Manzikert: Fluke or Fate?

[Matthais Corvinus]

So I'm wondering whether or not Manzikert was fated. By that I mean, was the aftermath of the defeat, the hollowing out of Anatolia, caused by the military defeat, or was it demographic trends that had finally reached a tipping point? I have read that aristocrats in Anatolia had been clearing peasants off arable land in order to graze sheep, and that lead to an emptying out of interior Anatolia, and that then the Turks were the coup d'grace that finished emptying out the Byzantine peasantry.

Basically, does butterflying away Manzikert really save the Empire, or is another stunning and Anatolia destroying military defeat right around the corner?

 

[Jaded_Railman]

The central Anatolian plateau had always been less densely populated than other regions, but the eleventh century was a time right in the middle of a great demographic expansion that had started a century earlier. I'd need to see some sources on this, because it directly contradicts what I've read elsewhere.

EDIT: Oh, and it's important to note that peasantry in the Byzantine Empire never really faced the same level of serfdom they did elsewhere in Europe. In fact, most of the time you'd find an area of land owned by a village with certain plots worked by certain nuclear families. So the idea of the aristocracy moving peasants around at will is a little at odds with how the Byzantine Empire worked.

 

[Anaxagoras]

IIRC, one of the reasons the battle was such a serious defeat for the Byzantines was because the loss of central Anatolia cut them off from their main military recruiting ground.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

Recruiting ground for Cataphracts, that is. Military levees could be drawn from population centers across the Empire or Thematic levees could be incorporated into the regular army.

 

[Riain]

I think the comment about the empire not having serfs etc. is a good one in this context. From what I can figure out without access to a suitable university library, Imperial cataphractoi and European knights were the similar end result of two quite different societial systems.

The Europeans exploited their mixed farms to support their horse compliment, buy their kit and give them time to hunt and practice their military skills.

Anatolia was primarily livestock 'ranches' and the cataphractoi were the ranch owners who spent their working time in the saddle managing their herds. The Empire paid them a wage, I think often in the form of a chit, to take to a state run fabricae (armoury) to get their kit. This seems to me to be a more natural foundation for a force of heavy cavalry than the European way, more along the lines of the Mongols whose way of life automatically gave them the military skills they were famous for.

However if the demogaphics of Anatolia are changed, as I suspect they were by the Dynatoi buying out smaller landholders and the Macedonian dynasty changing the criteria for a cataphractoi from someone who held land to the value of 4 pounds of gold to 12 pounds then that whole natural, self-sustaining cavalry force creation system breaks down. Not only do you probably have less people on the land, but those that are there don't own it and aren't motivated or equipped to defend it.

So I think the Turkish people's occupation of Anatolia is probably a structural thing which victory in battle may not have been able to stop.

 

[stevep]

MC

Most of what I have read more recently. although not for some time, suggests that the battle was less significant than the chaos and destruction of the civil war that followed and really destroyed the bulk of the imperial forces at the time. After all the Turks, mainly concerned with attacking the Fatimid state in Egypt were willing after the victory to withdraw in return for a large payment. It was just that the empire was in so much internal division that they stayed.

I think there were concerns about structural flaws in the empire but similar ones had occurred before and with good leadership and a bit of luck it had reformed and recovered, to so degree or another. As such I don't think its long decline was in any way inevitable, even after the defeat and the Turks overrunning much of the peninsula. However it did make it a lot more difficult.

Steve

 

[Jaded_Railman]

The above is indeed true. The battle wouldn't have happened if it weren't for some rather unfortunate misunderstandings to do with over-border raids. Alp Arslan was preparing to invade the Fatimids at the time that Romanos marched an army towards their common border. After the battle Alp made it quite clear to Romanos that he didn't care to stay (anticipating a major war with the Byzantines if he tried to actually take land from them, and the Byzantines were still considered the premier military power in the area), that he would be happy with some hefty tribute.

But, when Romanos got back to The City he was blinded deposed, and later murdered. Cue more of the same that had been going on since the end of the Macedonians with respect to the throne. A few years later Alexios I comes to the throne in a much worse situation than he rightly should have.

 

[Nikephoros]

I was reading an article about Manzikert, and I believe that Manzikert had little effect. The real problem certainly was the massive civil war after Romanos was deposed. Various controllers of territory defected to the Seljuk raiders because they didn't approve of the central govt.'s rule

 

[ThomasG]

So I'm wondering whether or not Manzikert was fated. By that I mean, was the aftermath of the defeat, the hollowing out of Anatolia, caused by the military defeat, or was it demographic trends that had finally reached a tipping point? I have read that aristocrats in Anatolia had been clearing peasants off arable land in order to graze sheep, and that lead to an emptying out of interior Anatolia, and that then the Turks were the coup d'grace that finished emptying out the Byzantine peasantry.

Basically, does butterflying away Manzikert really save the Empire, or is another stunning and Anatolia destroying military defeat right around the corner?

Political Failure. It would be another few decades before the Rum Sultanate formed though.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Absolutely not fated. If they Byzantines had won, they had a decent chance of making it. The Seljuks weren't really interested in Anatolia, and it would have bought time to strengthen the border defenses and restore the army to full efficiency.

There were dangerous trends in the accumulation of power and land in the hands of local nobles, and there are still going to be major irruptions of nomadic invaders, most notably the Mongols, but I don't think anything is fated, and although some things are a lot more likely than others, Byzantine survival seems to me to have a reasonable chance without a Manzikert.

