No protacted civil war after Manzikert

This isn't a "Byzantium wins at Manzikert" thread. There are a freaking ton of them. Rather, this asks what if, instead of the likes of Mikhael VII or Nikephoros III, the throne in Constantinople had been quickly seized by someone of comparable quality to Alexios I Komnenos. Not the man himself, probably, since he would still be a teenager, but I'm sure you get the idea.

The point is, how bad would the defeat at Manzikert in itself have been if Byzantium had had decent leadership in the years immediately following it and not had to endure civil unrest?

Edit: And yes, I had a typo while spelling protracted. Too bad the forum doesn't let you edit your titles, huh?
 
Last edited:
Manzikert would probably have ranked as a humiliating mauling, somewhat comparable, perhaps, to the Battle of Akhelous in the tenth century. Certainly, without the civil wars, you won't see the Turks being set up in Anatolian cities as mercenaries of various pretenders.
 
Wouldn't the death of Romanos in the battle of Mantzikert be the easiest way to prevent civil war?
However i think the civil war was just the sign of the growing nobility in the provinces, so let Michael take the route of Alexios and combine the two most powerfull clans in the Empire to get a new powerbase by marrying another woman preferably a Komena.
 
Top