No Mantzikert disaster?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Agree partially Abdul... But what about the religious feeling? By havong Holy Lands under Muslim occupation was an insult to the christian world...
Nicephorus II and Basileius II were deeply religious... as ALexius Comnenus was maybe in an ATL religious fervor was the motive for a campaign against Muslims in Syria and Palestine...

Was Basil religious? He never married, IF you know what I mean. But the Byzantines were before anything practical people. There were just too many higher priorities for the empire than trying to rebuild something that was gone forever - much better to concentrate on what they had. That means establishing a powerful defensive line in Armenia, and another in the Balkans, and a third in Italy. After that they can consider incremental expansion - but I think consolidating their position would be a full-time occupation. But imagine, an empire covering Anatolia, Armenia, the Balkans, and Southern Italy/Sicily is going to be a huge power and a major player in world affairs. After the Mongols, there really isn't another mortal threat to worry about, and I can't see any reason why they couldn't have made it to the present. After all, France did...

 

[Faeelin]

Italy/Sicily is going to be a huge power and a major player in world affairs. After the Mongols, there really isn't another mortal threat to worry about, and I can't see any reason why they couldn't have made it to the present. After all, France did...

I dunno. Turkey, Greece, and Sicily don't seem to be the heartlands of mighty empires today...

 

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Not marrying is a religiios, pious act. Celibacy, not giving in to the cravings of the flesh, that sort of thing.

But after thinking some things over I more or less agree with you. If "no Menzikert disaster" is understood as "more less inconclusive encounter with Seljuks, with no loss of Emperor and Anatolia", then I forsee:
- 150 year long (until the Mongols come) holding war against the Seljuks in Armenia and Syria, with border rather static
- a fight to keep South Italy
- static border in the Balkans, but more influence in Hungary and Venice

That is the "least positive scenario".
What would the Komnenes achieve, with a much better starting point?


These are the immediate effects on the Roman Empire. But effects are all over the place:
- I do not expect Crusades to happen at all
- no rise of Italian merchant city states, or much weaker than in OTL
- Great Schism or not, the Emperors will try to remind the Popes who is boss; exiling a Pope to the Crimea happened just a generation ago
- will there be a Canossa, which defines Western Orthdox Christianity versus Eastern Orthodox Christianity


Like I said at the very begining of the thread, Menzikert shaped our world much more than many better known battles

I agree that with no Menzikert there is high likelihood that the Double Headed Eagle would still be flying over Constantinople.

Borys

 

[Ran Exilis]

The whole Seljuk empire (under Saladin frex) was a lot bigger than just the Rum-Seljuk empire.

Err..., as I remember, Saladin wasn't with the Seljuk anymore after he got his own realm...

To my knowledge, there has never been a ruler of a united Great Seljuk empire named Saladin.

In fact, the united Great Seljuk empire didn't last very long; from 1055 to 1092, after which it fell apart, and there have been only three rulers who precided over a united Great Seljuk Empire (Toghrul Beg, Alp Arslan and Malik Shah I).

There may have been a ruler of one of the many Seljuk successor states (aside from the famous Ayyubid Saladin, of course) called Saladin or Salah ad-Din, but there never was a Saladin who ruled over a united Great Seljuk empire.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I dunno. Turkey, Greece, and Sicily don't seem to be the heartlands of mighty empires today...

That doesn't really matter, as none of them are united into a single empire today. Put half of Italy with Turkey, Greece, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, and Bulgaria, give them a unitary culture, and don't depopulate them with warfare and I think you have a pretty respectable power.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Ahoj!
Not marrying is a religiios, pious act. Celibacy, not giving in to the cravings of the flesh, that sort of thing.

If you're Roman Catholic. The Orthodox aren't as big into that thing.

