No Manzikert, no Crusade?

If the battle of Manzikert is avoided (Arp Aslan never wanted battle) and a peace settlement is acheived between the Romans and the Turks, would the 1st Crusade happen? How long before it would, if it happens at all?
 
It could go either way, depending if Byzantines hold after the PoD, and about the brutality of Turkish conquests in Syria.

The social and intellectual ground for Crusades was already there (roughly, the mutual adaptation of milities and clerical conceptions, with the former violence was legitimized trough adoption of religious motives).
Armed pilgrimages, and blessed expeditions against Muslims were already a thing in Spain and Italy.
Of course the much stronger role of papacy and clergy after the Peace of God movements greatly helped the pope to preach and be heard.

That said, Crusades eventually were a qualitative change : it was no longer about defending a precise region, or protecting a pilgrimage, but being the pilgrimage on a far region without that obvious gains (the possibility to gain lands and wealth in East wasn't new, such as Roussel de Bailleul's objectives); but crusading yourself was really expensive, hence the role of great princes) and concerning the whole of Christiendom.

Without Byzantine collapse on Anatolia, and the increased dangers of pilgrimages, you would probably butterfly the First Crusade away.
Does that means that Byzantine would always stand its ground?
That's another question, but if you let the situation favourable enough for divised feudal power being takenover by royal authority, you'd at least butterfly most of Crusade aspects; namely the importance given to great princes against kings and emperors and at least, move towards a 3rd Crusade conception (if not one such as Saint Louis promoted).

It wouldn't butterfly away religious or semi-religious expeditions, but these would be definitely more tied to immediate and regional interests.
 
Considering that Manzikert was one of those battles that really -could- have gone either way, it's a little dubious to say one way or the other.

I think we would still have had crusades for the Holy Land, just with different circumstances providing 'justification' for doing so.

The Seljuks were out for Roman blood. Alp Arslan will not be deterred so easily---Anatolia was rich, and he knew that, and he (and his clan) wanted it. The Romans at this time were ruled by the totally incompetent Doukids, and even if Romanos manages to beat the Seljuks (necessitates a number of things to magically go in his favor that didn't IOTL; such as losing half his army before the actual battle, or his biggest political enemy initiating a premature retreat, taking his part of the army with him) at Manzikert, there will likely still be another 'Manzikert', if you follow. The ERE was a shaky house of cards in the 1060s/70s, and all that was needed was one staggering defeat to knock it down.
 

Deleted member 67076

The Seljuks were out for Roman blood. Alp Arslan will not be deterred so easily---Anatolia was rich, and he knew that, and he (and his clan) wanted it. The Romans at this time were ruled by the totally incompetent Doukids, and even if Romanos manages to beat the Seljuks (necessitates a number of things to magically go in his favor that didn't IOTL; such as losing half his army before the actual battle, or his biggest political enemy initiating a premature retreat, taking his part of the army with him) at Manzikert, there will likely still be another 'Manzikert', if you follow. The ERE was a shaky house of cards in the 1060s/70s, and all that was needed was one staggering defeat to knock it down.
Aslan was mostly focused on securing Fatimid Egypt. If his initial campaign goes wrong in Anatolia, its much more likely he'd focus the Turkish raids onto the Levant and Egypt. The Romans may have been a paper tiger at the time, but no one knew it. You have a successful Manzikert you keep and reinforce that outward appearance of superiority, and that's going to convince people to attack them all the more harder.
 
If Andronikos stays to fight Manzikert because he thinks he can steal the glory then the Byzantines could have won
 
I've recently read a book that says that Anatolia was lost in the early 1090s, not before Alexios came to power in 1981.

If that is the case then perhaps Manzikert isn't a direct cause of the Turkish takeover of Anatolia and it still occurs without victory at Manzikert, which means there will still be a good chance of a Crusade.
 
If that is the case then perhaps Manzikert isn't a direct cause of the Turkish takeover of Anatolia and it still occurs without victory at Manzikert, which means there will still be a good chance of a Crusade.
Without a defeat at Manzikert, no capture of Romanos, no generalized civil war, and far less possibilities for Turks to advance in Anatolia, less opportunities for Normans to take advantage, that wouldn't lead to byzantine ambassadors at Piacenza calling for support.

(In fact, probably no that warmer relationship between Papacy and Constantinople to begin with, giving the lack of political motivation to do so, without Norman attack on Balkans at least)

While Turks didn't took over the region right after the battle, it was decisive regarding their conquests there, and eventually the motivations of the First Crusade.
 
Aslan was mostly focused on securing Fatimid Egypt. If his initial campaign goes wrong in Anatolia, its much more likely he'd focus the Turkish raids onto the Levant and Egypt. The Romans may have been a paper tiger at the time, but no one knew it. You have a successful Manzikert you keep and reinforce that outward appearance of superiority, and that's going to convince people to attack them all the more harder.

But it -had- gone wrong, several times in fact, prior to Manzikert. If he didn't care that much, why keep coming back?
 
Not to dismiss the question, but wouldn't no East-West Schism have a bigger impact?

Probably not. See, the 1054 schism was only but one crisis between Latin and Greek churches, between monothelism and the sack of Constantinople. It concerned mainly already distinguished rites and elites, but it had no real definitive outcome (hence the collaboration between Urban and Alexis).

Without mutual excommunication (of dubious legality), you'd still end with a more or less similar situation, especially if Normans still threaten both Papacy and Byzantium.
 

Deleted member 67076

But it -had- gone wrong, several times in fact, prior to Manzikert. If he didn't care that much, why keep coming back?
To get rid of annoying tribesman before they started messing things up in Persia. However, there was never a time that, to my knowledge, Aslan was among them. He was always more focused on taking Egypt.
 

trajen777

Banned
Manzikert was an interesting battle. In the 3 years before the Byz had outmaneuvered the turks back out of Anatolia. Romanus had built some form of a strong force including good troops (Tagmata and the merc) and partially trained troops (Themes). Each year the long disused themes were becoming better armed and trained and experienced. He needed a major victory for legitimacy. Alp was more interested in fighting Egypt. However his loose configuration of Turkman kept him from stopping raids across the border.
Review : Romanus marched with perhaps 50,000 (Treadwell) troops and seized Manzikert easily. He then dispatched troops both south and west for forage and to try and seize other strong points. So when battle was joined each force was 20 – 25,000 strong. The troops send south did see Alps troops but retreated away from the Byz forces and sent no warning. As Treadwell says “part of a larger conspiracy”. IN the battle Andronicus ended the fighting by withdrawing the 2nd line leaving the center front line surrounded. After the battle the end line – and wings had light casualties. And in fact were fighting soon after in other campaigns. It was the resulting 10 year civil war and then battles with the Sicilians which left the Empire in such a disaster.
So if Manzikert did not happen then I see two potential outcomes :
1. Romanus gets overthrown – and Docus family screws things up
2. Over the next 2- 5 years the Eastern Themes are trained and brought up to speed. The 50,000 man Armenian themes are rebuilt and the informal warfare that the Themes were outstanding against vs the Moslems in the past recurs and Anatolia does not fall.
3. After the East is secure then the Byz reclaim or try and reclaim their lost Sicilian lands (lost 1068
4. The Crusades do not happen or if they do will have Roman leadership with a sizeable Byz force which then creates a good relationship with the west
 
Top