WI : A more co-operative (and long-lived) Manuel I Komnenos

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Essentially, after a brief read on the web in order to respond to another thread, I came across an interesting idea.

Manuel I only went to war over the Danishmend territory that was captured, and the Egyptian campaign seems to have largely fallen apart over disunity.

So what if, in a small way, Manuel was a more co-operative, and more agreeable Emperor?

Mainly so that

a) He works to ensure co-operation between Latin and Roman forces in the first invasion of Egypt so that it fails, but leaves both parties on good terms.

b) He convinces the Latin nobles to partake in the Second invasion of Egypt, after they appreciate their dependence on the Emperor.

c) Doesn't alienate the Venetians (Seriously, anyone know what happened there? I'm curious)

d) Negotiates with Killij Aslan to prevent war - either to accept less territory in exchange for concessions (perhaps some powers) or to make some concessions/purchases of the territory.

What would be the effects of this willingness to negotiate by Manuel on Europe and the Middle East?
 
Nothing could be done about the Egyptian campaign.The crusaders intentionally sabotaged it because they thought they could conquer Egypt at a later date without sharing the spoils with the ERE.
What Manuel should have done was to ignore Egypt and eradicate Rum before it conquered the Danishmends.
 
A Manuel Komnenos that is any different than OTL would have been better for Rome. [Rant mode engage]He's like Woodrow Wilson and Ronald Reagon combined for the Byzantines, terrible both domestically and foreign policy-wise but yet somehow remembered fondly.

IMHO, Manuel Komnenos was the single most responsible person for the fall of Rome. For Rome to get any other leader at the time would have been better. This includes idiots like the Angeloi, because at the time they would have been quickly deposed and someone more competent would be installed. He completely cut out the small amount of native power left in the Roman military, completely ruined the nation's economy through a combination of ridiculous projects and most importantly pointless and poorly planned campaigns (Sicily was understandable as a way to shield the Balkans, but Egypt? When Anatolia isn't even fully retaken? As for his campaigns in Hungary, just looked at how long those conquests outlived his reign). Just about the only good thing he did was establish decent relations with the Latins, and even then, as you pointed out, he fucked it up. [rant over]

As to your points:

a) As Darthfanta said, it was really the Latins' fault, not Manuel's. The better move would be not to go after Egypt in the first place.

b) Seriously, stop coveting provinces that have been lost for hundreds of years and take back Anatolia! You outnumber the Rumites fivefold and have a better army!

c) He didn't, really. The Fourth Crusade was something that Manuel's foolish policies helped bring about, but if anything, Manuel should have been more firm against the Venetians. Can't really blame him here; hindsight is 20/20

d) This is a good idea if we're talking 1176 (assuming we can't avoid the pathetic campaign he would embark on). Before that, just don't blunder into an ambush and grow a backbone and Central Anatolia will be reclaimed. No need to negotiate until you've won, at least with Iconium.
 
I third these sentiments. I feel that the Komnenid Restoration would've been more successful if ultimately the Sultanate of Rum was completely destroyed and Central Anatolia regained. Egypt at this point was too far gone to warrant trying to grab it at that time (though not something that later rulers couldn't go after, assuming the goal is to reassert Byzantine and Orthodox dominance by restoring the Pentarchy). Manuel I isn't exactly a good emperor, though a good military commander he might be. Just needed to direct it towards the Seljuk Turks and annihilate them, probably go forth and push the Turks out of Anatolia in its entirety.

Simply put, no need to negotiate in general, just push east to win, right?
 
Simply put, no need to negotiate in general, just push east to win, right?

Not with Iconium, but certainly with other Turks and Muslims in Anatolia and Mesopotamia. Divide and conquer, you know...

Otherwise, you're hitting right on the money. Rome wasn't all that far off from a complete recovery, and give or take a few stable generations (no guarantee, of course, but there would probably be an opportunity sometime after the Mongols wreck the Middle East) and Egypt it a viable goal.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
As to your points:

a) As Darthfanta said, it was really the Latins' fault, not Manuel's. The better move would be not to go after Egypt in the first place.

b) Seriously, stop coveting provinces that have been lost for hundreds of years and take back Anatolia! You outnumber the Rumites fivefold and have a better army!

c) He didn't, really. The Fourth Crusade was something that Manuel's foolish policies helped bring about, but if anything, Manuel should have been more firm against the Venetians. Can't really blame him here; hindsight is 20/20

d) This is a good idea if we're talking 1176 (assuming we can't avoid the pathetic campaign he would embark on). Before that, just don't blunder into an ambush and grow a backbone and Central Anatolia will be reclaimed. No need to negotiate until you've won, at least with Iconium.

