Defeat at Manzikert-Where do the Turks go?

[Shtudmuffin]

Suppose that, in 1071, the (for the Byzantines) disastrous Battle of Manzikert is either a Byzantine victory, or an earlier PoD leads it to never happen in the first place. The Seljuqs are still around, but they never venture into Anatolia. So, my question for all of you is-what happens to the Seljuqs? Does another area become Turkified in lieu of Anatolia (and if so, what region)? Do the Seljuqs become absorbed by those they conquered? What becomes of the Seljuk Empire? Do the Crusades still happen?* Anything else I might be missing?

*I highly doubt it, but Western Europe could still try to get the Levant back without the Byzantines calling for it, for all I know. I'm not 100% sure.

 

[t0m1991]

You would probably get a stronger Turkish influence in Persia and Syria though I doubt they would last very long as a state in those areas and the Turks themselves would be absorbed into the Persian and Arabic cultures, Azerbaijan and Armenia would probably be the areas with the most lasting Turkish influence.

 

[eliphas8]

They may either go into India or into Egypt depending on the circumstances.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Why would one battle permanently deter the Seljuqs from Anatolia? They also weren't the only Turks or steppe nomads around, anyway. The Seljuqs OTL were influenced by Persian culture.

 

[Elfwine]

Why would one battle permanently deter the Seljuqs from Anatolia? They also weren't the only Turks or steppe nomads around, anyway. The Seljuqs OTL were influenced by Persian culture.

Well, the Seljuks weren't really interested in Anatolia to begin with, this was taking advantage of circumstances.

Alp Arslan was aiming for Egypt and Syria.

 

[Malta]

Displace and Absorb the Arabs, Persians, and such Levantine people.

 

[Elfwine]

Displace and Absorb the Arabs, Persians, and such Levantine people.

How are the Turks going to displace and absorb the Levantine people?

 

[RGB]

How are the Turks going to displace and absorb the Levantine people?

By settling there, of course.

This statement needs actual demographics to be seriously examined.

 

[Elfwine]

By settling there, of course.

This statement needs actual demographics to be seriously examined.

And somehow, the Turks settling in Iran didn't displace or absorb the Iranians.

Settling in Anatolia seems to have absorbed (late) the Anatolians but not displaced them.

I don't have Levantine demographics at the moment, or Turkish numbers, but I'm pretty sure the Turks here are fewer than the Levantines.

 

[RGB]

And somehow, the Turks settling in Iran didn't displace or absorb the Iranians.

Settling in Anatolia seems to have absorbed (late) the Anatolians but not displaced them.

I don't have Levantine demographics at the moment, or Turkish numbers, but I'm pretty sure the Turks here are fewer than the Levantines.

I'm also not convinced that Syria is more attractive than Azerbaijan (as OTL). But as I said, this bears thinking about and finding some numbers on.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Displace and Absorb the Arabs, Persians, and such Levantine people.

The Turks weren't large enough demographically to actively replace pre-existing populations from Central Asia to the Levant. Nor did they wish to. They wanted to entrench themselves among the ruling class of the regions they conquered. Getting rid of the indigenous populations would have deprived them of a solid tax and recruitment base. Also, the Seljuqs made the conquests within the Abbassid Caliphate on the pretext of serving the Sunni caliphs, even reconquering Baghdad from the occupation of the Shi'ite Buyids on the behalf of the Abbassids.

 

[cimon]

The important thing to note Aiekedes is that the Arab historians(contemporary and later ones) blame the Turks for the destruction of the Arab civilization("The Crusades with The Arab Eyes") two books I bought from Barnes & Noble some years ago...

 

[Elfwine]

I'm also not convinced that Syria is more attractive than Azerbaijan (as OTL). But as I said, this bears thinking about and finding some numbers on.

I'm not sure either given the standards of 'attractive" vary depending on who's judging - I mean, speaking from the sedentary perspective, I know I want Syria, but I don't know if that's true for the Turks.

And agreed. I only know numbers in the vaguest sense for the Turks and I'd be guessing almost blindly for the Levant.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

The important thing to note Aiekedes is that the Arab historians(contemporary and later ones) blame the Turks for the destruction of the Arab civilization("The Crusades with The Arab Eyes") two books I bought from Barnes & Noble some years ago...

But they also blame the Mongols, the Europeans, Modernity and who knows who or what else, for the very same.

 

[Elfwine]

But they also blame the Mongols, the Europeans, Modernity and who knows who or what else, for the very same.

In fairness, the Europeans and Mongols did a great deal to screw over the Arabs.

Not that they didn't make mistakes on their own, of course.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Well, the Seljuks weren't really interested in Anatolia to begin with, this was taking advantage of circumstances.

Alp Arslan was aiming for Egypt and Syria.

Alp was but would his successors not have nibbled at Anatolia? Or have been forced at some point to confront the Byzantines?

 

[Herzen's love-child]

In fairness, the Europeans and Mongols did a great deal to screw over the Arabs.

Not that they didn't make mistakes on their own, of course.

No question, to Both!

 

[Elfwine]

Alp was but would his successors not have nibbled at Anatolia? Or have been forced at some point to confront the Byzantines?

Why would they be more interested than he was?

As for being forced to confront the Byzantines - no reason that has to be in Anatolia.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Why would they be more interested than he was?

As for being forced to confront the Byzantines - no reason that has to be in Anatolia.

That is my question... I know why Alp did. But could one posit reasons why and why not with any assurance?
As for the latter, that would depend on how successful (or unsuccessful) the Rhomans were in the absence of Manzikert, wouldn't it? Could be in Syria or at the gates of the City, now....

Also how expansionist and ambitious (or threatened) the Seljuks would be, too...

 

[Elfwine]

That is my question... I know why Alp did. But could one posit reasons why and why not with any assurance?
As for the latter, that would depend on how successful (or unsuccessful) the Rhomans were in the absence of Manzikert, wouldn't it? Could be in Syria or at the gates of the City, now....

Also how expansionist and ambitious (or threatened) the Seljuks would be, too...

I'll put it this way: We can say that we can't say anything with certainty, or we can ask if there's any real reason for the Turks to invade Anatolia while busy in Syria and Egypt.

As for the latter: The thread seems to me to be "the Byzantines either won Manzikert or it never happened".

That kind of implies more successful than OTL, not less.