WI: John Tzimiskes Sacks Baghadad?

[MNP]

In 975 Emperor John I was running around the ME smacking around the weakened Abbasids. Norwich wonders why didn't go on to Baghdad which he thinks could not have resisted long.

So.... what if John DOES go on to Baghdad in 975? Does he win? A Byzantine sack of the city would almost surely not result in the degree of destruction of the books the Mongols visited on it and some might be taken back to Constantinople so there's one possible change: works that are lost to us, might not have been.

Anyhow, other options?

 

[Paladin]

Huh, hadn't thought about it from that perspective. The Byzantines were not one to burn books, so yes, a lot of them would have been saved. It would also hopefully give the Caliphs a reason to better fortify Baghdad and the surrounding region, and hopefully be better prepared all around militarily.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

It'll give Tzimiskes a significant amount of prestige in Constantinople, probably enough so that if he wishes he can depose the still teenage Basil II and rule for the rest of his life as sole Emperor. Assuming his illness in 976 is butterflied here, he could well go on to retake Jerusalem from the Fatimids too.

On the other hand, it'll really lead to Islamic states wanting revenge, and when a powerful Sunni Muslim state eventually emerges, revenge will be sought.

 

[HistorianofAlt]

Wouldn't the amount of revenge being sought be dependent on how the sack occurs? I mean that there would be some outrage but, there is a difference between outrage and OUTRAGE. This was a time when a warfare was known in the middle east. The major reason why the Crusades, mentioned because they show a christian force taking a major city for the Muslim peoples, generated such outrage was the fact that the Crusaders were not playing by the middle east's playbook of what was acceptable.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

In 975 Emperor John I was running around the ME smacking around the weakened Abbasids. Norwich wonders why didn't go on to Baghdad which he thinks could not have resisted long.

So.... what if John DOES go on to Baghdad in 975? Does he win? A Byzantine sack of the city would almost surely not result in the degree of destruction of the books the Mongols visited on it and some might be taken back to Constantinople so there's one possible change: works that are lost to us, might not have been.

Anyhow, other options?

The simple reason is that this isn't a computer game. The logistics of reaching Baghdad are not simple, and then there's the issue of the morale of his army, not to mention leaving the empire undefended in the process. His losses due to disease alone would have been staggering. On the other hand, if he'd lived longer, it could have been possible. To really strike into Mesopotamia you need to control Eastern Anatolia/Kurdistan to use as a base. That's certainly not beyond his reach.

An army is an army, though. Cities taken by force get sacked. Still, more would have survived than did at the hands of the Mongols, so it would have been a much better result.

 

[de Lattre]

The simple reason is that this isn't a computer game. The logistics of reaching Baghdad are not simple, and then there's the issue of the morale of his army, not to mention leaving the empire undefended in the process. His losses due to disease alone would have been staggering. On the other hand, if he'd lived longer, it could have been possible. To really strike into Mesopotamia you need to control Eastern Anatolia/Kurdistan to use as a base. That's certainly not beyond his reach.

An army is an army, though. Cities taken by force get sacked. Still, more would have survived than did at the hands of the Mongols, so it would have been a much better result.

Well, it seems pretty much certain that John could have sacked Bagdhaad if he had tried-by this point the Abassid caliphate was virtually impotent (this was made obvious during the Seljuk invasion).
But like Abdul Hadi Pasha says, it would have been a major risk. Baghdad was 650 kilometers away from the nearest Byzantine territory. What if the expansionist Fatimids (perhaps responding to an Abassid plea for help) had decided to launch an invasion of Syria? Without any significant forces to stop them, they may very well have jeopardized Nicephoras Phocas' conquests in the region. Now what? John is forced to race back home, having at best wasted his time (the emergency would cost him any potential loot or prestige amassed from the capture of Baghdad)

Anyway, the Basileus (according to Norwich) was due to meet the Pope at Antioch, so he was pressed for time. And given the absymal Byzantine-papal relations at the time, skipping the meeting would have been unwise, to say the least.
My question is, why did John effectively deny himself such a glorious opportunity by inconveniently agreeing to a meeting with the bishop of Rome? Pity.

