George Maniakes becomes emperor in 1043

[trajen777]

George Maniakes, one of the greatest Byz generals was recalled by Constantine ix (one of the worst Byz Emperors)during the conquest of Sicily for treason in 1042. Instead of coming back (to be killed) he lead a rebellion. At a battle outside of Thessaloniki he was on the verge of victory until killed at the moment of victory.

If he had won what would have happened to the Byz empire ?

I think :

1. The army which was still excellent but being starved would have recovered
2. Sicily conquered (the Normans were Byz mercs at this time) so no Norman kingdom
3. The army is rebuilt and expanded
4. After the victory over Seljuk's in 1045 (real world) the eastern front is strengthened (George started his career by conquering Edessa).
5. The reinforced army keeps Anatolia secure.
6. Being a great general and an usurper he would have had to gain victories to keep the throne so i think the best choices would have been
a. Aleppo (protects Syria) very profitable city, great base of defense. Form their take the cities along the coast (Beruit, Tyre, Acre, etc)
b. Central Italy and Rome
c. Tunisia


So any thoughts ?

 

[Aishio]

Doubt he could take Rome and Central Italy. I think securing the Danube frontier would be much more important to protect core territories, instead of conquering just enough to get Crusaded. Also thin he could only secure the more important harbors and bays in Ifriqia, not conquer the whole place. Sounds interesting thought.

 

[Nagisaki]

conquering just enough to get Crusaded.

This was when there was still only officially one church that both recognized. Would they really be able to justify calling all of Christendom to follow them in attacking their greatest champions? Especially considering the OTL First Crusade was in response to a call for help from the Byzantines?

 

[Aishio]

This was when there was still only officially one church that both recognized. Would they really be able to justify calling all of Christendom to follow them in attacking their greatest champions? Especially considering the OTL First Crusade was in response to a call for help from the Byzantines?

"Crusaded" is just an expression for "999 A.E. with the Pope and every one under his thumb". I doubt the pope would be quiet while the Eastern Emperor's puppets take his city and rob him of his influence.

 

[trajen777]

Yep no crusade at that time. Basil hadeft the empire with great prestige. I think george could have been successful in any direction he chose. Personally I would have taken rome, and then forced on rebuilding the east and taking Aleppo and the costal cities. The recapture of Jerusalem for the symbol and damascas for the wealth would have been exceptional.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I didn't;t know George was already a name

 

[Deleted member 67076]

The Byzantines are unlikely to expand too much further; Aleppo is hard to take given it would need a large garrison army that could and should be kept elsewhere given the increasing frequency of raids in the Balkans and Anatolia. Their grand strategy would just dictate propping up vassal states that would act as a buffer while they consolidate their holds on coastal areas and key mountain passes that could be better secured. This is something that directly contrasts with the increasing pressures from new invaders such as the Seljuqs.

Therefore, I think Sicily and more of coastal Syria is the max you'd get with George at the helm as the new wave of invaders would force the army to be focused on defending rather than expanding, especially given they now have 4 frontiers to deal with (Italy, the Danube, Armenia, and Syria).

 

[trajen777]

The Byzantines are unlikely to expand too much further; Aleppo is hard to take given it would need a large garrison army that could and should be kept elsewhere given the increasing frequency of raids in the Balkans and Anatolia. Their grand strategy would just dictate propping up vassal states that would act as a buffer while they consolidate their holds on coastal areas and key mountain passes that could be better secured. This is something that directly contrasts with the increasing pressures from new invaders such as the Seljuqs.

Therefore, I think Sicily and more of coastal Syria is the max you'd get with George at the helm as the new wave of invaders would force the army to be focused on defending rather than expanding, especially given they now have 4 frontiers to deal with (Italy, the Danube, Armenia, and Syria).

Not so sure about that.
1. The byz post basil had an excess of troops. The issue was getting the non border troops trained up and then doing something with them. Here george would train them up
2. Constantine x dismissal of the eastern border army .. 50,000 experienced men who had recently defeated a Turkish invasion, secures this border. Here that never happens.
3. George needed a victory, the conquest of Sicily is one for sure. But I think his experience in the east would have wanted a victory in the east.

So after Sicily and some itialian conquests I think an Aleppo or coastal victories would be achievableachievable

 

[ManintheField]

"Crusaded" is just an expression for "999 A.E. with the Pope and every one under his thumb". I doubt the pope would be quiet while the Eastern Emperor's puppets take his city and rob him of his influence.

