Why was Manzikert so disastrous

Finally, about population density, I'm not sure I buy it. There are numerous examples of towns across Anatolia bursting out of their acropolis and recolonising the old Roman-era settlement with increasing frequency from the tenth century onward. Now, some of this growth can probably be explained by peasants from the countryside moving back into urban centres that were no longer targets for annual Arab raids, which could mean a (relatively) more empty countryside, but I do think that the idea of a depopulated Anatolia by the time of Romanos IV is probably a myth.
Agreed with this last. There's a general economic expansion at this time and expanding the development of agricultural lands is a part of it. It's little different than the expansion that took place in Catholic Europe during the 11th century except that the catholics were expanding into new areas where in the east it was expansion into areas that had been abandoned due to earlier depopulation. That usually doesn't signal population reduction.

It should be noted that evidence indicates that while sharecropping was growing in the period, it still provided the share-croppers more wealth than previous time periods and in some cases might have been a better deal than owning your own land.
 
Finally, about population density, I'm not sure I buy it. There are numerous examples of towns across Anatolia bursting out of their acropolis and recolonising the old Roman-era settlement with increasing frequency from the tenth century onward. Now, some of this growth can probably be explained by peasants from the countryside moving back into urban centres that were no longer targets for annual Arab raids, which could mean a (relatively) more empty countryside, but I do think that the idea of a depopulated Anatolia by the time of Romanos IV is probably a myth.

What happened to the people who inhabitated those towns, did they leave for safer places, away from the Turks? Did they stay in Anatolia?
 
It can but I was talking about the AI. 95% of the times the Byzantine Empire has it's capital somewhere other than Constantinople despite the Queen of Cities being part of the Empire. Which is ludicrous. Same with the UK having Dorset as it's capital in my current game while London is ruled by an ordinary Earl.

Consider it this way: The capital represents just where the Emperor is spending most of his time. Perhaps matters of importance are requiring them to handle matters in Bulgaria personally.
 
Consider it this way: The capital represents just where the Emperor is spending most of his time. Perhaps matters of importance are requiring them to handle matters in Bulgaria personally.

Yeah, but it (Constantinople) should still be in the imperial demense.

I disagree on London and Paris for France being "must be the capital", though. That was not a given.

Especially London.


Looking Byzantineward, it has to be asked why if the emperors between Basil II and Romanus IV weren't underwhelming why the Imperial army went from the force of the 1020s to . . . well, falling apart at Manzikert.

Given that the verdict seems to be that Romanus tried to make the military capable of accomplishing stuff, that indicates what he had to work with left something to be desired.

And whose fault is that?

Those emperors (either personally or their ministers) that people seem so eager to rehabilitate these days.

I'm not saying that Constantine IX (for instance) was all bad, but founding a school of law (or was that Constantine X?) over ensuring the frontiers are well guarded is not a good decision.
 
What happened to the people who inhabitated those towns, did they leave for safer places, away from the Turks? Did they stay in Anatolia?

Both plus quite a few probably wound up dead.

Plenty stayed, and ended up converting to Islam- plenty more fled West, which helped the Balkans become a lot more prosperous than they'd been since the Slavic and Avar devastation. Constantinople also probably reached its second population plateau after Manzikert, as a combined consequence of Anatolian refugees and general demographic expansion. Well, I think that's what I read, anyway.

Looking Byzantineward, it has to be asked why if the emperors between Basil II and Romanus IV weren't underwhelming why the Imperial army went from the force of the 1020s to . . . well, falling apart at Manzikert.
Well, the army didn't fall apart at Manzikert. Part of it defected and retreated, which allowed the Emperor to be captured, even though the majority of the army remained entirely intact. This had happened before in the Bulgarian wars against Simeon, and I see no-one criticising the military policies of Basil I or Leo the Wise. The real cause of destruction was the disastrous defeat suffered by Alexios at Dyrrachion a decade later.

Linked to that, isn't it interesting that several of the very greatest Eastern Emperors were so damn incompetent for their first decade on the throne? Heraclius, Basil II, Alexios...
 
Well, the army didn't fall apart at Manzikert. Part of it defected and retreated, which allowed the Emperor to be captured, even though the majority of the army remained entirely intact. This had happened before in the Bulgarian wars against Simeon, and I see no-one criticising the military policies of Basil I or Leo the Wise. The real cause of destruction was the disastrous defeat suffered by Alexios at Dyrrachion a decade later.

