Why was Manzikert so disastrous

[Faeelin]

Something inspired by the despair on Paradox about how the Byzantines now usually lose to the Seljuks...

How important was Manzikert, really? I mean, the French recovered from Poiters, Crecy, and Agincourt; the Almohads and Almovarids defeated the Spanish Christians on several occassions, but they recovered.

Why did the Byzantines never recover from Manzikert? And how likely was their defeat to begin with?

 

[Woolly Mammoth]

Wasnt Manzikert a disaster not because of the battle itself but because it was the final thing that broke the ability of the empire to resist Turkish expantion into Anatolia and its ability to protect the key recruiting grounds from hordes of immigrating Turks.

 

[Tongera]

Something inspired by the despair on Paradox about how the Byzantines now usually lose to the Seljuks...

How important was Manzikert, really? I mean, the French recovered from Poiters, Crecy, and Agincourt; the Almohads and Almovarids defeated the Spanish Christians on several occassions, but they recovered.

Why did the Byzantines never recover from Manzikert? And how likely was their defeat to begin with?

It was the aftershock of what happened, the civil war and confusion. No civil war, no aboslute disaster.

 

[Basileus444]

What was so disastrous for the Byzantines wasn't the battle itself, but the aftermath. In the treaty between Emperor Romanos Diogenes and Alp Arslan, the Byzantines lost only a few border fortresses. But then both leaders die shortly afterwards, and the treaty dies with them. The Empire then chooses the worst time ever to go through a round of civil wars, and the Turks move in, in many cases invited in by Byzantine factions fighting in the civil wars.

It's similar to Myriocephalon. The battle itself isn't too damaging (although I consider Myriocephalon to be worse by itself), but in the aftermath weak Byzantine rulers, internal crises, and other foreign invasions prevent Constantinople from doing damage control.

 

[Tongera]

What was so disastrous for the Byzantines wasn't the battle itself, but the aftermath. In the treaty between Emperor Romanos Diogenes and Alp Arslan, the Byzantines lost only a few border fortresses. But then both leaders die shortly afterwards, and the treaty dies with them. The Empire then chooses the worst time ever to go through a round of civil wars, and the Turks move in, in many cases invited in by Byzantine factions fighting in the civil wars.

It's similar to Myriocephalon. The battle itself isn't too damaging (although I consider Myriocephalon to be worse by itself), but in the aftermath weak Byzantine rulers, internal crises, and other foreign invasions prevent Constantinople from doing damage control.

If they stabilise themselves in the aftermath, they can keep Anatolia? If so, what can the Kommenians do with the increased resources?

 

[Faeelin]

But the raids were already happening, and the Byzantines were already losing ground. This is what led to Manzikert, right?

In short, it seems like Manzikert was inevitable.

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

But the raids were already happening, and the Byzantines were already losing ground. This is what led to Manzikert, right?

In short, it seems like Manzikert was inevitable.

Defeat wasn't guaranteed. Romanos IV led a force of 40,000 disciplined and well equipped Byzantines to fight the raids. Had he given command of his flanks to a general who wasn't a Doukas the battle would have been won.

 

[Faeelin]

Defeat wasn't guaranteed. Romanos IV led a force of 40,000 disciplined and well equipped Byzantines to fight the raids. Had he given command of his flanks to a general who wasn't a Doukas the battle would have been won.

But who would that commander be? Manuel? Dude lost to the Seljuqs in 1069. Tarchaneiotes? He ran off or was defeated.

 

[Basileus444]

But the raids were already happening, and the Byzantines were already losing ground. This is what led to Manzikert, right?

In short, it seems like Manzikert was inevitable.

Romanos' political situation was shaky. He wanted one big victory to overawe his political enemies. So he staked everything on Manzikert...and lost.

Butterfly away the shaky political atmosphere after the collapse of the Macedonian dynasty, and the need for Manzikert disappears. Instead the Emperors could focus on rebuilding the theme forces and curtailing the raiding parties by harassing and destroying them like they did with the Arabs in the 800s. The earliest Turkish raids on Byzantine Armenia in the 1030s and 1040s were disasters...for the Turks. There are issues that need to be fixed, certainly, but none of them were fatal until the civil wars of the 1070s.

All the Empire really needs to do is stop permanent foreign settlement of Anatolia, which is what happened in the 1070s. Turkish raids are bearable, and can be tolerated while the institutions of the state are repaired to deal with them. That's the reason why the Turks succeeded and the Arabs failed. The Arabs never got beyond the 'raid' stage, and thus never managed to cripple the Empire.

@Tongera: My guess would be to try and squash the Normans and conquer Sicily. Although no disastrous 1070s would likely butterfly the Komnenid dynasty away. Basil II was preparing to invade Sicily when he died.

 

[Faeelin]

The earliest Turkish raids on Byzantine Armenia in the 1030s and 1040s were disasters...for the Turks. There are issues that need to be fixed, certainly, but none of them were fatal until the civil wars of the 1070s.

They captured Ezerum, Kars, Melitene, Sebastia, etc. in the years leading up to Manzikert.

 

[Elfwine]

Also, the Byzantines had to face several western problems during the reign of the Comneni (the next competent dynasty), so being able to focus on Anatolia being recovered was never really entirely possible.