You're back-projecting attitudes and a political climate from about a generation in the future to the 1040's and 1050's. In that period there was a succession of contested, contentious papacies (mostly driven by one man) followed by a succession of short reigning, relatively weak popes. The Papacy's independence, power, and influence weren't what they'd become a generation later. Any sitting Pope would more likely to privately request aid from the German Emperor than public call anything like a crusade.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Not so sure about that.
1. The byz post basil had an excess of troops. The issue was getting the non border troops trained up and then doing something with them. Here george would train them up
2. Constantine x dismissal of the eastern border army .. 50,000 experienced men who had recently defeated a Turkish invasion, secures this border. Here that never happens.
3. George needed a victory, the conquest of Sicily is one for sure. But I think his experience in the east would have wanted a victory in the east.

So after Sicily and some itialian conquests I think an Aleppo or coastal victories would be achievableachievable

The issue I see with this is that the Pechenegs are right around the corner followed by the Seljuqs. Even if they don't invade, raids mean the need to station more troops to the Balkans and Armenia.

I don't disagree further conquest is probably happening, but I don't think a set of sweeping conquests will happen in the face of new pressures.

 

[trajen777]

The issue I see with this is that the Pechenegs are right around the corner followed by the Seljuqs. Even if they don't invade, raids mean the need to station more troops to the Balkans and Armenia.

I don't disagree further conquest is probably happening, but I don't think a set of sweeping conquests will happen in the face of new pressures.

I have read many of your postings and would like your thoughts on this :
The basics (Mostly based upon Treadgood books) was after Basil is that after winning the wars they lost the peace. The era of peace and the staggering poor leadership after Basil lead to the collapse. If you had not dismissed the eastern army (Constantine of 50,000 ), which had defeated the Seljuk's in 1045 then you would have had an excellent force to hold them back. To paraphrase Treadgood "the Byzantines had more troops than they could use so a reduction was a good idea, however they released the wrong troops, they needed to keep the eastern troops, the Tagmata, and the Navy".

So anyway if you now had a military emperor (think Basil - Neophorus, John I Tzimiskes, and Nikephoros II Phokas) like the warrior emperors, and he was in place pre the dismissal of the eastern forces (combat experienced hi quality troops), would this be enough to protect the Balkans, and stabilize the eastern front, and an expansion.

Like i said before i would have transferred a hunk of the poorly trained thematic troops in the center of Anatolia, trained them up, and given them new land as a solid thematic Italy (really an extension of the Themes of southern Italy). I would then have a solid army of Italy (10 - 15,000 men) to support the Thematic army.

From their where would you focus ? For stabilization of the borders and conquest ?

 

[Aishio]

Stabilization of borders. I think George would focus on that instead of further constly conquests. If they were having an hard time, and having the hidsight that nomads are approaching, stabilizing the frontiers would be better.

 

[Max Sinister]

Would this butterfly away Manzikert?

 

[trajen777]

Stabilization of borders. I think George would focus on that instead of further constly conquests. If they were having an hard time, and having the hidsight that nomads are approaching, stabilizing the frontiers would be better.

Good points, and actually George as an excellent general so he might have focused on the defensive, to stabilize the fronts vs taking new territory. However sometimes the best defense is an offensive. Strategic offensives to capture better defensive areas and or valuable profitable land (this produces profits beyond the cost of protection of the frontier). In addition the border regions are always raiding. If you can expand the borders out another 100 miles (example), then the original borders are now better protected and become more profitable.

 

[trajen777]

Would this butterfly away Manzikert?

So the collapse (from my understanding) and defeat at Mazaikert was a direct result of Constantine dismissing the 50,000 Iberian army (Armenia). This allowed the raids into the interior of Anatolia. These troops were combat vets and well trained. I think George in place would have put the military focus back in place. Now it really comes down with how long George lives and who succeeds him.
1. If George wins at Thessaloniki he is the emperor
2. He would have completed his conquest of Sicily and he would have had to finish defeating the initial Norman Merc (they had not established a kingdom there) so he would have captured some land they had seized up towards Naples.
3. This would have given more revenue to the empire and would have never allowed the Norman empire to be created. (If Manz had happened Alexis had to focus on the West to stop their invasions and pull basically all of their troops out of Anatolia to fight the Normans). So Alexis would not have had to make Turkish gov and turn Antioch and Nicaea over.
4. The focus on the military and non dismissal of 50,000 troops would not have allowed for successful Turkish raids, which would have kept the Turks to fight the empire. Also if George had lived for 10 - 20 years more then the conquests in the east would have been down the coast towards Acre and perhaps Aleppo.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

I have read many of your postings and would like your thoughts on this :
The basics (Mostly based upon Treadgood books) was after Basil is that after winning the wars they lost the peace. The era of peace and the staggering poor leadership after Basil lead to the collapse. If you had not dismissed the eastern army (Constantine of 50,000 ), which had defeated the Seljuk's in 1045 then you would have had an excellent force to hold them back. To paraphrase Treadgood "the Byzantines had more troops than they could use so a reduction was a good idea, however they released the wrong troops, they needed to keep the eastern troops, the Tagmata, and the Navy".

