Manzikert vs. Myriokephalon- A Byzantine Question

Surena

Alright, I've heard of the popular (notorious?) Byziwank timelines here....but I have a (relatively) specific question about two respective Byzantine divergences.

The standard history book seems to say that Manzikert is what shattered the empire, turned it into a "shadow" of itself, etc,etc. I've always felt this to be a bit of 20/20 hindsight, especially considering the Komnenian Restoration of the following century. Then we have Myriokephalon, in which virtually the same things are said. I did some research on these boards, and I was surprised to see some opinions that the Byzantines could have held on not only to the City, but to mainland Greece and Western Anatolia with a POD all the way up to the Palaiologos reconquest circa latter 13th century.

My question is, what do you think the difference is in Byzantine fortunes, when your POD is Manzikert (which never happens), versus a Manzikert that does happen but a Myriokephalon that either doesn't happen or ends up in a Byzantine win. I was always under the impression that the battles themselves weren't terminal, but their political overtones were. So basically, would the Byzantines' fate be much worse (if at all) following a Manzikert loss/Myriokephalon win, versus a Manzikert win/ Manzikert butterflied away? What's going to be the big difference? Does this make sense?
 
Last edited:

Basileus Giorgios

My TL isn't a Byziwank is it? :S

About your question, I think the main differences would be in terms of western Europeans. A victory at Myriokephalon could potentially boost Christian fortunes in the Holy Land, since the Romans do not suffer the huge demoralisation that followed the OTL defeat. The Emperor Manuel was not an old man at the time of Myriokephalon, and there is a school of thought that the defeat pushed him into depression and death; had he won and lived say five years longer then his son Alexius II would accede as a man rather than a teenage boy, and you can probably avoid the disasters of the Angeloi, always assuming Alexius II is a competent Emperor.
Even so, the difficulties facing the Empire in 1176, victory or not, are still formidable. Western Christendom is now actively jealous and suspicious of the Romans, Saladin has just overthrown the Fatimids and re-established Egypt as a superpower, and the Turks have devastated Asia Minor enough to make a reconquest a difficult affair. I would venture that if Alexius II is competent, then following a Myriokephalon victory, he can perhaps restore much of the pre Manzikert Empire, but if he is not, events could quite easily proceed as OTL.
On the other hand, if Manzikert can be avoided or reversed, the Empire is in a much safer situation. The Seljuks will remain a menace, but in OTL they collapsed around 1100, and I see no reason why they would not do this had they lost at Manzikert. The Empire retains Asia Minor and northern Syria, and can therefore, under a competent ruler, restore the army and lead a reconquest of South Italy, and perhaps beyond. In 1071, both Western Christendom and the Islamic World were in a far weaker position than they were in 1176, IMO.
Please read my timeline for more of my ideas, if you don't consider it to be too wanky :p
 

Draco

Manzikert is often mentioned as the beginning of the end not because the loss of the battle itself was that truly devastating but more importantly due to the political fallout that it resulted in. That political fallout ultimately caused the end of the Theme-System, and the sidelining of the authority of the bureaucracy in favor of the Komnenoi System.

Myriokephalon’s loss on the other hand ended any hope of reclaiming Anatolia from the Turks which had been the Empire’s heartland before it was lost. It was also the last time the Empire was ever really able to mount a significant campaign in the east.
 

Surena

Basileus Giorgios said:
My TL isn't a Byziwank is it? :S

About your question, I think the main differences would be in terms of western Europeans. A victory at Myriokephalon could potentially boost Christian fortunes in the Holy Land, since the Romans do not suffer the huge demoralisation that followed the OTL defeat. The Emperor Manuel was not an old man at the time of Myriokephalon, and there is a school of thought that the defeat pushed him into depression and death; had he won and lived say five years longer then his son Alexius II would accede as a man rather than a teenage boy, and you can probably avoid the disasters of the Angeloi, always assuming Alexius II is a competent Emperor.
Even so, the difficulties facing the Empire in 1176, victory or not, are still formidable. Western Christendom is now actively jealous and suspicious of the Romans, Saladin has just overthrown the Fatimids and re-established Egypt as a superpower, and the Turks have devastated Asia Minor enough to make a reconquest a difficult affair. I would venture that if Alexius II is competent, then following a Myriokephalon victory, he can perhaps restore much of the pre Manzikert Empire, but if he is not, events could quite easily proceed as OTL.
On the other hand, if Manzikert can be avoided or reversed, the Empire is in a much safer situation. The Seljuks will remain a menace, but in OTL they collapsed around 1100, and I see no reason why they would not do this had they lost at Manzikert. The Empire retains Asia Minor and northern Syria, and can therefore, under a competent ruler, restore the army and lead a reconquest of South Italy, and perhaps beyond. In 1071, both Western Christendom and the Islamic World were in a far weaker position than they were in 1176, IMO.
Please read my timeline for more of my ideas, if you don't consider it to be too wanky :p
Click to expand...

