WI: A successful (Byzantine) Anatolian reconquest?

I am of the opinion, from what I have read (numerous general Byzantine history books, ie: Treadgold, Ostrogorsky, Vryonis) that had the Byzantines had more unity during the later 12th and early 13th centuries, (including repelling the 4th Crusade) that they could have eventually reintegrated Asia Minor back into the Empire.

Say this succeeds: what are the effects on history?
 
Well IMHO it's unlikely around the 4th Crusade; the Byzantines were just too weak. In the 12th-13th century though maybe. the whole Byzantien revival thing is pretty well explored though (just look at Isaac's Empire for a good ezample).
I personally think that the reconquest of Anatolia would lead to the revival of the empire; at this time (late 13th century) the Seljuks are pressed onall fronts, with the Mongols, Crusaders etc. pressing on them. Byzantines in Anatolia might give the Crusader kingdoms a new lease on life, or indeed see them smashed (although I doubt they would have the strength to defeat tyhe Crusaders at this time, but maybe later)
We'd definitely see an improval in Byzantien ,ilitary strength- the Themes were mainly compromised because of the lack of Byzantine territory; it would also see the return of the gradn old cataphract (Anatolia beign the mai nsource of Byzantine horses).
 
Byzantine Anatolian.

I think that this is going to be extremely difficult for many reasons. You have the highly mobile Turkish nomads of the interior, who are very difficult to control. Then there was the widespread depopulation that occured after Manzikert. Even during the stable and prosperous Nicean period, the Byzantines rejected expansion in Anatolia. They knew their limits.
 
I think that this is going to be extremely difficult for many reasons. You have the highly mobile Turkish nomads of the interior, who are very difficult to control.

Well, why couldn't the Byzantines use the Turkish nomads to their advantage, for a change?
 
Byzantine Anatolia.

Even the sultans of Iconium had trouble controlling the nomads..Remember that the nomads, working for independent emirs, really brought down the remainder of western Anatolia from Byzantine control.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Even the sultans of Iconium had trouble controlling the nomads..Remember that the nomads, working for independent emirs, really brought down the remainder of western Anatolia from Byzantine control.

I used to think that the Rum Seljuks broke off after the Great Seljuks conquered Anatolia. But I've found that instead what happened is that the invasion and Byzantine repopulation movements opened it up for various nomadic groups that were in the service of the Great Seljuks. It just so happened that the Seljuks were the largest group. But other groups managed to hold territory for a while. The Danishmends come to mind.

In fact, IIRC, the Byzantines actually helped the Rum Seljuks take out the other Emirates. I don't understand why they would do that though, since several smaller groups are obviously easier to control than a large group.
 
In fact, IIRC, the Byzantines actually helped the Rum Seljuks take out the other Emirates. I don't understand why they would do that though, since several smaller groups are obviously easier to control than a large group.

Byzantine long term strategic thinking ended up in the toilet after John II died.
 
If they reconquer it, you can guarantee that the leaders will immediately fight each other for the spoils, and in the end they'll end up worse than they were before.
 
I doubt that this was possible, even with more unity. The Byzantine economic, government, and military systems were outdated and crumbling. However, if it was possible for this to happen, it could have a variety of impacts. If the Byzantine system was able to absorb the provinces and appropriately manage them and repel attacks from the Seljuks than the Byzantine Empire could have lasted much longer.

Welcome welcome, another Byzantineophile

They're everywhere!!!!!!
 
Byzantine long term strategic thinking ended up in the toilet after John II died.

Indeed. Manuel I was a superb tactician and general in the field, but his grasp of long term strategy was horrible.

I doubt that this was possible, even with more unity. The Byzantine economic, government, and military systems were outdated and crumbling. However, if it was possible for this to happen, it could have a variety of impacts. If the Byzantine system was able to absorb the provinces and appropriately manage them and repel attacks from the Seljuks than the Byzantine Empire could have lasted much longer.

Not quite. In the twelfth century, the Empire's Aegean heartland underwent a real economic boom. The government and millitary were comprehensively rebuilt by the Komnenoi, to better suit the Roman Empire for an age when it increasingly faced states that were its equals or superiors in terms of millitary strategy. The fact that the Ottoman Turks directly copied aspects of Byzantine administration in their own government definitely suggests that, even in the slow death of the fourteenth and fifteenth century, Imperial government and economics were certainly not "outdated and crumbling".
 
Not quite. In the twelfth century, the Empire's Aegean heartland underwent a real economic boom. The government and millitary were comprehensively rebuilt by the Komnenoi, to better suit the Roman Empire for an age when it increasingly faced states that were its equals or superiors in terms of millitary strategy. The fact that the Ottoman Turks directly copied aspects of Byzantine administration in their own government definitely suggests that, even in the slow death of the fourteenth and fifteenth century, Imperial government and economics were certainly not "outdated and crumbling".

Some of your statements are fact, however, you fail to account for the Byzantine's dominance of trade in the eastern Mediterranean collapsing because of merchant states such as Venice surpassing them. As well, by the later point in Byzantine history the Empire was largely dependent on naval protection from Venetian and Genoan mercenaries, and mercenaries such as the Normans to protect their declining land holdings. Even when the Komnenoi managed to regain much of Asia Minor, the battle of Myriocephalum showed that the Byzantine military was simply inept to the Turks, and most of what they regained was lost. As for government, there were some periods of good or at least adequate government for the Empire (ex. Komnenoi), however, many rulers proved inept or were just plain unlucky because of the geopolitics of the time. The point is, the foundations of the Byzantine Empire decaying rapidly, and the Seljuks happened to take advantage of this and bring the whole thing down.
 
I don't think by that late point it was really possible to regain the Anatolian plateau, and even if it had been, it would be hard to hold and of little value. All the agricultural infrastructure was destroyed, the Christian population largely gone, and the Mongols and Black Death immanent. It would be an extremely long-term proposal to rebuild it into the Byzantine heartland, and I'm not sure the resources would be there to accomplish it.

Probably Manuel was the last person who could have done it, but a whole lot would have had to go right for it to work.
 
Byzantine Anatolia

I agree. Reconquest may have been possible within 50 or so years after Manzikert, but not a century or more later.
 

cbrunish

Banned
The whole point might have been moot if the Eastern Orthodox clergy would allow soldiers to have the sacraments during war. The Orthodox church was extemly passive. This lead to the use of more mercenaries by the Byzantines. What we need is for the Eastern Orthodox church to be more militant like the catholic church.
 
Say this succeeds: what are the effects on history?

Considering how economically worthless Asia Minor was by that time, how impossible it would be to defend from the east, and how Byzantium was on a downward trajectory more generally, not a whole lot I would imagine.
 
Top