So anyway if you now had a military emperor (think Basil - Neophorus, John I Tzimiskes, and Nikephoros II Phokas) like the warrior emperors, and he was in place pre the dismissal of the eastern forces (combat experienced hi quality troops), would this be enough to protect the Balkans, and stabilize the eastern front, and an expansion.

Like i said before i would have transferred a hunk of the poorly trained thematic troops in the center of Anatolia, trained them up, and given them new land as a solid thematic Italy (really an extension of the Themes of southern Italy). I would then have a solid army of Italy (10 - 15,000 men) to support the Thematic army.

From their where would you focus ? For stabilization of the borders and conquest ?

Stabilization. Yes, the Byzantines were on the offensive, but it fits the strategy of the time. Further expansion north in Italy needs to be calmed down a bit because if done: 1) it means the Pope is going to get worried and probably call someone else to intervene south as he did with the Normans, 2) South Italy would require a large garrison to break the power of much of the local nobility
2) land reform through troop settlement there is likely to spur some discontent that needs to be dealt with carefully.
3) there might be future Norman migration and usage of mercenary troops later on as Italy was a pilgrimage site in general.
4) the raids in Anatolia and the Balkans by new migrating groups are still there, and 2+ campaign frontiers are worse than one.

Additionally, if the Seljuqs, by virtue of not attacking or being repulsed by Byzantium put more effort into Egypt and strike into the Fatimids which would likely force an intervention by Byzantium (Egypt, Syria, and Persia being united would bring back fears of the Abbasids and their incredible forces). This wouldn't be a scenario for expansion per se, it would be better diplomacy to save them and prop up puppets that can be turned into vassals, especially in the Levant, North Iraq, and Azerbaijan.

I do think if this coalition gets going it has potential, and you could probably cripple the Seljuqs (maybe a sack of Bagdhad and other important cities in the best case scenario) leading to a great position where Byzantium is the near eastern hegemon, but in the short to middle term the Empire's going to be putting out a lot of small fires before they start raging.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Do we know if Maniakes would be a good Emperor in matters other than military, or would he exacerbate some of the negative trends in that regard, potentially?

 

[trajen777]

Stabilization. Yes, the Byzantines were on the offensive, but it fits the strategy of the time. Further expansion north in Italy needs to be calmed down a bit because if done: 1) it means the Pope is going to get worried and probably call someone else to intervene south as he did with the Normans, 2) South Italy would require a large garrison to break the power of much of the local nobility
2) land reform through troop settlement there is likely to spur some discontent that needs to be dealt with carefully.
3) there might be future Norman migration and usage of mercenary troops later on as Italy was a pilgrimage site in general.
4) the raids in Anatolia and the Balkans by new migrating groups are still there, and 2+ campaign frontiers are worse than one.

Additionally, if the Seljuqs, by virtue of not attacking or being repulsed by Byzantium put more effort into Egypt and strike into the Fatimids which would likely force an intervention by Byzantium (Egypt, Syria, and Persia being united would bring back fears of the Abbasids and their incredible forces). This wouldn't be a scenario for expansion per se, it would be better diplomacy to save them and prop up puppets that can be turned into vassals, especially in the Levant, North Iraq, and Azerbaijan.

I do think if this coalition gets going it has potential, and you could probably cripple the Seljuqs (maybe a sack of Bagdhad and other important cities in the best case scenario) leading to a great position where Byzantium is the near eastern hegemon, but in the short to middle term the Empire's going to be putting out a lot of small fires before they start raging.

Good points. Not sure you would have had a Norman migration with / if George could have put down the Norman mercs rebellion. I think the existence of the Iberian army along the borders would have minimized the raids. Good points on the colation, have to think thru that some.

 

[trajen777]

Do we know if Maniakes would be a good Emperor in matters other than military, or would he exacerbate some of the negative trends in that regard, potentially?

So what i know of him was originally from B Montgomery the history of war. He defined George as one the the best military leader of the middle ages. From their as i got more interested in the Byz empire (Haldon - Treadgold etc) i read more about him. In the 1030's he shows up by the conquest of Edessa, then as an excellent military leader. As a leader of men he was respected by Hardraka (the viking later killed by Harold in England), the Norman mercs (till called back by Constantine), and i have read some things about him as an excellent manager of Edessa and that region after the conquest. He was a giant of a man and commanded the respect of the people who served under him. So the answer is "not sure" i think the conquest of Sicily (a great place for the theme farms to go with out disrupting any other Italian or Byz southern Italian people) would given him an aura of credibility. The Byz empire needed a military leader at this time and he would have fit the bill and re energized the military. A perfect world would be for him to survive till 1081. He would have been 72 (so ???) and have Alexius take over (Isaac would have been one of his key generals ) or in 1060 (then Isaac takes over - have him live for 10 more years without him giving up the throne)