 

[rcduggan]

Well, it seems pretty much certain that John could have sacked Bagdhaad if he had tried-by this point the Abassid caliphate was virtually impotent (this was made obvious during the Seljuk invasion).
But like Abdul Hadi Pasha says, it would have been a major risk. Baghdad was 650 kilometers away from the nearest Byzantine territory. What if the expansionist Fatimids (perhaps responding to an Abassid plea for help) had decided to launch an invasion of Syria? Without any significant forces to stop them, they may very well have jeopardized Nicephoras Phocas' conquests in the region. Now what? John is forced to race back home, having at best wasted his time (the emergency would cost him any potential loot or prestige amassed from the capture of Baghdad

A few small problems with this: first, the Abbasids invited the Seljuks to invade Iran to defeat the Shiite Buyid dynasty. I agree that the Abbasids at this point were effectively militarily neutered, but AFAIK the Seljuks were in Baghdad because the caliph wanted them to be.
Also, the Fatimids were both Ismaili and a rival claim to the caliphate, thus bitter enemies on two counts with the Caliph of Baghdad. So the Sunni Abbasids would not readily ask their worst enemy for aid. The Fatimids also did control parts of Syria in the late 10th century, their invasion of which during the reign of Al-Aziz brought them into conflict with the Byzantines.

 

[MNP]

For the record, the Seljuks aren't there yet, it's still the Buyyids and they're in decline by then but the Seljuks aren't there.

The simple reason is that this isn't a computer game. The logistics of reaching Baghdad are not simple, and then there's the issue of the morale of his army, not to mention leaving the empire undefended in the process. His losses due to disease alone would have been staggering. On the other hand, if he'd lived longer, it could have been possible. To really strike into Mesopotamia you need to control Eastern Anatolia/Kurdistan to use as a base. That's certainly not beyond his reach.

An army is an army, though. Cities taken by force get sacked. Still, more would have survived than did at the hands of the Mongols, so it would have been a much better result.

You should know by now that I have a better understanding of the period and area than someone would get from computer game. The way I read Norwich and other sources after some months of hindsight, is that he has a high chance of getting to Baghdad with a credible army but what happens then is anyone's guess--including a return trip.

 

[de Lattre]

A few small problems with this: first, the Abbasids invited the Seljuks to invade Iran to defeat the Shiite Buyid dynasty. I agree that the Abbasids at this point were effectively militarily neutered, but AFAIK the Seljuks were in Baghdad because the caliph wanted them to be.
Also, the Fatimids were both Ismaili and a rival claim to the caliphate, thus bitter enemies on two counts with the Caliph of Baghdad. So the Sunni Abbasids would not readily ask their worst enemy for aid. The Fatimids also did control parts of Syria in the late 10th century, their invasion of which during the reign of Al-Aziz brought them into conflict with the Byzantines.

Oh yeah,thanks for reminding me about how the Abbasids invited the Seljuks in.
I realize that the Fatimids had no desire to help the heretical Abbasids. It just seems that that Al-Muizz would have been very tempted to stab the Byzantines in the back (so to speak) if northern Syria was poorly defended, even temporarily.
Of course, John could probably have split his army in two and left one part to defend Syria. That would have solved the danger of leaving his southern flank open.
Anyway, I think the bottom line is that the basileus had no intention of capturing Baghdad-either due to a lack of interest or because he thought the city could wait another day. The fact that John had arranged to meet the Pope in mid-campaign constitutes evidence of his plan, though the complete lack of resistance he encountered may have tempted him to alter his decision.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Maybe this could butterfly away Manzikert..... However remember right now...... The Seijuks are advancing, this means if Baghdads taken albeit with some luck, then John will Have to face the Seijuks meaning it could be an earlier invasion of Anatolia by Seijuks..... And with l=little to no force remaining sice most troops were wiped out due to the huge march, ANatolia might fall much quicker..

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

Maybe this could butterfly away Manzikert..... However remember right now...... The Seijuks are advancing, this means if Baghdads taken albeit with some luck, then John will Have to face the Seijuks meaning it could be an earlier invasion of Anatolia by Seijuks..... And with l=little to no force remaining sice most troops were wiped out due to the huge march, ANatolia might fall much quicker..

