WI: Byzzies defeat Seljuks at Manzikert 1071

The spelling maybe wrong, correct if it is.

How long would Byzantium have survived? Would the crusades even occur? And what else would happen?
 
The spelling maybe wrong, correct if it is.

How long would Byzantium have survived? Would the crusades even occur? And what else would happen?

Byzzzies? :D

Seljuk and Manzikert are correct though, yes.

As for how long:

Good question. If the Empire really gets a solid win in here, it probably doesn't lose Anatolia. And that's where the OTL events that lead to its doom began.

The crusades might occur, but probably differently than OTL.

What else would happen? Hard to pick any one set of events, but the Empire's continued existence as it was in 1071 would have major effects in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
 
One of the best ways for a victory would be if I believe the Doukas general does ot betray Romanus and leave before the battle.
 
It's best to avoid Manzikert altogether, though I'm not sure how- the Emperor Romanos didn't just attack the Sultan for the sake of it, he was genuinely convinced that Alp Arslan's peace offers were just playing for time whilst a larger Seljuk army approached.

A win at Manzikert consolidates Romanos on his throne, but does very little to deal with the basic problem of the Turkomans relentlessly attacking Anatolia, as this people were an equal nuisance to both the ERE and the Seljuks. Dealing with the Turkomans is likely to take several years of hard, grinding, campaigning.

For an idea of what the ERE could look like in a world without Manzikert, please check out my rebooted "Isaac's Empire" TL. The link is in my sig! :)
 
The Seljuks are not far from starting to fall apart in small factions anyway. If the Eastern Romans win at Manzikert, and especially if Alp Arslan is killed in the battle, this might happen earlier. Once the Seljuks are busy fighting one another the raids will become small enough to be dealt with by local forces.

I have read that Alp Arslan actually planned to attack the Fatamids before the Eastern Romans confronted him. Another option would be for him to go there and leaving the Eastern Romans alone.

Anatolia will be relatively safe once the Seljuks fall apart and the Crusades go off - it is a time of splintering among the muslim states in the Levant and with the Crusaders to deal with, there's no resources to invade Anatolia. With the core heartland of the Empire safe and intact, the Eastern Romans should have time to reform the ailing Themata system, especially if they can avoid the civil war they suffered after Manzikert OTL.
 
The Seljuks are not far from starting to fall apart in small factions anyway. If the Eastern Romans win at Manzikert, and especially if Alp Arslan is killed in the battle, this might happen earlier. Once the Seljuks are busy fighting one another the raids will become small enough to be dealt with by local forces.

I have read that Alp Arslan actually planned to attack the Fatamids before the Eastern Romans confronted him. Another option would be for him to go there and leaving the Eastern Romans alone.

Anatolia will be relatively safe once the Seljuks fall apart and the Crusades go off - it is a time of splintering among the muslim states in the Levant and with the Crusaders to deal with, there's no resources to invade Anatolia. With the core heartland of the Empire safe and intact, the Eastern Romans should have time to reform the ailing Themata system, especially if they can avoid the civil war they suffered after Manzikert OTL.

Overly rosy, I think. The whole reason Romanos felt the need to force a battle at Manzikert was because of small scale raids by Turkoman tribes- small scale raids that were, nonetheless, doing a lot of damage. A complete collapse of the Seljuk Sultanate would, IMHO, actually go some way to making things a lot worse for the ERE.

The whole reason that the Turkomans were doing so much damage in the 1060s is because there simply weren't enough "local forces" to deal with them- Byzantium had been moving for a century away from Thematic forces that could stand and defend the land against raiders, and towards Tagmatic armies that would go out on the attack. These armies were very effective in pitched battle against Arabs and Bulgars- but when confronted with small bands of nomadic Turkomans, they were quite easily outflanked and outmanoeuvred.
 
What happened to the (ex)soldiers of the Iberian Army/Armenian themes, though? I mean, its not like they all disappeared into the aether, is it?
 
Overly rosy, I think. The whole reason Romanos felt the need to force a battle at Manzikert was because of small scale raids by Turkoman tribes- small scale raids that were, nonetheless, doing a lot of damage. A complete collapse of the Seljuk Sultanate would, IMHO, actually go some way to making things a lot worse for the ERE.