Anyway per this article it appears George might have not been the greatest diplomat er this article :http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art422.htm (see below)


The Mediterranean world of the eleventh century was a complicated place, with several ambitious powers vying for territory. In the East the Byzantines were trying to hold on to their dwindling Empire against the Muslim onslaught. Most of the Iberian peninsula, plus Sicily and the African coast were ruled by Arabs, Berbers and other Muslims. Loyal only to the highest bidder, the Normans were working their way through southern Italy while their distant kin the Vikings took an eastern route through Russia and Ukraine to serve as mercenaries for whoever ruled from Constantinople. Over in Spain, meanwhile, El Cid and other descendants of the Visigothic aristocracy were attempting to reclaim territory from the Moors (Muslim-Arabs from north-western Africa).

In this mix loyalties were often fickle and internecine quarrels were not unheard of. One Byzantine Greek military commander might fight another, while one emir may view another as a rival. In 1054 Schism divided the Christians, and by 1095 some zealous European Christians were raising armies for a full-scale invasion of Palestine.

This was the world of George Maniakes, a distinguished general in the service of the Byzantine emperor Michael IV. Little is known of his early life, but by 1030 Maniakes was fighting the Muslims at Aleppo in what is now northern Syria. The next year he went on to capture Edessa, to the east in upper Mesopotamia, from the Seljuk Turks.

A Norse force led by Harald Hardrada, who would later become King of Norway, formed his Varangian Guard. With some Normans under the command of William, a brother of Robert and Roger of Hauteville, and a Lombard contingent from Italy, Maniakes launched a series of assaults on Sicily, which was then under Arab control.

From 1038 until 1040, Maniakes' diverse group of mercenaries defeated Arab forces in south-eastern Sicily. Here the jewel in the crown was the city of Syracuse. Though surpassed by Bal'harm (Palermo) in wealth and importance, Syracuse was still a gateway to the East.

It was in Sicily that the knight William Hauteville earned his nickname, "Iron Arm," by killing the emir of Syracuse with a sword in single combat. For now, George Maniakes was satisfied to conquer Syracuse, controlling it from the coastal fortress on the island of Ortygia that still bears his name, but though he was appointed catapan of Italy his victory was to be ephemeral.

The chroniclers tell us that Maniakes publicly insulted Arduin, the Lombard leader, who decided to withdraw back to peninsular Italy. William and the Normans decided to follow the Lombards - even though back in Apulia the two were not always on the most amicable terms with each other or with the Byzantines. Worse, Harold and most of the Norsemen also abandoned Maniakes.

This made it difficult for Maniakes to hold his piece of Sicily. Maniakes likewise offended Stephen, his admiral, who had important connections back in Constantinople. Clearly, Maniakes was no paragon of tact and no master of politics.

In Maniakes' absence, the crown had passed to the opportunistic Constantine IX, who failed to appreciate the general's accomplishments in Sicily. The general was recalled to the capital in 1042 and Syracuse once again fell into Arab hands. Adding insult to injury, when Michael Doukejanos was appointed catapan of Italy, replacing Maniakes, he gave Arduin the city of Melfi as a fief.

More importantly to posterity, their service to Maniakes convinced the Normans that Sicily was indeed within their reach, and that its emirs were far from invincible. The Hautevilles would return to Syracuse in 1085, led by William's younger brother Roger.

In the end, it was a personal feud that led to Maniakes' fall from grace. A certain Romanos Scleros, like Maniakes, was a wealthy landholder in Asia Minor and the two had fought over land. It was said that Scleros urged his beautiful, lusty sister to influence the emperor Constantine to act against George Maniakes. This was typical of the blunders and intrigues that would cost the Byzantines an empire. Scleros ransacked Maniakes' home.

The avaricious Scleros demanded that Maniakes concede him control of Apulia. Maniakes killed Scleros and, having been declared emperor by his loyal troops, including the remaining Norsemen, attempted to take Constantinople. He was killed at the ensuing Battle of Thessalonika in 1043.

At this distance of time, it is difficult to form a clear portrait of George Maniakes. Seen in his best light, he was a capable, visionary military leader who was not appreciated in his own country.

 

[Avrorrange]

The problem is financial.The Iberian army was dismissed simply because the government could not afford it’s military upkeep anymore.As for why they couldn’t afford the army,ask the courtiers and the dynatoi.The have consolidated vast tracts of Anatolian land and have been granted exemption from taxes.They have instead been given vast government pensions.Unless he can get the money back,Maniakes will have to dismiss the army.