But would John annex Mesopotamia to the Empire or would that just be a raid? I think that the Empire had no chances for managing Mesopotamia with Bulgaria in the Balkan border. And, as someone stated above, the Seljuks were 'summoned' by the Abbassids and what would happen if there wasn't a Calpih in Baghdad?

Also, if he succeeded, what would have happened to Basil II and Constantine VIII? If he kills them and he still dies in 976, who would assume the throne? And with Basil dead this means no conquest of Bulgaria and a dead Constantine means no Zoe and possibly no Komnenian Dynasty.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

But would John annex Mesopotamia to the Empire or would that just be a raid? I think that the Empire had no chances for managing Mesopotamia with Bulgaria in the Balkan border. And, as someone stated above, the Seljuks were 'summoned' by the Abbassids and what would happen if there wasn't a Calpih in Baghdad?

Also, if he succeeded, what would have happened to Basil II and Constantine VIII? If he kills them and he still dies in 976, who would assume the throne? And with Basil dead this means no conquest of Bulgaria and a dead Constantine means no Zoe and possibly no Komnenian Dynasty.

I doubt John would hold Mesopotamia- Roman expansion in the tenth century, even under John I and Nicephorus II was mostly about a search for more defensible frontiers, and the very essence of warfare in the period was defensive, a relict of nearly two centuries of being defeated by Muslim armies. It's for this reason I believe that had John invaded Mesopotamia at all, he'd probably have stopped at Mosul or somewhere, ransomed the city for a huge sum, and then gone home, looting as he went.

Bulgaria after 971 was more or less annexed to the ERE anyway- it only broke free again during the civil wars of the first couple of decades of Basil II's reign. Even then, "free Bulgaria" mostly only comprised the eastern part of Symeon the Great's state. Half the reason John was able to have such freedom of action in the East was because the Balkan frontier had been prostrated first- and the reason Basil II was then able to concentrate so strongly on Bulgaria from the 990s was because his stepfather had done such a thorough job of establishing Roman control over the East.

 

[de Lattre]

I doubt John would hold Mesopotamia- Roman expansion in the tenth century, even under John I and Nicephorus II was mostly about a search for more defensible frontiers, and the very essence of warfare in the period was defensive, a relict of nearly two centuries of being defeated by Muslim armies. It's for this reason I believe that had John invaded Mesopotamia at all, he'd probably have stopped at Mosul or somewhere, ransomed the city for a huge sum, and then gone home, looting as he went.

Good point. That ingrained defensive mentality would explain why John's incursion stopped at Mosul, or why, during his 975 campaign, he made no attempt to capture Jerusalem when it was well within his power.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Byzantine Mesopotamia? Not a chance. John might have a bunch of client states set up in the region.

 

[basileus]

In 975 Emperor John I was running around the ME smacking around the weakened Abbasids. Norwich wonders why didn't go on to Baghdad which he thinks could not have resisted long.

So.... what if John DOES go on to Baghdad in 975? Does he win? A Byzantine sack of the city would almost surely not result in the degree of destruction of the books the Mongols visited on it and some might be taken back to Constantinople so there's one possible change: works that are lost to us, might not have been.

Anyhow, other options?

It'd be a catastrophe, but for the basileus. Crossing the wastes between Aleppo and Baghdad with his army? No way. They'd be harassed, surrounded and eventually exterminated by Bedouins, even if they stuck strictly to the Euphrates route to keep water in supply. It'd be another Carrhae.

 

[de Lattre]

It'd be a catastrophe, but for the basileus. Crossing the wastes between Aleppo and Baghdad with his army? No way. They'd be harassed, surrounded and eventually exterminated by Bedouins, even if they stuck strictly to the Euphrates route to keep water in supply. It'd be another Carrhae.

Bear in mind, though, that the bedouins of Mesopotamia did not come remotely close to matching the Parthians' military capacity-I'm not even sure if the former even possessed an army. To suggest that they could have inflicted a second Carrhae on the Romans is implausible, the more so given that the leadership, equipment, and morale of the Byzantine army was very good.
If there were any dangers, it was the possibility of a disease outbreak and crossing the inhospitable Syrian desert (though as you noted, the Basileus could simply have stuck to the Euphrates and the Fertile Crescent).