The whole reason that the Turkomans were doing so much damage in the 1060s is because there simply weren't enough "local forces" to deal with them- Byzantium had been moving for a century away from Thematic forces that could stand and defend the land against raiders, and towards Tagmatic armies that would go out on the attack. These armies were very effective in pitched battle against Arabs and Bulgars- but when confronted with small bands of nomadic Turkomans, they were quite easily outflanked and outmanoeuvred.

Maybe they could reprise some of Constantine’s reforms of the old Roman Army. If they divide the Empire’s armies into ‘’frontier troops/militia’’ to guard border areas. Whilst maintaining professional standing armies nearer the capital to deal with larger more organized opponents.
 
What happened to the (ex)soldiers of the Iberian Army/Armenian themes, though? I mean, its not like they all disappeared into the aether, is it?

Largely dissolved by Constantine IX, I believe. And the fact that religious persecution of Armenians began in the 1060s probably didn't help matters with the remaining soldiers thereafter.

Maybe they could reprise some of Constantine’s reforms of the old Roman Army. If they divide the Empire’s armies into ‘’frontier troops/militia’’ to guard border areas. Whilst maintaining professional standing armies nearer the capital to deal with larger more organized opponents.

They could do, I suppose, but all that costs money, which is something in short supply in this time period. It also, I suspect, requires the benefit of hindsight.
 
Largely dissolved by Constantine IX, I believe. And the fact that religious persecution of Armenians began in the 1060s probably didn't help matters with the remaining soldiers thereafter.

What I mean is, yes they were disbanded, but that doesn't mean the men in those units disappeared or all died. But they seem to have vanished for all imperial purposes, essentially not to reappear.
 
What I mean is, yes they were disbanded, but that doesn't mean the men in those units disappeared or all died. But they seem to have vanished for all imperial purposes, essentially not to reappear.
Yes, it's one of the biggest and most confusing gaps in our knowledge of the period, along with the equally confusing mysteries of "why Konstantinos Monomachos did it in the first place" and "how things went off the rails so damn fast after Zoe became important".

I would think that most of the manpower that had been fit for battle under Konstantinos XI would no longer be good for active service by the 1070s, though.
 
Yes, it's one of the biggest and most confusing gaps in our knowledge of the period, along with the equally confusing mysteries of "why Konstantinos Monomachos did it in the first place" and "how things went off the rails so damn fast after Zoe became important".

Angold suggests Monomachos was trying to get the state back onto a peacetime footing after years of war under Basil, and trying to account for economic diversification and the demands of a shrinking tax base. I think that seems reasonable, though I've not seen any other serious suggestions for Monomachos' behaviour besides the overly simplistic "he wanted to spend it all on buildingzzzzz".
 
Angold suggests Monomachos was trying to get the state back onto a peacetime footing after years of war under Basil, and trying to account for economic diversification and the demands of a shrinking tax base. I think that seems reasonable, though I've not seen any other serious suggestions for Monomachos' behaviour besides the overly simplistic "he wanted to spend it all on buildingzzzzz".

That might not be an entirely unreasonable suggestion though - what did Roman emperors spend money on besides war? Building stuff.

It does seem that there's a certain extent to which Basil's successors are expected by some historians (and presumably contemporaries) to be like Basil the Super-Emperor as if Basil's policies were awesome by definition.

But I'm not altogether convinced that the interpretation that Constantine IX and such were not fit to rule is all wrong, either.
 
Angold suggests Monomachos was trying to get the state back onto a peacetime footing after years of war under Basil, and trying to account for economic diversification and the demands of a shrinking tax base. I think that seems reasonable, though I've not seen any other serious suggestions for Monomachos' behaviour besides the overly simplistic "he wanted to spend it all on buildingzzzzz".
Yeah, I'm familiar with Angold's argument. But I disagree pretty strongly with his characterization of Basileios' foreign policy - which is supposed to have destroyed all of the Byzantine buffer states and allowed invaders from the east and north to threaten Byzantine security. That's ridiculous on the face of it - per Holmes, Basileios created a belt of loyal buffer states in the East, and a rump Bulgaria in the northwest that had to be destroyed after it proved to be insufficiently loyal. Shit, he even gave some of those loyal Muslim vassals military governorship over Byzantine territory to help get them the resources they needed to ward off threats from various Buwayhid warlords. It was his successors who, searching for easy victories to shore up their legitimacy (for as husbands of Zoe they were not actual dynastic monarchs, and needed independent claims on the throne), despoiled the eastern buffers and ruined Byzantine security. Argyros and Monomachos were most egregiously guilty of this (in Syria and Armenia respectively).