Eeep, not a fan - I'm now intrigued as to what PoD you would throw at Manuel (probably educationally) to tweak his life.

a) Fair enough.

b) See, this is where I have to play advocate - technically, even if only just, the Rumite are vassals of the Empire, and Manuel did, in the end - attack them, it just went splat. I'm not entirely sure I can agree with you in attacking them, integration seems like the best option, not attacking them - as it went terribly when he did. This does impact (a) a little, as I wouldn't be surprised if he saw Jerusalem as a vassal in all but name, and figured that with Egypt, and a vassal Anatolia he could vassalise Jerusalem too. Hell, with an integrated Anatolia, who needed Egypt to do this.

c) More firm? Care to explain? I still don't understand how pissing off one of your crucial trading partners (That practically does all your trading for you) is a good idea. If he was firm, and supplanting Venice, that I could understand. Otherwise - wtf?

d) See, I know I said it with b - but I don't agree with you here - holding the coastlines is the highest priority, but Anatolia's interior is a hell of a lot less wealthy (even if it may have more resources). Having it join without a fight, even it involves institutional change - i.e. the Despotate of Upper Anatolia and Despotate of Jerusalem. Having it allied/vassaled and willing to trade those resources - and not having to pay to protect the miners is a good deal - until you have to be called to defend them. It just needs better implementation. I wouldn't be surprised if a cooperative Despotate of Upper Anatolia is easier to achieve than a cooperative Despotate of Jerusalem - as the bloodly Latins are nuts.
 
b) See, this is where I have to play advocate - technically, even if only just, the Rumite are vassals of the Empire, and Manuel did, in the end - attack them, it just went splat. I'm not entirely sure I can agree with you in attacking them, integration seems like the best option, not attacking them - as it went terribly when he did. This does impact (a) a little, as I wouldn't be surprised if he saw Jerusalem as a vassal in all but name, and figured that with Egypt, and a vassal Anatolia he could vassalise Jerusalem too. Hell, with an integrated Anatolia, who needed Egypt to do this.
It's pretty much impossible to make Rum a proper vassal.It's too big and too foreign(in both culture and religion). One only has to look at East Roman history to know that it won't work.The Byzantines/Romans can't even hold tiny Serbia as a vassal state without having it rebel and attempt to conquer the Empire's European possessions whenever the empire turns it back on it for a moment.Manuel knows this clearly.The reason behind the failed Southern Italian expedition was largely because of the fact that he has to deal with the Serbian rebellion with his main army instead of joining the fight in Southern Italy.

d) See, I know I said it with b - but I don't agree with you here - holding the coastlines is the highest priority, but Anatolia's interior is a hell of a lot less wealthy (even if it may have more resources). Having it join without a fight, even it involves institutional change - i.e. the Despotate of Upper Anatolia and Despotate of Jerusalem. Having it allied/vassaled and willing to trade those resources - and not having to pay to protect the miners is a good deal - until you have to be called to defend them. It just needs better implementation. I wouldn't be surprised if a cooperative Despotate of Upper Anatolia is easier to achieve than a cooperative Despotate of Jerusalem - as the bloodly Latins are nuts.
The history of the empire post-Islamic Invasion shows that it can't hold any vassal states for any lengthy period of time.Instead of spending so much resources trying to appease them,it's a lot better if they just outright conquered them.As for interior Anatolia,it's not wealthy,but guarantees the security of the coast.Constant raids by Turks on the coastal regions diminishes the coasts' profitability.
 
Last edited:

GdwnsnHo

Banned
It's pretty much impossible to make Rum a proper vassal.It's too big and too foreign(in both culture and religion). One only has to look at East Roman history to know that it won't work.The Byzantines/Romans can't even hold tiny Serbia as a vassal state without having it rebel and attempt to conquer the Empire's European possessions whenever the empire turns it back on it for a moment.Manuel knows this clearly.The reason behind the failed Southern Italian expedition was largely because of the fact that he has to deal with the Serbian rebellion with his main army instead of joining the fight in Southern Italy.