I don't have any problems with wanky storylines, especially Byzantine related. I just added that part as a disclaimer so that my post wouldn't be interpreted as the beginning of some crappy rehashed timeline (which is unfortunately the extent of my writing abilities).

I have actually read your timeline, and... (ahem).... am waiting for an update. :p Truly an in depth and entertaining read, and actually one of the things that got me asking this question.

Thanks for the response...it makes a lot of sense. I personally would love to see a TL based on a Myriokephalon victory, but I failed to find one. The impression I'm getting is that after Manzikert, the idea of the "international", theme based Roman Empire was dead or close to it. But it seems like- using the 12th century Restoration as an example- it was still possible for an energized Byzantium that at least contained most of the old Greek world west of Italy+Central Anatolia.
 

Constantius

The way I look at it, even if the Romans had won Myriokephalon, their situation's still weak and dangerous. Most of Anatolia's still held by the Turks and at this point, as said before, the theme system is long gone and the political situation rapidly degrading. There wouldn't be much to stop the Turks from overrunning the rest of Byzantine Anatolia in the next year, or even the next decade, as the Komnenos emperors didn't exactly understand the importance of having a short border (thereby massively elongating it by holding all BUT central Anatolia). See John II screwing around in Syria while the Ikonion Sultanate was weak; had he instead finally crushed the Turks, the Byzantines would've been left with a short Cilicia-Trebizond Anatolian border rather that essentially the entire coastline of the peninsula being subject to raids.

If you stop Manzikert, you've still got political instability, but at least the theme system's intact and the borders are more or less unified.

Basically, I see the process as a long chain leading to the fall rather than any single thing leading to it... Manzikert was a disaster because of what came after, the Fourth Crusade was obviously even worse, these two major events, coupled with relatively smaller stumbles like Myriokephalon and civil wars, killed the Empire.
 

Surena

Constantius said:
The way I look at it, even if the Romans had won Myriokephalon, their situation's still weak and dangerous. Most of Anatolia's still held by the Turks and at this point, as said before, the theme system is long gone and the political situation rapidly degrading. There wouldn't be much to stop the Turks from overrunning the rest of Byzantine Anatolia in the next year, or even the next decade, as the Komnenos emperors didn't exactly understand the importance of having a short border (thereby massively elongating it by holding all BUT central Anatolia). See John II screwing around in Syria while the Ikonion Sultanate was weak; had he instead finally crushed the Turks, the Byzantines would've been left with a short Cilicia-Trebizond Anatolian border rather that essentially the entire coastline of the peninsula being subject to raids.

If you stop Manzikert, you've still got political instability, but at least the theme system's intact and the borders are more or less unified.

Basically, I see the process as a long chain leading to the fall rather than any single thing leading to it... Manzikert was a disaster because of what came after, the Fourth Crusade was obviously even worse, these two major events, coupled with relatively smaller stumbles like Myriokephalon and civil wars, killed the Empire.
Click to expand...

Thanks Constantius, great post. The whole "natural borders" thing never dawned on me vis a vis Byzantium, but makes perfect sense. I think I am now seeing the difference between the two PODs....looks like Byzantium would have had a rough going even with a Myrio-win, thanks to all the political screwups.

Basileus, I was not aware of your TL....glad you mentioned it, and I will definitely check it out now. Thanks to all for the responses here, they've been very helpful.
 

el t

Manzikert

Speros Vryonis discusses this in his work "The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor". I would suggest reading it. If Manuel were to win at Myriokephalon, the frontiers of Byzantine could have been re-established to the extent that they were in the 800s or 900s. You would have the Byzantines now controlling at least 3/4 of the peninsula, and an understanding could have been made with the Turks about a permanent boundary (such as what happened during the Nicean period.). I also agree that Manuel would have lived much longer had he had a victory.
 

Abdul Hadi Pasha

Banned
I just don't see how Myriokephalon was of anywhere near the significance of Manzikert. If the Byzantines had won, they may still not have had the forces available to besiege Iconium, and even if they had, they might not have been able to take it, and even if they had, that would not have restored the borders to the extent they were at before Manzikert, or even to the Taurus, and even if they were, the region was largely depopulated and its irrigation systems dismantled. Further, the Empire's military capability was not seriously harmed by the battle.