So I'm wondering whether or not Manzikert was fated. By that I mean, was the aftermath of the defeat, the hollowing out of Anatolia, caused by the military defeat, or was it demographic trends that had finally reached a tipping point? I have read that aristocrats in Anatolia had been clearing peasants off arable land in order to graze sheep, and that lead to an emptying out of interior Anatolia, and that then the Turks were the coup d'grace that finished emptying out the Byzantine peasantry.

Basically, does butterflying away Manzikert really save the Empire, or is another stunning and Anatolia destroying military defeat right around the corner?

 

[rcduggan]

...most notably the Mongols...

Would the Mongols even have entered Anatolia had the Turks not been there though? It was my impression that the reason they expanded was because they were already at war with the Turks, and after Kosedag (sp) considered Anatolia their territory. AFAIK the Mongols didn't even fight with Byzantium IOTL, so they might not even be a threat to Anatolia.

If they still invade, though, a Mongol-populated Anatolia would be a scary thing.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Would the Mongols even have entered Anatolia had the Turks not been there though? It was my impression that the reason they expanded was because they were already at war with the Turks, and after Kosedag (sp) considered Anatolia their territory. AFAIK the Mongols didn't even fight with Byzantium IOTL, so they might not even be a threat to Anatolia.

If they still invade, though, a Mongol-populated Anatolia would be a scary thing.

The Mongols didn't fight the Byzantines because the Seljuks were in the way. If the Byzantine Empire was still large and in control of Anatolia, it seems likely to me the Mongols would attack - but if anyone can hold off the Mongols, it's the Byzantines.

 

[Typo]

I'm curious, why do you say that? About the Byzantines and Mongols that is.
​

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I'm curious, why do you say that?
​

Why does who say what? And how and when?

 

[robertp6165]

Why does who say what? And how and when?

I think he means why do you think the Byzantines can hold off the Mongols, when nobody else could. I would be curious to hear the answer to that myself.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think he means why do you think the Byzantines can hold off the Mongols, when nobody else could. I would be curious to hear the answer to that myself.

Because the Byzantine army was designed to face horse-nomad armies and had long experience it doing so. Also, the approach of any invader has to be through the Caucasus or Taurus mountains, a well-planned defense of which would be very difficult to defeat.

 

[Midgard]

Manzikert as a battle is overstated. It was the aftermath of it that was handled with absolutely no finesse that doomed Anatolia for the Empire. In fact, it is possible to have a Byzantine loss at Manzikert, and, with better handling and no crisis of power in Constantinople, still no major long-term problem for the Empire.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Manzikert as a battle is overstated. It was the aftermath of it that was handled with absolutely no finesse that doomed Anatolia for the Empire. In fact, it is possible to have a Byzantine loss at Manzikert, and, with better handling and no crisis of power in Constantinople, still no major long-term problem for the Empire.

The crisis of power was a direct result of the loss of the battle. I don't see how the situation was redeemable after Manzikert. With no army, the local nobles called in more Turcomans to support them, chaos broke out, the emperor's prestige was gone, etc. The morale impact of a loss of that magnitude is enormous. The empire was barely holding out against raiding parties at that point. The whole reason Diogenes forced the battle in the first place was to buy breathing room to restore the empire's defenses and shore up his own position.

It wasn't just any old loss - entire units that had existed for centuries with positions passed from father to son were completely wiped out and never recovered. The cadres necessary for building another army of similar quality were gone. There was just no time or human resources available to do anything after this.

Even at the worst of the Persian/Avar war, the army was intact throughout. For things to go well after Manzikert everything would have to go incredibly right, and even then, there's still a huge Seljuk Empire next door.

 

[Midgard]

The crisis of power was a direct result of the loss of the battle. I don't see how the situation was redeemable after Manzikert. With no army, the local nobles called in more Turcomans to support them, chaos broke out, the emperor's prestige was gone, etc. The morale impact of a loss of that magnitude is enormous. The empire was barely holding out against raiding parties at that point. The whole reason Diogenes forced the battle in the first place was to buy breathing room to restore the empire's defenses and shore up his own position.

It wasn't just any old loss - entire units that had existed for centuries with positions passed from father to son were completely wiped out and never recovered. The cadres necessary for building another army of similar quality were gone. There was just no time or human resources available to do anything after this.

Even at the worst of the Persian/Avar war, the army was intact throughout. For things to go well after Manzikert everything would have to go incredibly right, and even then, there's still a huge Seljuk Empire next door.

However, if the transition of power was a bit smoother, and there was no Michael VII, things could have been quite a bit different. Consider that about half of the Byzantine army never really showed up for Manzikert - the part commanded by Tarchaniotes. So, militarily, the slaughter was not half as bad as it appears. It was the political aftermath that doomed the Empire.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

However, if the transition of power was a bit smoother, and there was no Michael VII, things could have been quite a bit different. Consider that about half of the Byzantine army never really showed up for Manzikert - the part commanded by Tarchaniotes. So, militarily, the slaughter was not half as bad as it appears. It was the political aftermath that doomed the Empire.

Tarchaneiotes' army disappeared, though, probably defeated. In any case, you don't have to kill every man in an army to cause it to cease to exist. The Tagmata were never reconstituted - that in itself is an indication of the destruction of the Byzantine army as it was. From then on it wasn't really much of a force.

I don't see how the loss of the Anatolian plain should have been what caused it to cease to be a major force, since most of the population was in Western Anatolia and Thrace.