Manuel Comnenus & Myriocephalon

WI: He (Manuel) had actually defeated the Seljuks in this epic 1176 battle. I'm not completely sure what his goals really were. Would the Iconium sultanate merely have become tributary to the Byzantines, forcing to cede certain border territories to them, but remaining essentially intact? Or would Iconium been re-occupied, and the Seljuks forced to move further eastward. Or was the complete re-occupation of Asia Minor by the Byzantines Manuel's goal? Was this even possible, over 100 years after Manzikert, and with so many Turks now permanently settled in Asia Minor?
 
Asia Minor was fully populated with Christians before Manzikert, but was devastated and depopulated by the Turks who repopulated it with their own people. So the reverse is possible, the empire could tax the Muslims off the land and bring in Christain settlers if they didn't just kill or eject them outright.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Asia Minor was fully populated with Christians before Manzikert, but was devastated and depopulated by the Turks who repopulated it with their own people. So the reverse is possible, the empire could tax the Muslims off the land and bring in Christain settlers if they didn't just kill or eject them outright.

Actually, a large percentage of that depopulation is Alexius's fault. The Byzantines often moved populations around to repopulate devastated areas or to scatter stubborn ethnicities. During the collapse of Asia Minor, Alexius moved a large number of Greek-speaking people to the Balkans. That, combined with the collapse of farming on the Anatolian highlands and devastation caused by war, allowed the Turks to become the dominant "ethnicity" in Asia Minor.
 
Actually, a large percentage of that depopulation is Alexius's fault. The Byzantines often moved populations around to repopulate devastated areas or to scatter stubborn ethnicities. During the collapse of Asia Minor, Alexius moved a large number of Greek-speaking people to the Balkans. That, combined with the collapse of farming on the Anatolian highlands and devastation caused by war, allowed the Turks to become the dominant "ethnicity" in Asia Minor.

In the high lands, at least. The coastal urban areas remained largely Greek speaking for centuries after Manzikert. Even today, the modern 'Turks' are more descendents of those ancient Anatolians who started out as Phrygians/Cappadocians/etc and became Greeks than any strange set of ethnic Turkish tribesmen and sheep herders. Actual ethnic 'Turkish' Turks disappeared a long time ago into the wider population.
 
Just a tangetal thought, I've read that the Turks deliberately destroyed the Byzantine infrastructure in Anatolia and made it 'suitable' for their flocks and herds. Would it make much difference if they didn't destroy the infrastructure beyond what was nessecary or unavoidable, would they hold a richer land, and would it make much difference to subsequent history?
 

Nikephoros

Banned
In the high lands, at least. The coastal urban areas remained largely Greek speaking for centuries after Manzikert. Even today, the modern 'Turks' are more descendents of those ancient Anatolians who started out as Phrygians/Cappadocians/etc and became Greeks than any strange set of ethnic Turkish tribesmen and sheep herders. Actual ethnic 'Turkish' Turks disappeared a long time ago into the wider population.

Of course. In fact, I'm a member of a Facebook group called
[facebook_link]Greek & Turkish Women are Gorgeous[/facebook_link]

I found it almost impossible to tell the difference.
 
Top