoked this battle, it would not have happened.

Of course, getting rid of this single battle does not mean that the problem is suddenly solved. Avoiding the disaster of Manzikert can only be a good thing for the Romans, but Romanos still faces significant opposition at home and the Turks will still attempt to move into the wealthy Anatolian provinces. These problems must still be resolved one way or the other.

Well Arslan offered peace, nothing was agreed upon. Actually making peace with the Turks without a battle would have been political suicide.

I'm not sure how much the defeat at Manzikert flavoured Turkish perception beyond humbling the Romans but it wasn't till Arslan died that Anatolia fell to the Turks, possibly because he was holding the reins on their movement, not disallowing them completely but not letting the gates flow freely.
 
Well Arslan offered peace, nothing was agreed upon. Actually making peace with the Turks without a battle would have been political suicide.

I'm not sure how much the defeat at Manzikert flavoured Turkish perception beyond humbling the Romans but it wasn't till Arslan died that Anatolia fell to the Turks, possibly because he was holding the reins on their movement, not disallowing them completely but not letting the gates flow freely.

Didn't the Romans already win some battles against the Turks previously? It's not like Manzikert was their first encounter with the Seljuks. Though I suppose Romanos wanted a decisive victory that would actually completely rout the Turks from their lands rather than some wishy-washy negotiated ceasefire which would likely just continue to result in regular raids..
 
simple really Romanos fights against the Seijuqs on more favorable terrain, oh and he preferably doesn't bring Andronikos Doukas with him. After all otl the Romans lost because Andronikos refused to send his army to aid Romanos and left the battlefield and I think many mercenary soldiers deserted as well.

Besides it wasn't Manzikert that lead to the Byzantines losing Anatolia. It was infighting.

The Byzantine dynatoi essentially used the Turks as allies to try to one up their rivals and try to seize the throne and brought them into Anatolia following Manzikert. Both Botaniates and Mellisanos pursued said policies and so Anatolia was overrun.

Get rid of Andronikos, maybe he gets shot by an arrow or dies of disease or something and have Romanos draw the Turks into a pitched battle in a better location favouring the romans and I can see the Seiljuks being defeated. Arslan was one lucky bastard in my opinion at least in terms of the war against Byzantium.
 
Didn't the Romans already win some battles against the Turks previously? It's not like Manzikert was their first encounter with the Seljuks. Though I suppose Romanos wanted a decisive victory that would actually completely rout the Turks from their lands rather than some wishy-washy negotiated ceasefire which would likely just continue to result in regular raids..

Those raids being the reason for the blood lust on the part of the establishment, the Turks were a band of murderous barbarians with no respect for the borders of the Empire, you can't make peace with Brigands and their King is incapable of holding them back. The only solution to the Turkish problem really was armed conflict at least in giving the Empire enough time to shore up their defenses.

Rout from their land is the wrong way to think about it at that point, afterwards sure, but then it'd be more like a show of strength that would discourage anymore large-scale raiding.
 
Well that's a fair and balanced anaylsis.

Well that's what I'm saying from their point of view, from the Turks point of view, they were infidels who forsook the righteous path set by the profit and they happen to be living on wonderful pasture that'd would be better suited for their horses.

But like how the above poster said, that's how all nomads are seen, not much you can do about that except be honest.
 
Top