Byzantines win Battle of Manzikert
- Thread starter Rocano
- Start date
It could become very interesting as it was the loss of Manzikert which not only lost the Empire pretty much all of Anatolia indefinately but caused the Byzantines to request aid from the Pope, eventually launching the Crusades.
But had the Byzantines won then it would probably not have made much of a difference to their fate in Anatolia. It was the loss not the battle itself which had such a powerful effect. It probably would have held back Seljuk control for probably another century at the most but I reckon by the end of the 12th Century Anatolia would still have been in Turkish hands. The Byzantines were just too corrupt which was really their Achilles Heel.
Although the fate of Anatolia would changed little it could have huge reprocussions further down the line a bit. Without a Crusade to mess up the Middle East, Saladin most likely wouldn't have been born (simply by laws of probability) and the land would be far less united against outside threats. No Crusade would probably mean no defeat of the Seljuks and the Ottomans may never even come to power. It could result in a Middle East too weak to resist the Mongol onslaught (providing it doesn't cause any changes in Asia) and even possibily a later Byzantine recovery of the region.
It's what we could call a Macro-Historical event. There are too many possibilities about what could have happened had the outcome been changed.
But had the Byzantines won then it would probably not have made much of a difference to their fate in Anatolia. It was the loss not the battle itself which had such a powerful effect. It probably would have held back Seljuk control for probably another century at the most but I reckon by the end of the 12th Century Anatolia would still have been in Turkish hands. The Byzantines were just too corrupt which was really their Achilles Heel.
Although the fate of Anatolia would changed little it could have huge reprocussions further down the line a bit. Without a Crusade to mess up the Middle East, Saladin most likely wouldn't have been born (simply by laws of probability) and the land would be far less united against outside threats. No Crusade would probably mean no defeat of the Seljuks and the Ottomans may never even come to power. It could result in a Middle East too weak to resist the Mongol onslaught (providing it doesn't cause any changes in Asia) and even possibily a later Byzantine recovery of the region.
It's what we could call a Macro-Historical event. There are too many possibilities about what could have happened had the outcome been changed.
Manzikert.
It may have given Romanus more time to both re-organize the defenses of the empire as well as reform the central government. Maybe he could have made headway against Psellus and that miserable beraucratic faction. I could also see the possibility of the empire actually dividing into European and Asian parts.
It may have given Romanus more time to both re-organize the defenses of the empire as well as reform the central government. Maybe he could have made headway against Psellus and that miserable beraucratic faction. I could also see the possibility of the empire actually dividing into European and Asian parts.
I strongly disagree with this - the Great Seljuk empire was very powerful, but only for a very short period (half a century at most).
After the death of Malik Shah I in 1092, the last sultan to rule over a unified Great Seljuk empire, the Great Seljuk Empire was basically torn apart by internal struggles between various pretenders to the throne and powerful independance-minded warlords like Tutush and Suleiman ibn Kutalmish.
In spite of their best efforts, the early sultans of the Great Seljuk failed to make their empire stable and properly united, and even though powerful sultans like Alp Arslan and Malik Shah had what it took to keep ambitious Seljuk warlords and envious claimants to the throne down, the Great Seljuk empire still proved to be so unstable that it fell apart almost immediately once it passed into the hands of a weak and uncapable sultan.
And after the Great Seljuk empire fell apart, the empire became so fragmented that even the most powerful Seljuk successor states simply wouldn't have what it takes to take on the Byzantines and inflict a loss à la Mantzikert on them.
And what's more; apart from the Rum Sultanate, all the western Seljuk successor states were weak - the Seljuks in Syria were not quite as powerful as the Rum Seljuks, and between Syria and the Caucasus, the Seljuk successor states were nothing more than small principalities - often hardly more than city states.
And the power of the Iraqi Seljuk sultanate gradually lost power as various Seljuks atabegs (and specifically the atabegs of Azerbaijan) within their domain became more and more powerful.
..
In other words: if the Byzantines can survive, win, or better yet, avoid, the battle of Manzikert and refrain from waging war againest the Seljuks until at least the death of Malik Shah, then Byzantium won't face another serious threat on its eastern borders until the coming of the Mongols.
Still doesn't solve their political problems. The government is completely unstable and is one bad Emperor away from extinction. It also doesn't help that there are constant civil wars as no Emperor is ruthless enough to eliminate his opponents before they become a threat.
