Battle of Myriokephalon 1176 POD

Myriokephalon

I do think that Manuel's decision to attack the way he did was not a very good one. His generals were strongly opposed to it. Even defeating the Turks at this point would not have resulted in them being completely driven out of Asia Minor at this point. After a century, Turkish population densities are fairly strong in central and eastern Anatolia.
 
I do think that Manuel's decision to attack the way he did was not a very good one. His generals were strongly opposed to it. Even defeating the Turks at this point would not have resulted in them being completely driven out of Asia Minor at this point. After a century, Turkish population densities are fairly strong in central and eastern Anatolia.

Not so much so as to be unovercomeable, though.

I've seen a map where even as of 1300 or so, Anatolia is hardly all Muslim by religion (decidedly mixed), which suggests that a reconquest would have something to work with.

So as relates to timelines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asia_Minor_ca_780_AD.svg

In my timeline, Alexius II has firmly reasserted Byzantine control over the old Anatolic theme, and the Armenian theme is mixed - getting there, but a lot depends on keeping control of the Turks within the area rather than conquer-expel-resettle.

And from his POV, better to do it slowly and ensure that Byzantine presence is real than do it quickly and rely on dubious promises of submission - after dealing with Rascia proving to be such a problem, Alexius's advance into Anatolia is based on how far he can impose Constantinople's rule with soldiers if need be rather than the most that can be claimed to be reconquered but which may or may not obey when the Emperor turns his back.
 
In my timeline, Alexius II has firmly reasserted Byzantine control over the old Anatolic theme, and the Armenian theme is mixed - getting there, but a lot depends on keeping control of the Turks within the area rather than conquer-expel-resettle.

I thought the empire would settle people there or move troublesome people to other parts of the emperor?
 
I thought the empire would settle people there or move troublesome people to other parts of the emperor?

It might. And Alexius does that to some extent. But Rhomania lacks a good native source of light horse (the Balkans don't support it and the direction the army has taken is resembles its western counterparts more than its eastern ones), and Alexius means to fix that by establishing a Turkopole population on the eastern frontier rather than attempt to completely eliminate the Turks.

An emperor with a different approach might move faster - this is by no means meant to be the best possible outcome, just a plausible success.
 
It might. And Alexius does that to some extent. But Rhomania lacks a good native source of light horse (the Balkans don't support it and the direction the army has taken is resembles its western counterparts more than its eastern ones), and Alexius means to fix that by establishing a Turkopole population on the eastern frontier rather than attempt to completely eliminate the Turks.

An emperor with a different approach might move faster - this is by no means meant to be the best possible outcome, just a plausible success.

Wouldn't people move there anyway, with the Turks remaining and still being a good source of light horse?

In such a situation, wouldn't the Turks eventually be assimilated.
 
Wouldn't people move there anyway, with the Turks remaining and still being a good source of light horse?

In such a situation, wouldn't the Turks eventually be assimilated.

Not many - eastern Anatolia isn't terribly good farmland after first sheep raising lords and then sheep raising Turks.

Some, yes, but not a lot.

And yes, eventually. But not within Alexius's lifetime (1166-1221, ruled 1183-1221)
 
Not many - eastern Anatolia isn't terribly good farmland after first sheep raising lords and then sheep raising Turks.

Some, yes, but not a lot.

And yes, eventually. But not within Alexius's lifetime (d. 1221)

1. Doesn't Eastern Anatolia have mines of some sort as well? Is there anything else other than sheep raising?

2. Of course they can't assimilate that many Turks by the end of Alexius's life, but eventually they may be able to.
 
1. Doesn't Eastern Anatolia have mines of some sort as well? Is there anything else other than sheep raising?

2. Of course they can't assimilate that many Turks by the end of Alexius's life, but eventually they may be able to.

1: I think so, but you're not going to get people moving to eastern Anatolia to become miners. Not in numbers, at least.

I'm referring to sheep raising as opposed to farmland, what else the economy had I'm not really any better informed than you.

2: Yep. It helps that TTL there isn't a second flood after the Mongols, so the Turks are drawn westward into Byzantium's orbit instead of influenced by Sufis and fresh Turcomen to cement the tilt towards Islam and a nonByzantine identity (I doubt Anatolia is truly "Hellenic" given how many diverse peoples have moved or been moved there, but it's comfortably "we speak Greek, hail the Theotokos, and write old fashioned poetry." kind of Rhomanian, which is enough - that's pretty much the basis the Empire is actually built on rather than anything "pure" culturally or racially).

So the main dilemma, and this is something any writer has to face, is how this sticks.

It's definitely solvable - as several timelines have shown (Age of Miracles and this one https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=169430 being two I recommend) - but it's the part that will make or break whether or not Anatolia can be "regained".

Byzantium cannot afford to have things fall to pieces like they did in 1195-1203 OTL, IMO.
 
Last edited:
1: I think so, but you're not going to get people moving to eastern Anatolia to become miners. Not in numbers, at least.

I'm referring to sheep raising as opposed to farmland, what else the economy had I'm not really any better informed than you.

The Anatolian plateau was dominated by Sheep "ranching". The coast would be more varied and on the Black Sea coast, of course, you have Trebizond with a trade/maritime oriented economy. The miners are going to stay in the Balkans, I'd think where there is a venerable tradition. I wonder if there was any appreciable mining in Anatolia during the medieval era?
 
The Anatolian plateau was dominated by Sheep "ranching". The coast would be more varied and on the Black Sea coast, of course, you have Trebizond with a trade/maritime oriented economy. The miners are going to stay in the Balkans, I'd think where there is a venerable tradition. I wonder if there was any appreciable mining in Anatolia during the medieval era?

If there was, I haven't heard of it. Armenian gold mines aside, and that's a step to the east of here - Theodosiopolis at the least.



Incidentally for my timeline (@ Tongera):

The four eastern themes here http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/98/byzantineempires.jpg/ (Lycandos, most of Sebastia, Colonea, Mesopotamia) are the area that's pretty much "Byzantine rule hasn't been cemented." - Cappadocia and Charsianion are more the realm of the akritai rather than settled provinces in practice.
 
Cappadocia and Charsianion are like frontier regions, is that what you trying to say?

Also, when is the next update?

Pretty much. Areas that a map may show as "under Byzantine control", but which in practice are more questionable.

Not sure on the next update - planning to write something narrative in the form of Alexius talking on his death bed to his heir, which is easier to describe than to write out properly..
 
Working 50 hours per week is not fun. Anyhoo, I have reading alot of interesting stuff about the possibility of Bela-Alexios inheriting Manuel's throne (at least that of Constantinople, I can't see him ruling both the Arpad Kingdom and the Empire, just too much to handle). Based on Bela's record as a historical King, it seems as though he would have made an outstanding Basileus...I can see him taking advantage of the 3rd Crusade in Anatolia while maintaining good enough relations with the West during this crucial period.

I agree that Elfwine that 1195-1204 is very important, if the Romans have a strong ruler during this juncture instead of civil war, Eastern Christendom could have ended up looking much more powerful. The biggest challenge I can see for Bela after 1180 comes from within though: how can he cement his position as Basileus and be accepted as the legitimate heir of the Komnenoi?
 
Top