Manzikert, on the other hand, was the end of an era, and the end of Byzantium as a huge power. The loss ended the entire military system of the empire and cost it its main recruiting grounds, and left what remained permanently vulnerable. This was irretrievable. Myriokephalon was merely a lost opportunity for some degree of gain.

The next serious catastrophe after Manzikert was the Fourth Crusade, which was maybe the worst thing to happen, anywhere, ever.
 

el t

Manzikert vs. Myriokephalon

I think that Manuel's goal in attacking Kilij Arslan was to capture Iconium. If he were to win the battle, Arslan would have been seriously weakened and forced to cede territories to Manual. This is consistent with the Comnenian policy of reconquest and resettlement in Asia Minor.
 

Abdul Hadi Pasha

Banned
el t said:
I think that Manuel's goal in attacking Kilij Arslan was to capture Iconium. If he were to win the battle, Arslan would have been seriously weakened and forced to cede territories to Manual. This is consistent with the Comnenian policy of reconquest and resettlement in Asia Minor.
Click to expand...

Only if he managed to capture Iconium, and even then, could he hold it? I'm not su sure. Part of the problem was that none of these territories had economic value equal to the cost of their conquest and maintenance.
 

el t

Manzikert

A victory by Manuel would have caused the Sultan of Iconium to at least become tributary to the Byzantines.
 

Jaded_Railman

Banned
Draco said:
Manzikert is often mentioned as the beginning of the end not because the loss of the battle itself was that truly devastating but more importantly due to the political fallout that it resulted in. That political fallout ultimately caused the end of the Theme-System, and the sidelining of the authority of the bureaucracy in favor of the Komnenoi System.
Click to expand...

Nothing in history happens in isolation, and this is no different. The Theme system had actually decayed and fallen apart before Manzikert, and that's what made the whole post-Manzikert situation possible. The interior of the Anatolian plateau had been effectively depopualted by the 1070's in comparison to Basil's time, so it was simple and easy for the Turkish settlers who arrived to effect a major demographic shift in the area once they had open access post-Manzikert.

So Manzikert wasn't necessarily itself a turning point, but rather the culmination of a series of events that added up to a turning point. The point when you could say the Empire really stopped growing in power and starte waning was when Basil II died without a clear heir.

Draco said:
Myriokephalon’s loss on the other hand ended any hope of reclaiming Anatolia from the Turks which had been the Empire’s heartland before it was lost. It was also the last time the Empire was ever really able to mount a significant campaign in the east.
Click to expand...

Myriokephalon was important because it was basically the destruction of the professional, mobile army the Komnenoi had been pain-stakingly rebuilding for the better part of a century. They didn't have the political ability to rebuild the theme system because he had to keep aristocrats jockeying for former family lands in Asia Minor satisfied, so he had no new land to settle farmer-soldiers on. The Angeloi and their actions also didn't happen in a vaccuum, either. The backlash and against the Latins and the aristocracy was well-deserved and had been coming for a while. It just so happened that Byzantium didn't really have the breathing room to undergo such social upheaval without losing their tenuous grasp over the international situation. If Myriokephalon had been avoided, however, it's possible they would have had the forces to preempt many of the things which started falling apart with the deposition of Manuel's heir.

EDIT: And yes, had the early Palaiologoi been more mindful of their Asian territories, or had a Laskrid been the one to take The City, it would have been perfectly possible for the Byzantines to hold on the Aeagean. Nicaean Asia Minor and the Greek Balkans were some of the most densely settled, economically complex areas of Eastern Europe at the time. The resources of Asia Minor are the single main thing which launched the Ottomans to such heights of glory as they achieved.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Basileus Giorgios said:
Yes. But this is rather off topic...
Click to expand...
Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D:D:D:D
Edit: and so I dont get accuse of derailing the thread, a stronger and longer lasting Byzantine Empire would have adverse effects on the Islamic Caliphates, not to mention on the Italian citystates, who do have some intrests in the area.
 

el t

Myriokephalon

I see the Turkmen nomads of the Byzantine/Seljuk frontier regions being seriously affected by a Byzantine victory at Myriokephalon. A large number of them would have begun retreating eastward. In the meantime, Manuel would possibly organize another Anatolian expedition with western aid, or perhaps large numbers of western mercenaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top