trajen777
Banned
Very good comments At-Bari. I agree I have always loved history and became fascinated with the Byzantine Empire in college when I first learned it was truly the Roman empire and lasted for another 1000 years after the “Fall Of Rome”. I think for the Alt Hist people you have so many times where a relatively simple thing happening could change the course of History.
- No Plague of Justinian
- Justin sending reinforcements to Italy vs. starting a war with Persia
- Maurice not being overthrown in 602 and finishing the conquest of the Balkans and then moving forces to Italy to conquer the Lombard’s
- The second Roman army driving towards the Yarmuk not withdrawing back to Antioch but instead supporting the Byzantines at Yarmuk
- One I plan on writing on – John Tzmines not dieing on his way back to Constantinople but living 10 – 15 more years. He had received the submission of Damascus on his way back.
- Basil 2 has a solid heir
- John Manikies lives and becomes emperor in 1045
- The first Commenius does not abdicate in 1060 but stays as emperor and finishes the army reform
- Alexious focuses on reclaiming Anatolia for the 2nd part of his reign or supports the 1st crusade and incorporates the conquests into feudal areas
- No Revolution after Manzikert for 20 years
- Etc etc etc
Interesting comments on the battles of Manzikert. If you read some of the early historians you get the “complete destruction of the Byzantine Army”. Newer interpretations attest to minimal losses. Losses with focused on the right flank and some of the center, while the left flank and the reserve withdrew with no losses. In addition many reports have the southern covering forces never involved in the fight and a significant force sent to forage into Georgia
The most plausible event seems to be is : And remember Romanus had defeated the Turks twice before over 3 years
So you have 60,000 – 24,000 detached troops = 36,000. Figure 2,000 flanking support troops and 5,000 camp troops leaves 29,000 troops left. Suppose the first and 2nd line are equal in strength so 14,500 per line and each of the two lines have three parts so 4,800 each. So the rear and left flank withdraw + camp with virtually no causalities = 9,600 left and lets be aggressive and suppose the Right flank gets hit with 20% losses (very high for this stage of warfare). So casualties would be for the Right flank 4,800 *20% = 960 + lets assume 80% of center killed or captured: 4,800 *.8 =3,840 and lets assume ½ of these were captures and released with Romanus or 1,920.
So we end up with 960 from the Right and 1,920 from the Center killed = 2,880 in total. Even if you said the entire center (4,800 + ½ right 2.400) and ½ of the right were killed you still have 7,000 killed out of 60,000 in the fight.
The real disaster was the revolution after.
As to the Byzantines winning:
The Turks could no thave been pinned down the best you could hope for is over awing the Turks to the point of them withdrawing from Anatolia and focusing on there real enemy Bagdad for the next 5 years. So:
If Andronicus had supported Romanus and the Byzantines had won I think you would have had ;
- No Plague of Justinian
- Justin sending reinforcements to Italy vs. starting a war with Persia
- Maurice not being overthrown in 602 and finishing the conquest of the Balkans and then moving forces to Italy to conquer the Lombard’s
- The second Roman army driving towards the Yarmuk not withdrawing back to Antioch but instead supporting the Byzantines at Yarmuk
- One I plan on writing on – John Tzmines not dieing on his way back to Constantinople but living 10 – 15 more years. He had received the submission of Damascus on his way back.
- Basil 2 has a solid heir
- John Manikies lives and becomes emperor in 1045
- The first Commenius does not abdicate in 1060 but stays as emperor and finishes the army reform
- Alexious focuses on reclaiming Anatolia for the 2nd part of his reign or supports the 1st crusade and incorporates the conquests into feudal areas
- No Revolution after Manzikert for 20 years
- Etc etc etc
Interesting comments on the battles of Manzikert. If you read some of the early historians you get the “complete destruction of the Byzantine Army”. Newer interpretations attest to minimal losses. Losses with focused on the right flank and some of the center, while the left flank and the reserve withdrew with no losses. In addition many reports have the southern covering forces never involved in the fight and a significant force sent to forage into Georgia
The most plausible event seems to be is : And remember Romanus had defeated the Turks twice before over 3 years
- Romanus advanced to Manzikert for a base to attack the Turks in Persia with lets say 60,000 men. He needed a victory to keep his crown
- He captures manzikert and sends forces South to cover his flank and capture another town (lets say 12,000 (most reports) these forces after learning of the Turk advance with draw West and not in support of Romanus without telling Romanus of the advance.
- Romanus sends 17,000 ( Treadgood) into Georgia to find supplies
- The Turks appear
- He fights an all day battle in good order but the light Turk Calvary cannot be pinned down. The Turks inflict few causalities because of the long range fighting. Foot bowman (majority of Byzantine Infantry) shooting from a stable platform should keep the Turkish light cavalry at great distance.
- When Romanus reverses direction at days end there is confusion in the ranks.
- The reserve which was stationed to crush any forces which encircle the first line does not support Romanus but withdraws with the flank forces.
- The right flank had received some damage from the fighting – the Left was basically untouched. A portion of the center is encircled.
So you have 60,000 – 24,000 detached troops = 36,000. Figure 2,000 flanking support troops and 5,000 camp troops leaves 29,000 troops left. Suppose the first and 2nd line are equal in strength so 14,500 per line and each of the two lines have three parts so 4,800 each. So the rear and left flank withdraw + camp with virtually no causalities = 9,600 left and lets be aggressive and suppose the Right flank gets hit with 20% losses (very high for this stage of warfare). So casualties would be for the Right flank 4,800 *20% = 960 + lets assume 80% of center killed or captured: 4,800 *.8 =3,840 and lets assume ½ of these were captures and released with Romanus or 1,920.
So we end up with 960 from the Right and 1,920 from the Center killed = 2,880 in total. Even if you said the entire center (4,800 + ½ right 2.400) and ½ of the right were killed you still have 7,000 killed out of 60,000 in the fight.
The real disaster was the revolution after.
As to the Byzantines winning:
The Turks could no thave been pinned down the best you could hope for is over awing the Turks to the point of them withdrawing from Anatolia and focusing on there real enemy Bagdad for the next 5 years. So:
If Andronicus had supported Romanus and the Byzantines had won I think you would have had ;
- Romanus would have had 2 – 3 years to finish retraining the Themes which was really the only effective way to stop the Turkish raiders. You needed a defense in depth to with this war (very similar to the victory over the Arab raiders in the 860’s – 960’s) not static armies. The Turks should have been as easy or as difficult as the Byzantines fighting the Arabs and in the end the defence in depth and the Themes would have done well
- Stabilization on the Eastern front
- And then the whole question over whether to try and retake Southern Italy or press on against the coastline of Syria?