IMO the more interesting POD would not be the lack of loss at Manzikert, but better handling of the aftermath of Manzikert. If, say, Michael VII was to abide by the treaty made by Romanus, Manzikert would have been a mere footnote in Byzantine history, as it is not the battle itself, but the handling of its outcome that resulted in such a disaster.
However, if we are to go with Byzantine victory at Manzikert, let's just say they win it in some shape or form - perhaps Andronikos Doukas does move his troops forward like he was supposed to, and attack the already engaged Seljuks, resulting in annihilation or otherwise defeat of the Seljuks. Abdul is correct in saying that the Seljuk Empire will not be defeated if somehow Asp Arslan is beaten - it might redirect Seljuk expansionism, but not much more. After all, the Seljuks apparently were quite interested in Fatimid Egypt at the time, and as such, defeat at Manzikert might simply reroute their expansionism towards Egypt, which was apparently their original intention anyway.
Romanus is unlikely to stay on the throne for very long though. He has too many enemies, and the first slip-up will result in him being dethroned. Even if he does NOT slip up, he is still running a very high risk of being assassinated, or otherwise plotted against. So, even with victory at Manzikert and no military disasters, I don't see Romanus lasting past 1180 barring a miracle. But then, he can undo at least some of the damage, to where the thematic system left to his successor is going to be fully functional again.
If his successor is Alexios Komnenos, then he should be able to do something with it... the problem with Alexios (and his entire dynasty) is the nepotism, resulting in further "Westernization" of Byzantine power structure, and eventual feudalization of the Empire. But then, if the theme system is working, then perhaps Alexios will not end up doing the same as in OTL... and with no loss of Anatolia, there will be no need for calling for Crusades.
I still see the Crusades happening at some point soon, but the exact specifics might be different, and the Crusaders are more likely than not to take a naval route, if Byzantium is still strong, and unwilling to yield. With Alexios at helm, it is almost a certainty, since, unlike OTL, he will not need the Crusaders, and they will be a major distraction.
The problem with Byzantium at the time was a rather unique set of circumstances that were created out of the end of the Macedonian dynasty. If Alexios is enthroned with no Manzikert, Byzantium is almost certainly not going to suffer the same kind of problems as before. Considering that if there is no Michael Parapinaces, it could lessen the Norman involvement in the Imperial affairs (he was used as an excuse to get involved by the Guiscards).
In other words, the next Imperial project is likely to be a move to reconquer Italy/Sicily. When the Empire that was NOT damaged by Manzikert is going to have a go at it... anything can happen. Beyond that it is hard to say. Just because the circumstances of the XIth century were unique does not mean they cannot be repeated, and that another Manzikert later will not occur, spurring another reversal in the Imperial fortunes.
However, if we are to go with Byzantine victory at Manzikert, let's just say they win it in some shape or form - perhaps Andronikos Doukas does move his troops forward like he was supposed to, and attack the already engaged Seljuks, resulting in annihilation or otherwise defeat of the Seljuks. Abdul is correct in saying that the Seljuk Empire will not be defeated if somehow Asp Arslan is beaten - it might redirect Seljuk expansionism, but not much more. After all, the Seljuks apparently were quite interested in Fatimid Egypt at the time, and as such, defeat at Manzikert might simply reroute their expansionism towards Egypt, which was apparently their original intention anyway.
Romanus is unlikely to stay on the throne for very long though. He has too many enemies, and the first slip-up will result in him being dethroned. Even if he does NOT slip up, he is still running a very high risk of being assassinated, or otherwise plotted against. So, even with victory at Manzikert and no military disasters, I don't see Romanus lasting past 1180 barring a miracle. But then, he can undo at least some of the damage, to where the thematic system left to his successor is going to be fully functional again.
If his successor is Alexios Komnenos, then he should be able to do something with it... the problem with Alexios (and his entire dynasty) is the nepotism, resulting in further "Westernization" of Byzantine power structure, and eventual feudalization of the Empire. But then, if the theme system is working, then perhaps Alexios will not end up doing the same as in OTL... and with no loss of Anatolia, there will be no need for calling for Crusades.
I still see the Crusades happening at some point soon, but the exact specifics might be different, and the Crusaders are more likely than not to take a naval route, if Byzantium is still strong, and unwilling to yield. With Alexios at helm, it is almost a certainty, since, unlike OTL, he will not need the Crusaders, and they will be a major distraction.
The problem with Byzantium at the time was a rather unique set of circumstances that were created out of the end of the Macedonian dynasty. If Alexios is enthroned with no Manzikert, Byzantium is almost certainly not going to suffer the same kind of problems as before. Considering that if there is no Michael Parapinaces, it could lessen the Norman involvement in the Imperial affairs (he was used as an excuse to get involved by the Guiscards).
In other words, the next Imperial project is likely to be a move to reconquer Italy/Sicily. When the Empire that was NOT damaged by Manzikert is going to have a go at it... anything can happen. Beyond that it is hard to say. Just because the circumstances of the XIth century were unique does not mean they cannot be repeated, and that another Manzikert later will not occur, spurring another reversal in the Imperial fortunes.