 

[antisocrates]

I'm not sure if a victory here would make much difference in the long run. The Byzantine state was coming into various troubles by them, some of them due to Basil's imperial overreach, and I doubt a single military victory would cure it of its internal and external troubles. The civil vs. military conflict would still go on, as would the aristocratic vs. imperial authority conflict. And the Slavs, as well as various Turkish groups, would still be just as relentless in pushing into Byzantine frontiers. Taking the best case scenario, the fall of the Seljuk state after manzikert would simply allow another Turkish group to wage jihad against the Byzantines.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I'm not sure if a victory here would make much difference in the long run. The Byzantine state was coming into various troubles by them, some of them due to Basil's imperial overreach, and I doubt a single military victory would cure it of its internal and external troubles. The civil vs. military conflict would still go on, as would the aristocratic vs. imperial authority conflict. And the Slavs, as well as various Turkish groups, would still be just as relentless in pushing into Byzantine frontiers. Taking the best case scenario, the fall of the Seljuk state after manzikert would simply allow another Turkish group to wage jihad against the Byzantines.

Imperial overreach? I think Basil had very sensible borders in mind. Keep in mind that the Seljuks had no interest in Anatolia - it was just the dismantling of the defenses of the east for reasons of economy that made raids so easy and the Seljuks unable to control the unruly Turocmans. A victory and formal peace agreement with Arp Arslan would have created a breathing space for the empire and perhaps shunted Turcomans toward easier targets.

I agree with you that the empire still has big problems, but I don't think they're insoluble so long as nobody has delusions of grandeur and tries to invade Syria and Egypt.

 

[antisocrates]

Imperial overreach? I think Basil had very sensible borders in mind. Keep in mind that the Seljuks had no interest in Anatolia - it was just the dismantling of the defenses of the east for reasons of economy that made raids so easy and the Seljuks unable to control the unruly Turocmans. A victory and formal peace agreement with Arp Arslan would have created a breathing space for the empire and perhaps shunted Turcomans toward easier targets.

I agree with you that the empire still has big problems, but I don't think they're insoluble so long as nobody has delusions of grandeur and tries to invade Syria and Egypt.

I was thinking of his long campaign in Bulgaria and the plan to retake Byzantie Italy before his death. I agree that his borders in Asia Minor was sensible, though I do think that directly annexing Armenia was a mistake; vassalage worked well enough, better I think than direct rule.
P.S. Delusions of grandeur, unfortunately, are facts of life in monarchies. The Conmemni were rather sensible lot, but that didn't stop Manuel from wasting his time on Hungarian/European dream projects at the expense of his more pressing problems in Anatolia.

 

[Midgard]

I was thinking of his long campaign in Bulgaria and the plan to retake Byzantie Italy before his death. I agree that his borders in Asia Minor was sensible, though I do think that directly annexing Armenia was a mistake; vassalage worked well enough, better I think than direct rule.
P.S. Delusions of grandeur, unfortunately, are facts of life in monarchies. The Conmemni were rather sensible lot, but that didn't stop Manuel from wasting his time on Hungarian/European dream projects at the expense of his more pressing problems in Anatolia.

First, Bulgaria was an example of campaign that was actually done with economics in mind. He did not move overly fast, secured the areas as not to have to rebuild them time after time after time, and did it without extreme sap of resources and manpower. Which is also why when Tzimisces conquered Bulgaria, it fell away within a few years, whereas Basil's Bulgaria stayed in the Empire for 160 years after Basil's death.

Second, while Italy was more or less of a white elephant conquest under the Komneni (who, as you correctly assume, had a much more pressing issue in Asia Minor), under Basil and his immediate successors it actually made pretty good sense to go after Italy and Sicily. If Byzantium's core territories are secure, Italy is not only boasting a large Orthodox Greek population in parts Basil was interested in, but was also quite rich to justify conquest from the profits the province was going to give to the Empire. Finally, Italy can be rather defensible if one controls the seas, and occupies some strategic points - besides, if one is in control of Durazzo and Epiros area, it is not that hard to send reinforcements to Italy providing one has good enough naval power.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I was thinking of his long campaign in Bulgaria and the plan to retake Byzantie Italy before his death. I agree that his borders in Asia Minor was sensible, though I do think that directly annexing Armenia was a mistake; vassalage worked well enough, better I think than direct rule.
P.S. Delusions of grandeur, unfortunately, are facts of life in monarchies. The Conmemni were rather sensible lot, but that didn't stop Manuel from wasting his time on Hungarian/European dream projects at the expense of his more pressing problems in Anatolia.