Add in Manuel I blindly trusting that a nominal vassalization of Killij Arslan was enough and, well. . .

Also, speaking of internal problems: The old thematic system - and thus the better part of the defenses of Anatolia - was broken. Meanwhile, the regular army itself had been neglected and abused as well, thus the less than overwhelming force Romanus had at his disposal (this is not the army of a century ago, or even half a century ago - that army would not have come apart under Turkish horse archery).

So when the Turks swarm in, what's to stand in there way?

France never suffered such an invasion or such a loss of defenses - Agincourt, Crecy, Poitiers etc. are all bad, but they don't remove the kingdom's defenders or subject it to (at least) tens of thousands of squatters.

Meanwhile, Christian Spain did suffer this (the initial invasion) - it just happened that the limited foothold that survived was able to claw things back.

 

[Faeelin]

Also, the Byzantines had to face several western problems during the reign of the Comneni (the next competent dynasty), so being able to focus on Anatolia being recovered was never really entirely possible.

This wasn't the first time that the empire had problems on the western border, and it's not like the Seljuqs didn't have a similar problem, right?

Add in Manuel I blindly trusting that a nominal vassalization of Killij Arslan was enough and, well. . .

In 1071 you mean?

Meanwhile, Christian Spain did suffer this (the initial invasion) - it just happened that the limited foothold that survived was able to claw things back.

Sorry, I meant the medieval realms of Navarre, Leon, and Castille; not the Visigothic kingdom.

 

[Elfwine]

This wasn't the first time that the empire had problems on the western border, and it's not like the Seljuqs didn't have a similar problem, right?

It's not "troubles in the West" in and of itself, its just a particularly inconvenient time to have them - and Anatolia being lost is a significant blow to the Empire's resources. Not incurable, but bad enough for OTL.

As for the Seljuks: Sure. But the Seljuks and Danishmends and the other emirates who I can't remember the names of squabbling over Turkique just leaves the question of which Turkish group is the dominant presence, it doesn't get rid of the Turks.

In 1071 you mean?

No, in regards to why the damage was never undone.

Sorry, I meant the medieval realms of Navarre, Leon, and Castille; not the Visigothic kingdom.

I know you did. I'm pointing out that the Reconquestia is the remains of the Visigothic kingdom reforged into those kingdoms doing what the Byzantines never managed.

Btu most of Iberia was overrun, in circumstances like how the Turks overrun Anatolia, it just happened to be reversed.

 

[Faeelin]

I suppose I should be honest why I'm asking this.

There's some debate on the paradox forums about how unfair it is that the game is now buffing the Seljuqs to try to make Manzikert more historical.

My contention, which I think a lot of people miss, is that by 1071 the empire was a paper tiger in a lot of ways; but equally importantly, the Seljuqs were a formidable fighting force. So, starting with a machine to run the years 1065 to 1075, something like Manzikert is more probable than not.

 

[Elfwine]

I suppose I should be honest why I'm asking this.

There's some debate on the paradox forums about how unfair it is that the game is now buffing the Seljuqs to try to make Manzikert more historical.

My contention, which I think a lot of people miss, is that by 1071 the empire was a paper tiger in a lot of ways; but equally importantly, the Seljuqs were a formidable fighting force. So, starting with a machine to run the years 1065 to 1075, something like Manzikert is more probable than not.

Personally, I think the most likely outcome -assuming OTL figures doing largely OTL things (meaning, we do represent the disloyalty of the Ducas and so on), is a defeat along the lines of Romanus's treaty, possibly up to losing part of eastern Anatolia (as well as Armenia).

But - this from experience only with CK1, not 2 yet - "Seljuks run over all of Anatolia" is inappropriate, as it took circumstances that should be less related to buffing the Seljuks and more to something that I don't know if CK models allowing them to do even more. If the game produces Turkish conquest of Anatolia by virtue of "Even if there is organized opposition it fails" (which tends to be the case in game), I would disagree - it was precisely because organized opposition wasn't there that OTL happened, not because the Seljuks were unstoppable.

 

[John Farson]

Didn't a large part of the Byzantine force in Manzikert consist of foreign mercenaries? They would not have been as reliable as native Byzantine troops (apart from the ones under Doukas' command, who were unreliable to begin with).

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

Just wait for BG to show up

 

[Elfwine]

Didn't a large part of the Byzantine force in Manzikert consist of foreign mercenaries? They would not have been as reliable as native Byzantine troops (apart from the ones under Doukas' command, who were unreliable to begin with).

I think so. Although they shouldn't have behaved this poorly.

 

[Faeelin]

I think so. Although they shouldn't have behaved this poorly.

Again, were they really behaving poorly? Plenty of western forces were defeated by the Seljuqs in this period, although there were also times when they won.

 

[Elfwine]

Again, were they really behaving poorly? Plenty of western forces were defeated by the Seljuqs in this period, although there were also times when they won.

A defeat where the army lead out in the morning can be described as "ceasing to exist" by evening is a pretty bad performance by that army in most cases.

The Seljuks being a tough opponent is one factor, the Byzantine army unraveling is another, and the fact both happened is how we get Manzikert.