Linked to that, isn't it interesting that several of the very greatest Eastern Emperors were so damn incompetent for their first decade on the throne? Heraclius, Basil II, Alexios...

Would love to see some elaboration on that - I'm trying to find a modern source (and even if he wasn't an excellent example of an amateur scholar Norwich is not) describing it in detail.

And the Bulgarian wars don't see the Empire losing the better part of its territory within a decade either - and yes, civil wars are relevant, but that there was nothing like a united Imperial force in the East at all does not indicate the army is in good shape.

And Alexius's at Dyrrachion was operating with only the western forces, the surviving eastern tagmata having set up shop on their own if I'm not mistaken.
 
I'd dispute this analysis.

First of all, the weakness of the Empire in the decades after Basil is much exaggerated. Michael IV, who reigned from 1034-1041 seems to have been a genuinely conscientious and relatively effective monarch, and of course his brother John the Orphanotrophos was a highly competent minister who had risen under Basil. Michael was able to crush a Bulgarian revolt personally whilst dying, which probably says quite a lot about his general competence. As for Constantine IX, even if the man himself was quite feckless, it can't be denied the Empire expanded economically under his reign, and he was quite happy to entrust military power to decent and competent generals. None of these Emperors were as good as Basil was- but that's because Basil really was a spectacularly successful autocrat, at least once he'd passed his difficult early years.
Honestly my recalation of Michael was he was really a mixed bag at best and his brother John while competent was highly corrupt wikipedia tends to support this (yes I know wiki isn't always the most reliable but my books are packed up and in storage till i find a bigger place so it'll have to do.) and while yes they weren't all irredeemably abominable I still believe taken as whole they left the Empire rather worse off than it should have been even taking into account not every Emperor can be a Basil II or a John II.

As for the Themata, they'd been in relative decline since the days of Constantine V, back in the eighth century, who turned his back on what had been the field armies of the Late Roman Empire in favour of a new class of field army that became the Tagmata regiments. The themes continued to play a part, but they were definitely being pushed out of the picture by the time of Nikephoros II Phokas, who made more use of professional armies than ever before. The defeat of local Anatolian armies by Basil in the 980s wouldn't have helped the process either. Whichever way you slice it, the decline of the Themata had begun long, long before the death of Basil II.
Yes they were long past their prime and no their overall pitiful state can't really be laid at the feet of Basil II successors no this was all on the great man himself who put the nail in their coffin since in his effort to bring the Anatolia magnates to heel he really did a number on the themes unfortunatly what can be laid at their feet is that they never finished Basil's task of building up the provincial Tagmata and transitioning away from the theme system so instead you had a mediocre version of both in the outer provinces.

Finally, about population density, I'm not sure I buy it. There are numerous examples of towns across Anatolia bursting out of their acropolis and recolonising the old Roman-era settlement with increasing frequency from the tenth century onward. Now, some of this growth can probably be explained by peasants from the countryside moving back into urban centres that were no longer targets for annual Arab raids, which could mean a (relatively) more empty countryside, but I do think that the idea of a depopulated Anatolia by the time of Romanos IV is probably a myth.
I'm not saying Anatolia became a ghost town more that the region went from being similar to say Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois with a large number of small to mid size farms to something more akin to the plantation states of the south.
 
Although a small number of large landowners with (to use the term loosely) serfs is not removing the people from the land, just removing the land from the people.
 
Although a small number of large landowners with (to use the term loosely) serfs is not removing the people from the land, just removing the land from the people.

But there is a significant difference in population mobility between small farmers on their hereditary plot and serfs. Another factor is that serfs are probably less attached to their Byzantine identity and probably more willing to Turkify.
 
But there is a significant difference in population mobility between small farmers on their hereditary plot and serfs. Another factor is that serfs are probably less attached to their Byzantine identity and probably more willing to Turkify.

Mobility, but not necessarily numbers.

And agreed, which is probably tying into another thread on the reversibility of Turkish Anatolia.
 
But there is a significant difference in population mobility between small farmers on their hereditary plot and serfs. Another factor is that serfs are probably less attached to their Byzantine identity and probably more willing to Turkify.

They won't willingily Turkify and Islamify, it just happens as part of the Turkish long term settlement of Anatolia.
 
Top