The financial motivation is fairly reasonable, and I suppose you can't totally fault Monomachos for trying reforms of various kinds, except that they all seem to have been dismal failures. He seems to have taken security for granted, and since security was basically the primary function of a premodern state, such a viewpoint was inexcusable.
That might not be an entirely unreasonable suggestion though - what did Roman emperors spend money on besides war? Building stuff.

It does seem that there's a certain extent to which Basil's successors are expected by some historians (and presumably contemporaries) to be like Basil the Super-Emperor as if Basil's policies were awesome by definition.

But I'm not altogether convinced that the interpretation that Constantine IX and such were not fit to rule is all wrong, either.
I agree; nobody could live up to the mythologization of Basileios' policies - not even Basileios II himself.
 
I agree; nobody could live up to the mythologization of Basileios' policies - not even Basileios II himself.

Yeah.

And a question on the buffer states, since I've always felt like I'm missing something: What's so great about buffer states?

I mean, assuming the empire has the manpower and money to spare (which it did pre-Manzikert), is it necessarily worse to have (for instance) Vaspurakan under Imperial control than as what amounts to a vassal?
 
Yeah.

And a question on the buffer states, since I've always felt like I'm missing something: What's so great about buffer states?

I mean, assuming the empire has the manpower and money to spare (which it did pre-Manzikert), is it necessarily worse to have (for instance) Vaspurakan under Imperial control than as what amounts to a vassal?
The Empire was, fundamentally, an Orthodox Greek Empire. Its government worked really well when the bureaucracy and the clergy could synergize, especially since they were frequently the same. It didn't really have the bureaucratic "equipment" to run territories that were outside of its purview without massive reforms. Most of the territories incorporated in the East from the mid-tenth century through Basileios' reign were governed essentially as they had been under the Muslims, frequently through the exact same elites, and not incorporated into the civil bureaucracy, only the military bureaucracy.

So leaving these territories under their earlier rulers (after a fashion) makes them better governed and less of a potential threat down the road. Furthermore, it improves response times, always a problem in the era of premodern centralized government.

Anyway, the point wasn't that these new states were qua vassal states a good solution (although the record of what they actually did before Argyros and Monomachos extinguished them certainly doesn't show much "bad"), but that Angold's criticism of Basileios' policy was off base.
 
The Empire was, fundamentally, an Orthodox Greek Empire. Its government worked really well when the bureaucracy and the clergy could synergize, especially since they were frequently the same. It didn't really have the bureaucratic "equipment" to run territories that were outside of its purview without massive reforms. Most of the territories incorporated in the East from the mid-tenth century through Basileios' reign were governed essentially as they had been under the Muslims, frequently through the exact same elites, and not incorporated into the civil bureaucracy, only the military bureaucracy.

So leaving these territories under their earlier rulers (after a fashion) makes them better governed and less of a potential threat down the road. Furthermore, it improves response times, always a problem in the era of premodern centralized government.

Makes sense. Armenia (unlike Syria) seems to be in that vague category between "quite compatible" (different and likely to always be different, but compatible) and...not. Bad policy can push it into the latter, but normal circumstances seem to have favored the former (simply because the Empire was such a great place for ambitious and talented Armenians). Sort of like Scotland and Scots to Great Britain. Sort of.

But that may be due to the fact that Armenia has a history of being part of the Empire, and while the other territories did as well...the connection was more noticeably lost in the post-Islamic conquest days. Not sure its even a matter of religion alone, just a matter of Syria and the other (increasingly) Arabized regions drifting away from the Hellenic-Roman past. At least the Slavs saw things they wanted to copy for their own purposes in Hellenic R(h)omania, despite not exactly welcoming Byzantine rule.

