Byzantine Asia Minor

DusanUros

Banned
Yeah but will that still lead to the Pronoia system? Or you will have some different reform? Or the army disintegrates until they are a bunch of mercenaries worthless to fight? Or western-styled feudalism in any case?

In case the army gets defeated by some different enemy, you might see a different reform. Example, if the Normans continue as in OTL and take over Epirus and Durazzo, and keep going, what kind of changes would have to the military structure (seeing as the current forces are unable to stop the Normans....longshot but still) to turn the tide?
 
Not wanting to be down on you, but this question has been done to death many, many times. You can easily search the pile of topics surrounding this issue.

For all its regarded as a cliche surviving Byzantium actually hasn't been done much.
 
Yeah but will that still lead to the Pronoia system? Or you will have some different reform? Or the army disintegrates until they are a bunch of mercenaries worthless to fight? Or western-styled feudalism in any case?

Even without Mantzikert, the Byzantine Empire was in a state of crisis and change in the mid-11th century, which makes it a good moment for a rather drastic POD. On the military front, the old thematic armies had already been relegated to virtual unimportance by the late 10th-century emperors who preferred a professional army, which was more capable of long-duration offensive actions. Byzantium at the time of Mantzikert had once again come to rely heavily upon mercenaries. The themata themselves of course survived even unto the end of the Empire as administrative areas.

On the social and economical front, Byzantine society was for the first time experiencing the growth of a sizeable urban middle class, which gained power at the expense of the traditional military land-holding aristocracy. Eventually, with the rise of the Komnenoi, the military landowners won out. Financially, the situation is unclear: the debasement of coinage has been interpreted by some as evidence of a crisis, by others as the result of an expanding economy. Despite invasions and territorial losses, the southern Balkans at least witnessed something of a demographic and economic boom in the 11th and 12th centuries.

So, if you butterfly Mantzikert away, Byzantium would likely stay secure in its borders for a time at least as a satisfied power, but it will need some sort of new or greatly reformed system, which will depend on which faction wins out. IOTL Alexios Komnenos created such a system, basing the rule of the Empire around his extended family (it is no accident that at this time the nobles start emphasizing their ancestry by using multiple surnames). It provided a stable (and remarkably rebellion-free) government for a century, but had some massive drawbacks. Chief among them was the abandoning the old more or less meritocratic bureaucratic system inherited from the Romans (which also provided for a degree of social mobility) in favour of a clique of closely intermarried clans. Inevitably, with the rise of the aristocracy, the pronoia system also contributed to the progressive feudalization of the Empire. Under a more "civilian" emperor, one might hopefully see a more mercantilistic and flexible economy and society develop, which would certainly serve the Empire well against the competition of the Italian city-states.
 
The problem is that by the time Alexios got into power, there was very little left of the merit-based bureaucracy. That started dying since Zoe so it was just an empty shell. Maybe you can reform it, but i'll require a PoD some time before Manzikert.
 
The problem is that by the time Alexios got into power, there was very little left of the merit-based bureaucracy. That started dying since Zoe so it was just an empty shell. Maybe you can reform it, but i'll require a PoD some time before Manzikert.
and now we are back at IE :cool:
 
The Norman Conquest of S.Italy stared almost a century before the Crusades.

You're right. I had always assumed it happened post-first crusade for some reason, since I was aware the conquest of Sicily was a result of a rebellion supported by Norman pilgrims to the Holy Land...
 
Yeah but will that still lead to the Pronoia system? Or you will have some different reform? Or the army disintegrates until they are a bunch of mercenaries worthless to fight? Or western-styled feudalism in any case?

In case the army gets defeated by some different enemy, you might see a different reform. Example, if the Normans continue as in OTL and take over Epirus and Durazzo, and keep going, what kind of changes would have to the military structure (seeing as the current forces are unable to stop the Normans....longshot but still) to turn the tide?