The history of the empire post-Islamic Invasion shows that it can't hold any vassal states for any lengthy period of time.Instead of spending so much resources trying to appease them,it's a lot better if they just outright conquered them.As for interior Anatolia,it's not wealthy,but guarantees the security of the coast.Constant raids by Turks on the coastal regions diminishes the coasts' profitability.

I think this where I consider myself "Schooled" :p

Nah, you make the best point. Sadly in both cases the Turks and Jerusalem are too large to be "Assimilated/Intimidated" like in early Roman history.

So would it be best then if Manuel was willing to scatter the Serbs, then conquer the Danishmends? Then he'd be on the plateau and find it easier to conquer the Rumites, and then scatter all three groups amongst the Empire - and then just ignore any Egyptian campaign until Anatolia and the Levant are his?

Or is scattering counter-productive? As much as developing a new-Roman homogeneity would help, especially in boosting population growth, is there any reasonable way of creating a Roman-ness that is above local culture and faith?
 
GdwnsnHo said:
Nah, you make the best point. Sadly in both cases the Turks and Jerusalem are too large to be "Assimilated/Intimidated" like in early Roman history.

At this point, I could still see them integrated. There weren't all that many Turks around, and even at this point a good portion of them were just recently converted Greeks who found Turkish rule agreeable. There are several ways Manuel could go about this- and it doesn't have to be quite so black and white as either evicting or integrating them.

And no, not a fan.:D

GdwnsnHo said:
So would it be best then if Manuel was willing to scatter the Serbs, then conquer the Danishmends? Then he'd be on the plateau and find it easier to conquer the Rumites, and then scatter all three groups amongst the Empire - and then just ignore any Egyptian campaign until Anatolia and the Levant are his?

Well, conquering the Danishmends before the Sultanate seems a little counterproductive, as its harder to secure your forces so far from the Imperial heartland and Rum will probably intervene on their behalf. You're coming at the problem of conquering Central Anatolia from a perspective in 1176, when Rum had peaked in power. Should it be done in the late 1140s or anytime in the 1150s, they'll still be a great deal of infighting to take advantage of, not to mention how much weaker the Sultanate alone will be.

Even in 1176, Rome still had a good chance of a successful campaign. Manuel just failed to scout out the area and wandered into an ambush (after splitting his forces, I might add)

As for the Danishmends, they're certainly in a position where vassalization (at least in the short term) is a good idea. The Empire can digest Central Anatolia, war a little in the Balkans, and hopefully regain Antioch before they have to even think about taking over Sivas.

GdwnsnHo said:
Or is scattering counter-productive? As much as developing a new-Roman homogeneity would help, especially in boosting population growth, is there any reasonable way of creating a Roman-ness that is above local culture and faith?

You're thinking of hellenization:p. The Romans were very good at this, and it wouldn't take very long for the few Turks that are there to be successfully integrated.

The real problem the Romans are gonna face is the nomadic nature of the Turkmen that had reached Anatolia. OTL, Turks grazing their cattle didn't really hold much respect for where the border was at, and the sedentary Romans responded harshly. This meant grazing turned into raiding very quickly, regardless of the diplomatic situation between Iconium and Constantinople.
 
Not with Iconium, but certainly with other Turks and Muslims in Anatolia and Mesopotamia. Divide and conquer, you know...

Otherwise, you're hitting right on the money. Rome wasn't all that far off from a complete recovery, and give or take a few stable generations (no guarantee, of course, but there would probably be an opportunity sometime after the Mongols wreck the Middle East) and Egypt it a viable goal.

Big fan of your TL btw, was contemplating between doing a Byzantine TL (either with a longer Makedonian dynasty or a better performing Isaurian Dynasty), or a Seleucid Empire, but I digress.

Indeed so, even better if the Crusader Kingdoms grind themselves down to dust against the Zengids, Fatimids and Ayyubids alike. Now I'm not saying Manuel I did not go after Egypt was necessarily a bad thing, but if he could focus his efforts against the Seljuks instead, we might actually have a Byzantine Empire that is a little more resistant to attacks against the Mahommedian peoples, be it Arab, Persian, Khwarazmian or Turk alike, at least that's my theory on that.

Probably having John II not only live longer, but have his eldest son succeed him would've been better off regardless.
 
Top