No Mantzikert disaster?

[Don_Giorgio]

WI in 1071 Emperor Romanus IV Diogenis won battle of Mantzikert and returned to Constantinople in triumph?
Seljuk Turks were used in "hit and run" tactics and avoided open battle with the Imperial Army...
Only when commander Andronicus Dukas (who hated the Emperor...) instead of covering the retreat of the Imperial Army one night he marched far away from him gaving Alp Arslan to attack suddenly annihilating the Imperial Army and capturing Romanus IV...
I guess that with Romanus IV victorious the Empire then would expand to its old borders in Euphrates and more...
And Romanus IV wouldnt have that much trouble in Constantinople with the Dukas family... leaving the Empire stronger to last at least till 17th century...

 

[Keenir]

Is Very Puzzled

WI in 1071 Emperor Romanus IV Diogenis won battle of Mantzikert and returned to Constantinople in triumph?
Seljuk Turks were used in "hit and run" tactics and avoided open battle with the Imperial Army...
Only when commander Andronicus Dukas (who hated the Emperor...) instead of covering the retreat of the Imperial Army one night he marched far away from him gaving Alp Arslan to attack suddenly annihilating the Imperial Army and capturing Romanus IV...
I guess that with Romanus IV victorious the Empire then would expand to its old borders in Euphrates and more...

and how does ol' IV get victory?

And Romanus IV wouldnt have that much trouble in Constantinople with the Dukas family...

why not?

leaving the Empire stronger to last at least till 17th century...

how does a lack of Dukas give teh Empire 7 more centuries of life? if nothing else, the Mongols would happily tear the Byzantines down to size.

 

[Max Sinister]

Of course, only assuming that the Byzantines are stupid enough to fight the Mongols instead of using their diplomacy. If they pay a tribute to the Khaghan and let his troops use Byzantine streets (to reach the Balcan), they could get away relatively unscathed.

 

[Borys]

Ahoj!
This is an incredible Point Of Divergence which I sometimes muse about. It has the potential to completely overturn the world as we know it.
No disaster at Manzikert practically guaranties a powerful Byzantine Empire for decades to come. Maybe still around today?


As to immediate afterefects - the Roman Empire holds on to northern Syria, maybe continue its push, towards Jerusalem.
Normans do not create Kingdom of Two Sicilies, southern Italy fragmented.
No powerful Venice.
Good chances for Hungary ending up Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.
No Crusades, no lots of OTL.
No Seldjuks destroying agriculture in Anatolia, which continues to have a population of Greek speaking Christians. Thus no base for Ottomans.

This realy is one of the battles which shaped the course of history.
Borys

 

[Don_Giorgio]

By wiping away the Seljuks Romanus IV would return in a power position which would allow him to banish/execute the troublemakers in Constantinople (sons/brothers/nephews and wife of the former Emperor Constantine X)
So less trouble in capital leaves Romanus IV to raise funds for a campaign in the East...
Lets say he has an alliance with the Mongols which leaves him free to deal with Palestine and Egypt...

 

[Keenir]

By wiping away the Seljuks

how?? you just said the Seljuks refuse to engage in open battle.


and, if the Mongols aren't a problem, there's the Timurids, the Assassins, and doubtless some who are unique to this ATL.

 

[trajen777]

• Byz Empire continues to revitalize the thematic system – Romanus spent 3 years “making useless farmers who had forgotten how to fight (thematic troops in Western Anatolia) into useful soldiers. With the victory (remember they had defeated the Turks twice in the preceding 2 yrs) they would have several yrs more to rebuild the Themes. The Thematic defense in depth was the perfect solution to low intensity warfare (raiding) that the Turks used.
• Troops could be sent to recapture Bari and southern Italy – perhaps Sicily?
• No Crusade
• No 1204
• No loss of Trade to Venice
• Depending upon the following leaders to follow Romanus a resurgent Empire that follows in the foot steps of the first Crusade against a disunited Palestine
• Instead of Saladin capturing a crumbling Egypt perhaps it is a resurgent Byzantine
• Now as to the Mongols? Could they have had their own Al Jilant? Or have used diplomacy to survive? Perhaps loss of part of Syria? They would probably hold the coast and Egypt and lose Syria.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

Ok... not wiping out the Seljuks but neutralise them somehow...
Romanus's main problem wasnt the Seljuks but the Dukas family...
If he could place himself in a power position so he could kick their ass he would be free to raise an army and attack Palestine and with his navy too to blackade Egypt...

 

[Paladin]

I'm just killing time in this thread till the experts (Midgard and Abdul) show up, but I'll throw in a few thoughts. I've been playing with this concept a lot especially in the long term:

1. No crusades. This has a profound impact on Medieval Europe, as trade will still go through Constantinople rather then directly through Syrian seaports. This may retard the cultural exchanges between East and West, but more in likely that will find other channels, such as Spain, Sicily, and of course, Byzantium.

2. Stronger Orthodoxy. With its center intact, Constantinople will be on par with Rome in religious influence. While I doubt it will make much gains in Central Europe, which had already for the most point gone Catholic, Eastern Europe is wide open, particularly states that hadn't converted till much later in OTL, like Lithuania. Since there are no Crusades, this also rules out the Teutonic Knights, and slows the German eastward expansion.

3. More classical influence. Despite most people's perception of the Byzantine Empire eschewing all pre-Christian knowledge, they actually hung on to quite a bit of it (as did the West, for that matter, in a much more diluted form). With the original copies and monuments intact, I suspect Grecophile westerners will have an easier time absorbing pagan Greek traditions. Imagine a world where the Acropolis is full intact.

4. No Ottomans, at least as we know them. This in itself radically changes the history and ethnic make up of Eastern Europe, as well continental politics as a whole. The middle East would also be a vastly different place.