That happened ten years later. Sultan Arslan made a treaty which maintained the status quo.
I think the empire showed remarkable resilience, I get more impressed the more I learn. The slump which led to Manzikert would have ended sooner or later, as IOTL it did with the Comnenos. If the defeat at Manzikert could be avoided the next upswing would be made from a much higher base, ie. the traditional Anatolian heartland. Perhaps the Comnenos dynasty could have done less conquering and more reforming without the loss of Anatolia. Certainly if Anatolia was held when the next good govt period came when that period ended the empire would have the buffer zones it needed for the bad times.
I don't think Byzantium was any more or less corrupt/moral or progressive/regeressive than any other polity in the same timeframe, and it withstood the test of time which is more many other realms can claim.
I don't think Byzantium was any more or less corrupt/moral or progressive/regeressive than any other polity in the same timeframe, and it withstood the test of time which is more many other realms can claim.
trajen777
Banned
Manzikert was an interesting battle.
Reports of the complete loss of the Byzantine army were totally off base in fact most of the army was fighting again in the next few months (unfortunately fighting each other instead of the Turks). Consider that the right flank (5-700 men) probably got beat up so lost maybe 15% of their forces (100 men) while the center lost slightly more maybe 25% (2500) while the flank guards, left wing, and second line barely saw action (lost 300 men). So of a force of about 45,000 they lost maybe 4,000.
In the two preceding years they had defeated the Turks twice and almost caught them in perfect ambush at that. But considering the Byz army made several mistakes namely:
Anyway – if the Byz had won the battle
- The Turks did not want to fight – the Byz prestige was great and the Turks wanted to continue the conquest of the Muslims south
- The attack of the Byz needed to be against the independent min tribes who were raiding – the Theme’s were perfect for this – they just needed to be rebuilt
Reports of the complete loss of the Byzantine army were totally off base in fact most of the army was fighting again in the next few months (unfortunately fighting each other instead of the Turks). Consider that the right flank (5-700 men) probably got beat up so lost maybe 15% of their forces (100 men) while the center lost slightly more maybe 25% (2500) while the flank guards, left wing, and second line barely saw action (lost 300 men). So of a force of about 45,000 they lost maybe 4,000.
In the two preceding years they had defeated the Turks twice and almost caught them in perfect ambush at that. But considering the Byz army made several mistakes namely:
- Marched with a sizeable initial advantage then sent forces under disloyal forced south to guard against Turks marching northwest against them (from where they had to come). Instead of this sizeable force (15% of the army) at least withdrawing back to the main force or withdrew west with out even warning the main force of the Turkish advance.
- Sending 15,000 troops to Georgia – they never took part in the battle
- Leaving most of their archers at the Manzikert fortress. This would have kept the Turks totally at bay
- Leaving there light cav mercenaries under their own leaders (they deserted)
- Leaving a Ducas to command the 2nd line – he withdrew and spread word of a rout allowing the Turks to surround the Byz.
Anyway – if the Byz had won the battle
- The emperor would have had tremendous prestige, and been able to press reforms
- He would have finished retraining the out of shape Themes in the east (he had done a miracle) and had the traditional great low intensity anti raiding forces that consistently defeated the Arab raiders in the 880’s to 1025’s, allowing for secure borders
- He would have looked to invade the not yet entrenched Normans in South Italy
- If he had been successful in Italy he would have conquered the weak Arab Sisley.
- Even if he had not conquered sough Italy he would not have needed the trade agreements with Venice which destroyed keep the Byz economy strong
- The military party would have reemerged so perhaps more eastern recon quests
- If Romanus had ruled for lets say 20 years the monarchy would have again stabilized like the rulers descended from Basil to Basil (800 – 1071) and less internal strife.
- No crusades
- Then the Mongols – too much guess work but most likely maintain its current stability
It's all moot of course since it depends on on success in several things, which makes it unlikey at best, ASB at worst. But if the Byzantines had not lost Anatolia in the first place, or regained it during the Crusading era, and not been dismembered in the 4th Crusade how would they have fared against the Mongols? I think the imperial army would be near a peak which usually came from a period of good government, and it would have the support of a strong centralised state by the time the mongols arrived.