Annexing Armenia wouldn't have been a mistake if Constantine X hadn't dismantled the army guarding it!

 

[Max Sinister]

"Not marrying is a religiios, pious act. Celibacy, not giving in to the cravings of the flesh, that sort of thing."

If you're Roman Catholic. The Orthodox aren't as big into that thing.

AFAIK the Russian Orthodox have monks who mustn't marry too, although their priests can be married.

 

[Midgard]

"Not marrying is a religiios, pious act. Celibacy, not giving in to the cravings of the flesh, that sort of thing."


AFAIK the Russian Orthodox have monks who mustn't marry too, although their priests can be married.

Correct. While the priests are allowed to marry, there are some groups that take upon themselves a vow of celibacy, amongst other things (the so-called "starchestvo", from "starets" - literally meaning "old man", but often having connotations of wisdom; they were generally setting up their own monasteries, and some exist to this day).

 

[Borys]

If you're Roman Catholic. The Orthodox aren't as big into that thing.

At the time of Basil it was a single - Catholic and Orthodox - Church.
Borys

 

[Ran Exilis]

At the time of Basil it was a single - Catholic and Orthodox - Church.
Borys

That's very true, but even before the Great Schism there were still significant differences between the Latin and Greek rites.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

At the time of Basil it was a single - Catholic and Orthodox - Church.
Borys

That's kind of splitting hairs - the differences go waaaayyyyyy back, and we're talking about the whole celibacy thing.

 

[Leo Caesius]

AFAIK the Russian Orthodox have monks who mustn't marry too, although their priests can be married.

Well, the monks who take a vow of celibacy are generally ascetic and therefore the celibacy thing is part of the whole asceticism package. Certainly priests have the option of remaining celibate, but it doesn't seem to be all that popular. In my experience, the ones that remain celibate seem to get on the fast track to become bishops, whereas those who work at the community level often seem to be family men (which is not a bad thing, IMHO). In any case, we're talking priests and monks here, not laymen like the emperor.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Well, the monks who take a vow of celibacy are generally ascetic and therefore the celibacy thing is part of the whole asceticism package. Certainly priests have the option of remaining celibate, but it doesn't seem to be all that popular. In my experience, the ones that remain celibate seem to get on the fast track to become bishops, whereas those who work at the community level often seem to be family men (which is not a bad thing, IMHO). In any case, we're talking priests and monks here, not laymen like the emperor.

Aren't all the bishops chosen from monks? I thought that was the case for the Greek Orthodox.

 

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Ascetism, celibacy, monks - all these are EASTERN inventions. Monks and hermits were runing amok in the Middle East by c.200 (kick off in 2nd part of 2nd century), making their first appearance in the West some 200 or more years later (depending on area - Italy - mid IVth, North Italy - late IVth, North Africa - early Vth century).

Look up the ancestors of Charles the Great. Arnulf makes interesting reading.

To sum up and clarify - in the Eastern Orthdox Church (I don't know about the other) AND Catholic Eastern Church a man is permitted to marry before taking his Priestly vows. And yes, he is stuck as a parochial priest until the end of his wordly career. Those who do not marry take additional vows of celibacy and enter a monastery. And they can become bishops etc.
OT - I consider this to be more sensible than the current Roman Catholic arrangement.

Borys

 

[abas]

Aren't all the bishops chosen from monks? I thought that was the case for the Greek Orthodox.

That is true. Bishops must keep celibacy and there are clear distinction between "white" (priests) and "black" (monks) clergy.