So, there you go. It's just a few thoughts, but hopefully you'll be able to play with them.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

By wiping away the Seljuks Romanus IV would return in a power position which would allow him to banish/execute the troublemakers in Constantinople (sons/brothers/nephews and wife of the former Emperor Constantine X)
So less trouble in capital leaves Romanus IV to raise funds for a campaign in the East...
Lets say he has an alliance with the Mongols which leaves him free to deal with Palestine and Egypt...

You are really getting carried away here. A Byzantine victory at Manzikert could very well have saved the empire, but it most certainly wouldn't destroy the Seljuk Empire, and Diogenes would have had to use his victory as a breathing space to complete rebuilding the army and reestablishing the empire's eastern defenses. There is no chance whatsoever he could conquer Egypt and Palestine!

Diogenes was also not a very good politician, so I wouldn't give him great chances of remaining around in the long-term.

The Byzantines need to concentrate on consolidating their hold on the territory they already have, especially integrating Bulgaria, and maybe getting Sicily and Southern Italy back.

They also didn't really have any desire to rule Muslim populations, and by this period Syria and Egypt are overwhelmingly Muslim. They also don't have the power-projection capabilities to even think about conquering Egypt.

As for the Doukas family, they were very powerful and I don't think Diogenes had the support to take them on, and if he did, he'd lose. Maybe he's replaced by Alexios Komnenos? He was a very talented leader that had the support of the Doukas family... I know, it's distateful, I hate the Doukai too, but it's the power reality... they can always get what's coming to them later...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

There might not be Crusades, but then again it's still possible. The reasons for them still exist, including the excess energy of Western Europe at the time...

I'm just killing time in this thread till the experts (Midgard and Abdul) show up, but I'll throw in a few thoughts. I've been playing with this concept a lot especially in the long term:

1. No crusades. This has a profound impact on Medieval Europe, as trade will still go through Constantinople rather then directly through Syrian seaports. This may retard the cultural exchanges between East and West, but more in likely that will find other channels, such as Spain, Sicily, and of course, Byzantium.

2. Stronger Orthodoxy. With its center intact, Constantinople will be on par with Rome in religious influence. While I doubt it will make much gains in Central Europe, which had already for the most point gone Catholic, Eastern Europe is wide open, particularly states that hadn't converted till much later in OTL, like Lithuania. Since there are no Crusades, this also rules out the Teutonic Knights, and slows the German eastward expansion.

3. More classical influence. Despite most people's perception of the Byzantine Empire eschewing all pre-Christian knowledge, they actually hung on to quite a bit of it (as did the West, for that matter, in a much more diluted form). With the original copies and monuments intact, I suspect Grecophile westerners will have an easier time absorbing pagan Greek traditions. Imagine a world where the Acropolis is full intact.

4. No Ottomans, at least as we know them. This in itself radically changes the history and ethnic make up of Eastern Europe, as well continental politics as a whole. The middle East would also be a vastly different place.

So, there you go. It's just a few thoughts, but hopefully you'll be able to play with them.

 

[Wendell]

Since we have largely ruled out Byzantine expansion southward into Muslim lands, how about future expansion devades or generations later to the north?

 

[Max Sinister]

They might try to expand on the Balcans, of course.

And I think the crusader states will be stronger: They don't have to fight their way through Anatolia, they can get more support from Byzantium...

 

[Borys]

Ahoj!
I do not believe there would be any Crusader States. The crusade was a snowballed reaction to a Byzantine appeal for volunteers to fight the Seldjuks.
No Manzikert - no loss of Anatolia, which historically supplied the Empire with soldiers - no appeal to the West.

I now see another potential side effect - a faster Reconquista. Part of those who would had gone to the East (no allure of Holy Land, so fewer) go to Spain.

Borys

 

[Wendell]

They might try to expand on the Balcans, of course.

And I think the crusader states will be stronger: They don't have to fight their way through Anatolia, they can get more support from Byzantium...

I was thinking that the Byzantines might expand into the Caucasus and what is today southern Russia and Ukraine.

 

[Keenir]

And I think the crusader states will be stronger: They don't have to fight their way through Anatolia, they can get more support from Byzantium...

why would Byzantium help them?

 

[Borys]

They also didn't really have any desire to rule Muslim populations, and by this period Syria and Egypt are overwhelmingly Muslim. They also don't have the power-projection capabilities to even think about conquering Egypt.

Well, the lack of desire to rule Muslim populations did not prevent the conquest of Cilicia, where AFAIK a "convert or leave" policy was implemented.
Please define "overwhelmingly" - combined Syria+Lebanon today has some 15% Christians - it is likely that around 1100 this percentage was same, or higher. Before Manzikert, since 969 they have held Antioch and a swath of northern Syria. Also, the Byzantines had the option of reversing the Edict of Ummar, which would do wonders - from their viepoint - about the "overwhelmingly Muslim" issue.

I do not comment on Egypt, as I know nothing about it. I am talking about Syria (the historical Syria, not today's Syrian Republic).

Borys

 

[Max Sinister]

@Keenir: Because they were Christians too, and had the Seljuks as a common enemy?

 

[Keenir]

@Keenir: Because they were Christians too,

*politely laughs maniacally*

and had the Seljuks as a common enemy?

if the Seljuks lost Anatolia, how exactly would they be a threat to a bunch of Frenchmen considerably south of Anatolia?

 

[Archangel Michael]

@Keenir: Because they were Christians too, and had the Seljuks as a common enemy?

The Crusaders didn't think of the Byzantines as fellow Christians. The Fourth Crusade, despite a different goal when they set out, ended up attacking Constantinople.