I would have to disagree the Turkish conquest of Anatolia was actually the more unlikely outcome of the two. So many things had to go wrong for what happened to happen. First you had Isaac I giving up the throne because of an illness that turned out not to be fatal as was thought at the time. Then you had Isaac choose Constantine X who sadly was a piss poor Emperor over his own brother John who would have been a better candidate. Then after Constantine died Romanus Diogenes rebelled against his sons failed but not only was spared but end up as Emperor because Constantine’s widow Eudocia took a fancy to him. As you can imagine Romanus’ position was far from secure so how does he try to shore it up the tried and true method of starting a war. Sadly it was a war no one wanted Byzantium because Constantine had gutted the military so wasn’t in great shape to fight. Even the Seljuk’s didn’t want it because it came right as they were to about to try to take Syria. As far as the actually battle goes trajen777 did an excellent job of showing just how much the Byzantine’s had to screw the pooch in order to lose that fight.
Even afterwards it sadly went about as bad as it could for the Empire. Honestly if someone were to do a timeline and have all the things happen as they did for the Byzantine’s I pretty sure it would widely considered Wankish but that’s history for you.
The thing is though that they should have won the battle yes their military was nowhere near what it was during the reign of Basil II but they quite plausibly could have pulled off a win at Manzikert.
Further more had Isaac I not turned Hypochondriac or had Eudocia been able to keep her thighs closed Romanus likely would not have become emperor and thus there wouldn't have been enough reason to start the war in order to secure his position. And since the Seljuk leadership wasn’t particularly looking to take on the Empire at this point and no one else was a serious threat to overrun Anatolia the empire’s heartland they should have been able to ride out the turmoil.
The problem with the multitude of things which could have avoided Manzikert was that there was no major catalyst to galvanise the Byzantine leadership into action, Manzikert was that catalyst.
Anyway, perhaps Manizkert needn't be quite the disaster it was IOTL, even if it did need to happen. IOTL the Comnenos' regained control over the coast and the NW corner of Anatolia reasonably quickly, containing the Rum Sultanate to the rest of the Anatolian interior. So WI that was all the Seljuks took in the first place, and the Comnenos' came to power and began their revival holding the territory of 1150 instead of 1090? Would they be able to retake the entire plateau ITTL, and re-institue the Theme system properly?
Anyway, perhaps Manizkert needn't be quite the disaster it was IOTL, even if it did need to happen. IOTL the Comnenos' regained control over the coast and the NW corner of Anatolia reasonably quickly, containing the Rum Sultanate to the rest of the Anatolian interior. So WI that was all the Seljuks took in the first place, and the Comnenos' came to power and began their revival holding the territory of 1150 instead of 1090? Would they be able to retake the entire plateau ITTL, and re-institue the Theme system properly?
Personally if I was looking to have a stronger Byzantium with a POD around the time of Manzikert I would have had Isaac I not get ill and been succeeded by his brother John and then John’s son OTL Alexius I. With 3 strong military minded Emperors I think you could have the Empire sitting very pretty when the Seljuk collapse.
As for your idea of having them lose Manzikert but avoid a lot of the nasty after effects it could be very interesting. The main thing would be to have Romanus killed either during or after the battle by Alp Arslan because a loss even a small one with his history would have made him keeping his throne very difficult. After that all you really need is a stable succession even leaving the idiot Michael Ducas on the throne would be fine since the bureaucracy would be able to keep the empire running ok if not particularly great. The sad fact of the Empire loosing Anatolia was almost as much due to the various factions inviting in the Turks in as support against the other factions as was the result of the Turks looking to annex land.
Draco
I remember reading that the crucial problem was not the defeat itself, which saw relatively little military losses but the civil war that followed and destroyed much of the armed strength of the empire. Think the same source mentioned that the far less defensible area in northern Syria actually held out against the Turks for several years simply because there were local Armenian forces stationed there to defend it.
Think the key battle might have been one in the civil war - can't remember its name. Alexi Comnenos was actually the chief general at the time of one of the claimants, who was not a good leader and eventually overthrew him. However in this battle he won a bitter struggle against another claimant, who was a pretty good general but largely exhausted the European armies in the process. If his opponent, who had nearly won quickly, had done so, or better still have managed to win Alexi over to support him the empire might have been largely united pretty quickly and cheaply and with the armed forces to drive/persuade the Turks to withdraw from Anatolia, which they nearly did for a price. Hence you could have seen the empire with a hell of a shock, which might revitalise it, but minimal actual material damage while the Turks get on with what they really wanted to do, smashing the Fatimid Caliphate.
Steve