It's not so much that the Romans were entirely unable to fight the Normans, its more that they were unused to their style. From what I've read, the authorities in Italy tended to sit high and dry in their fortified cities, and sit raids from Arabs or Lombards out. They were totally unprepared for the aggressive Normans, who were much more bellicose in forcing out the Romans. In addition to this, the removal of large numbers of troops, first to Bulgaria in the 1030s, and then to the eastern front in the buildup to Manzikert in the early 1070s hardly helped matters.

Even without Mantzikert, the Byzantine Empire was in a state of crisis and change in the mid-11th century

From what I've read, this is a view that is increasingly being abandoned by historians, who naturally see this sort of thing with hindsight. Seen on its own terms, Byzantium in say, 1060, was the greatest power of western Eurasia by some way, with a booming cultural renaissance, and a local economy that was thriving (cities are rapidly expanding at this point) despite the debasement of the coinage. The fact that there had been a dearth of decent Emperors besides Isaac I didn't neccesarily matter- the Empire was effectively running on "auto-pilot". Collapse in the 1070s happened as a result more of individual stupidity and greed on the part of the Byzantines rather than any real structural weakness.
 
It's not so much that the Romans were entirely unable to fight the Normans, its more that they were unused to their style. From what I've read, the authorities in Italy tended to sit high and dry in their fortified cities, and sit raids from Arabs or Lombards out. They were totally unprepared for the aggressive Normans, who were much more bellicose in forcing out the Romans. In addition to this, the removal of large numbers of troops, first to Bulgaria in the 1030s, and then to the eastern front in the buildup to Manzikert in the early 1070s hardly helped matters.



From what I've read, this is a view that is increasingly being abandoned by historians, who naturally see this sort of thing with hindsight. Seen on its own terms, Byzantium in say, 1060, was the greatest power of western Eurasia by some way, with a booming cultural renaissance, and a local economy that was thriving (cities are rapidly expanding at this point) despite the debasement of the coinage. The fact that there had been a dearth of decent Emperors besides Isaac I didn't neccesarily matter- the Empire was effectively running on "auto-pilot". Collapse in the 1070s happened as a result more of individual stupidity and greed on the part of the Byzantines rather than any real structural weakness.
Huh. Because it seems that toward the end the structure was pretty much dead. That is, there was nothing wrong with the plan, but for some 40 years no one was interested in carrying it out and so it degraded to the point where it simply wasn't worth anything. It did take a long time to degrade but it also makes the Turkish achievement more impressive.
 
Huh. Because it seems that toward the end the structure was pretty much dead. That is, there was nothing wrong with the plan, but for some 40 years no one was interested in carrying it out and so it degraded to the point where it simply wasn't worth anything. It did take a long time to degrade but it also makes the Turkish achievement more impressive.

That's the view given by Norwich and other historians. But Norwich, fantastic as he is, is a narrative historian, and therefore tries to make his text seem as though it's building up to something- IIRC, his final chapter in "The Apogee" is simply called "Manzikert". In addition to this, Norwich was working in the 1980s, before much of the modern interest in Byzantium began, and before lots of new ideas entered the study.

One book I'd highly recommend is Chris Wickham's "The Inheritance of Rome", which deals with the transformation of Europe up to the eleventh century, and contrasts the feudal societies of the West with the sophisticated empires of the Byzantines and Muslims. I think you'd enjoy it, MNPundit. :)
 
That's the view given by Norwich and other historians. But Norwich, fantastic as he is, is a narrative historian, and therefore tries to make his text seem as though it's building up to something- IIRC, his final chapter in "The Apogee" is simply called "Manzikert". In addition to this, Norwich was working in the 1980s, before much of the modern interest in Byzantium began, and before lots of new ideas entered the study.

One book I'd highly recommend is Chris Wickham's "The Inheritance of Rome", which deals with the transformation of Europe up to the eleventh century, and contrasts the feudal societies of the West with the sophisticated empires of the Byzantines and Muslims. I think you'd enjoy it, MNPundit. :)
Well that's good to know, I find Norwich pretty tiresome for all the value of what he did. It's also interesting because it makes the Turks that much more impressive for beating a better Byzantium. Go Turks.
 
Top