The state of Byzantium in 1180, upon Manuel I's death...

Byzantium can recover Anatolia up until 1204, really, at which point it would take a series of miracles.

What you need to do is have them take Iconium and the center of the Sultanate of Rum, which is quite the problem.... as long as richer Syria is around, Central Anatolia will always take second priority. This is true of almost all Komnenid rulers, including Alexios, John, AND Manuel. Antioch in particular held huge importance to them, as both a cultural and economic center.

Still, an invasion of Central Anatolia with the intention of annexation is pretty likely at some point, you just have to make sure it's not too late. Around the time of the death of John, the Turks in Anatolia were especially weak, having fought a large civil war and not really having any one leader to effectively unite them (Sure, Iconium was de jure the power, but you had rulers in Sivas or elsewhere who didn't really care). By time of Myriocephalon, this had changed, and the Roman state had grown weaker at the same time thanks to Manuel's policies.

I think the failings of Manuel have already been discussed. Yet, there were so many problems in Rome that would need decisive action to go away- namely the growing power of the nobility. Giving the Roman Empire some pretext to invade Central Anatolia will make outside threats diminish, but you have to deal with problems inwardly as well if you want Rome to actually recover from Manzikert.
 
The first thing they should do is become enthusiastic supporters of the Crusade and join in the attack on the Turks. Instead, on the Second Crusade, Manuel made a truce with them. This is cowardice and betrayal.

I'd like to see a new Byzantine Emperor more like John II Komnenos. I am sure he would have made the Crusade more to his advantage. He fought against the Turks with bravery and determination.

Just concentrating on this bit here for a moment. Manuel really didn't have a choice. He had two large foreign armies marching straight for his capital and the experience of the First Crusade strongly suggested they would not behave. Furthermore the Norman Sicilians were at this very point attacking Greece, counting on the crusading armies to keep Manuel distracted, and who had good relations with the French. He really needed one front to be quiet. John II would have done the exact same thing.
 
Iirc,a major reason why Manuel didn't try to channel the crusaders of the second crusade into attacking the Turks was because he just concluded a truce with the Turks recently.
Byzantium can recover Anatolia up until 1204, really, at which point it would take a series of miracles.

What you need to do is have them take Iconium and the center of the Sultanate of Rum, which is quite the problem.... as long as richer Syria is around, Central Anatolia will always take second priority. This is true of almost all Komnenid rulers, including Alexios, John, AND Manuel. Antioch in particular held huge importance to them, as both a cultural and economic center.

Still, an invasion of Central Anatolia with the intention of annexation is pretty likely at some point, you just have to make sure it's not too late. Around the time of the death of John, the Turks in Anatolia were especially weak, having fought a large civil war and not really having any one leader to effectively unite them (Sure, Iconium was de jure the power, but you had rulers in Sivas or elsewhere who didn't really care). By time of Myriocephalon, this had changed, and the Roman state had grown weaker at the same time thanks to Manuel's policies.

I think the failings of Manuel have already been discussed. Yet, there were so many problems in Rome that would need decisive action to go away- namely the growing power of the nobility. Giving the Roman Empire some pretext to invade Central Anatolia will make outside threats diminish, but you have to deal with problems inwardly as well if you want Rome to actually recover from Manzikert.
If only the ERE had some sort of civil service exam like the Tang Dynasty.Historically,the Tang Dynasty dealt with the issue of the nobility dominating the higher posts by introducing civil service exams aimed towards recruiting men of talent from all classes of society.
 
Last edited:
Byzantium can recover Anatolia up until 1204, really, at which point it would take a series of miracles.

I think this is a bit optimistic.

Personally, I think reconquest gets progressively less and less likely the further one gets from Manzikert in 1071. By the end of Alexios I Komnenos' reign (1118), the odds are pretty heavily against it. Nevertheless, it may just have been possible if John II Komnenos (1118-1143) had focused entirely on conquering central Anatolia, in a similar manner to Basil II in Bulgaria a century earlier.

By the time we get to 1204, I really can't see it happening at all - not after the disastrous misrule of the Angeloi. It still seems unlikely after the rule of Manuel (1180). I really think the emperor who comes after John II in 1143 is the last chance.

Giving the Roman Empire some pretext to invade Central Anatolia will make outside threats diminish, but you have to deal with problems inwardly as well if you want Rome to actually recover from Manzikert.

This is a very good point, I strongly agree.

In the long run, it's the internal health of a state that determines whether it expands or declines. We really need a ruler like Nikephoros I to reform the tax system, reinvigorate the economy, reform the bureaucracy, stamp out corruption and lead determined military campaigns to regain territory in central Anatolia. Given a ruler like that, it could surely be done.
 
Does anyone here play Medieval II Total War? I found the Byzantine campaign of the mod Broken Crescent very satisfying. Let's retake Konya for the empire! :)
 
It sounds as though Konya could have been taken by the Romans if a strong ruler such as Bela-Alexios of Hungary had succeeded Manuel, Doryleaum seems to have still been in Roman hands in 1180 correct? Working on a new Bela III of Rome/Hungary TL!
 
It sounds as though Konya could have been taken by the Romans if a strong ruler such as Bela-Alexios of Hungary had succeeded Manuel, Doryleaum seems to have still been in Roman hands in 1180 correct? Working on a new Bela III of Rome/Hungary TL!

Yes I think so. No western power would have dared to attack. That leaves the ongoing war with the Turks. A determined assault could well have succeeded, as indeed it did during the Third Crusade, which took Konya in 1190. Under a strong or even remotely competent emperor, Konya gets added to the empire. This leads to significant territorial gain in the south half of Anatolia, effectively adding the whole area to the Byzantine Empire. It then remains only to secure the area and mop up the territory to the north, in places like Ankara, Gangra, Niksar, Sivas and Amasya. But with the Sultanate knocked out by the loss of its capital, the Byzantines would be very much in the dominant position in Anatolia.
 
Top