Manzikert vs. Myriokephalon- A Byzantine Question

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.



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.

Actually the resources of Asia Minor had very little to do with the heights of glory of the Ottomans - it was the resources of the Balkans. Asia Minor was just as depopulated and poor in 1300 as it was in 1100 - probably more so, and the Ottomans controlled the Balkans before they dominated Anatolia.

Anatolia was probably somewhat more important for raising troops, but even that was in the later period.

The problem with the Aegean coastal regions of Asia Minor is that they are largely indefensible against a state on the Anatolian plateau - that's why Greece tried to destroy Turkey after WWI - to secure their possession of the coast. And that's why Manzikert doomed the empire.

As for the turning point, it was the disbanding of the eastern army in the 1050's by emperor what's-his-name. I'm sure it was a Michael or a Constantine of some number. But Basil sure didn't help by failing to provide an heir.
 
Myriokephalon

Did'nt the emperors at Nicea keep the Turks out very effectively during their period in "exile"? Despite the fact that the Turkish sultane was the larger and stronger of the two states?
 
As for the turning point, it was the disbanding of the eastern army in the 1050's by emperor what's-his-name. I'm sure it was a Michael or a Constantine of some number. But Basil sure didn't help by failing to provide an heir.

Constantine X or Michael VII I think. The Emperors post Basil II were terrified of a millitary coup against them. Though I believe Isaac I (1057-59) could perhaps have successfully remedied the situation... I even wrote a timeline on it :p
 
Did'nt the emperors at Nicea keep the Turks out very effectively during their period in "exile"? Despite the fact that the Turkish sultane was the larger and stronger of the two states?

For a short time Nicaea was the strongest state in the area, but the Byzantines weren't able to maintain their position there for the reasons I mentioned. It's always mapped in historical atlases, but remember it was only around for 60 years. At that time there were no really strong Turkish states - just lots of petty emirates.
 
Constantine X or Michael VII I think. The Emperors post Basil II were terrified of a millitary coup against them. Though I believe Isaac I (1057-59) could perhaps have successfully remedied the situation... I even wrote a timeline on it :p

Whomever it was did it to save money, which is the saddest thing.

Isaac I is one of the last great "If only..."s in Byzantine history. If he had just been a little less depressed and held on for a little longer, we could have ended up with his brother John segueing into Alexios or his brother Isaac, who would then have been emperor with the boundaries intact.
 
Whomever it was did it to save money, which is the saddest thing.

It was indeed the much reviled Constantine IX Monomachos. Angold's revisionist take on him is well worth seeing - Monomachos is the only Emperor in the period 1025-1071 to last more than five minutes and seems to have a coherent policy about widening the patronage base.

It seems hard to believe that he really cut out the border forces to save money, more likely they were militarily of little value and/or a powerful centrifugal force.
 
It was indeed the much reviled Constantine IX Monomachos. Angold's revisionist take on him is well worth seeing - Monomachos is the only Emperor in the period 1025-1071 to last more than five minutes and seems to have a coherent policy about widening the patronage base.

It seems hard to believe that he really cut out the border forces to save money, more likely they were militarily of little value and/or a powerful centrifugal force.

It seems hard to believe in retrospect, but the view might have been a lot different in Constantinople - having just signed a treaty with the Turks and having very pressing financial problems at home... and we can only judge by what he said he was doing it for. Whatever centrifugal effect eastern armies were having couldn't possibly have been as great as Seljuk invasion! Altough that's retrospect.

I've read Angold The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: a Political History, but to be honest I don't remember any details.
 
Top