Something that might be addressable but would take a lot more care and talent than the post-Basil emperors showed in their sloppy attempts at gaining prestige by military victory.

Anyway, the point wasn't that these new states were qua vassal states a good solution (although the record of what they actually did before Argyros and Monomachos extinguished them certainly doesn't show much "bad"), but that Angold's criticism of Basileios' policy was off base.
Gotcha.
 
Makes sense. Armenia (unlike Syria) seems to be in that vague category between "quite compatible" (different and likely to always be different, but compatible) and...not. Bad policy can push it into the latter, but normal circumstances seem to have favored the former (simply because the Empire was such a great place for ambitious and talented Armenians). Sort of like Scotland and Scots to Great Britain. Sort of.

But that may be due to the fact that Armenia has a history of being part of the Empire, and while the other territories did as well...the connection was more noticeably lost in the post-Islamic conquest days. Not sure its even a matter of religion alone, just a matter of Syria and the other (increasingly) Arabized regions drifting away from the Hellenic-Roman past. At least the Slavs saw things they wanted to copy for their own purposes in Hellenic R(h)omania, despite not exactly welcoming Byzantine rule.

Something that might be addressable but would take a lot more care and talent than the post-Basil emperors showed in their sloppy attempts at gaining prestige by military victory.
Yeah, I agree with what you say about Orthodox Armenia, but the thing is, we're not just talking about Orthodox Armenia here, we're also talking about the Shaddadid princes of Dvin-Armenia and the Marwanid rulers of Kurdistan. Monomachos is certain to have attacked the former (after having allied with them, characteristically, in the sort of cardboard-Machiavelli power play that you find in Total War games and such) and may also have attacked the latter.
 
Yeah, I agree with what you say about Orthodox Armenia, but the thing is, we're not just talking about Orthodox Armenia here, we're also talking about the Shaddadid princes of Dvin-Armenia and the Marwanid rulers of Kurdistan. Monomachos is certain to have attacked the former (after having allied with them, characteristically, in the sort of cardboard-Machiavelli power play that you find in Total War games and such) and may also have attacked the latter.

Now that's a problem. When I think of Armenia and Armenians for purposes of "this isn't really a problem with halfway capable management", I think that's pretty much just the Orthodox part. The other parts...no. Monomachos was asking for trouble in doing that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Byzantine_Empire_1045.svg To use this map (I'm assuming its sufficiently accurate for the point) from west to east: Mesopotamia, Theodosopolis, Taron, maybe Iberia, maybe Ani, maybe Vaspurakan, and definitely not anywhere outside that.

Its not like the area is worth taking even if you can secure it and the loyalties of those in it. What was his excuse for this madness?

And while we're looking at maps, correct me if I'm wrong, but Kurdistan would be the area outside Vasapurkan and Mosul (to the east/south)?
 
Last edited:
Its not like the area is worth taking even if you can secure it and the loyalties of those in it. What was his excuse for this madness?
My guess is that he was looking for cheap victories to shore up his military credentials and get the army off his back. Monomachos in particular was under serious threat of being deposed by various generals e.g. Georgios Maniakes who were generally disgusted with his lack of army chops. Maniakes, incidentally, would've been an interesting emperor (I'm sure there's speculation about it somewhere in this board's archives), like a slightly-more-insane-but-equally-dangerous-to-everybody-around-him Ioannes Tzimiskes.
Elfwine said:
And while we're looking at maps, correct me if I'm wrong, but Kurdistan would be the area outside Vasapurkan and Mosul (to the east/south)?
Marwanid amirs ruled the Diyar Bakr and some territory south of Lake Van. Mosul was the Uqalid amirate, which generally fought against the Byzantines and their Marwanid allies. It used to be ruled by the Buwayhids during the peak of their rivalry with the Byzantines over the Anzitene in the 970s and 980s, but in 996 the Buwayhid governor of Mosul was forced out as part of the ongoing, almost perpetual state of collapse the Buwayhid state was in.
 
Top