Worse defeat: Manzikert or Myriokephalon?

Manzikert or Myriokephalon?

  • Manzikert (1071) - worse strategic defeat

    Votes: 28 43.8%
  • Myriokephalon (1176) - worse strategic defeat

    Votes: 14 21.9%
  • Manzikert (1071) - worse long-term for Byzantium

    Votes: 40 62.5%
  • Myriokephalon (1176) - worse long-term for Byzantium

    Votes: 20 31.3%

  • Total voters
    64
Taking into account the immediate strategic context for the Byzantine and Seljuk forces in both 1071 and 1176, which battle was a bigger defeat for Byzantium?

And secondly, which battle was a bigger long-term disaster for the Byzantine Empire? Choosing Manzikert implies that even if Myriokephalon had been a crushing Byzantine victory, the Empire could still not have recovered at any point after 1071; choosing Myriokephalon implies that recovery was possible between 1071 and 1176, but not after the latter date.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

I picked Manzikert as a worse long term option but I don't want to imply anything was irreversible and the empire was destined to lose a particular bit of territory. Both battles could have followed with Byzantine victories and long terms gains eastward.

Even after the Fourth Crusade the empire could have bounced back. Won't be easy, won't be quick, but it can happen.
 
Manzikert provoked a relativly quick withdrawal of Anatolia by Byzantines, and eventually was an obvious great defeat.
But the First Crusade outcomes and Byzantine reconquest shows that the core and ressources of the Empire weren't crushed, and that while this defeat had really important strategical consequences, in long-term perspectives Byzantines could have reversed it eventually (and quickly if 1101 Crusade was successful, IMO).

Myriokephalon is more the reverse : it didn't have devastating strategical consequences, and Byzantine Anatolia wasn't lost, Turks having as much losses than Byzzies.
The problem is that Byzantines proved unable to take back the entierety of Anatolia, and Manuel's tactical errors greatly discredited him while he had done a lot to ensure Byzantine presence and sphere of influence in its neighbouring regions : think that Latin State openly acknowledged his suzerainty, and that he beneficied from support on western Christianity in spite of being more interventionist than many of his predecessors.

The following anarchy, the Massacre of Latins, the absence of real skills with his successors, and eventually the big belief that trying to get back the lost land was useless did a lot for preparing Byzantine decline, and to undone the work of Manuel.
 
Last edited:
Manzikert in itself wasn't that meaningful. What was meaningful was the civil war that directly followed it.
 
Manzikert in itself wasn't that meaningful. What was meaningful was the civil war that directly followed it.

What do you think would have been the best POD to eliminate this civil war? Byzantine victory at Manzikert? Death of Andronikos Doukas in the battle? Something else?
 
No Manzikert,no Myriokephalon.


No Yarmouk, no Manzikert, no Myriokephalon :D

To be honest, I think that actually Yarmouk was worst of all. Without it, Byzantium could pull their stuff together and somehow save Egypt (and surely Levant). Thus, Byzantium would- upon recovery- stay superpower, rather than "only" first rate power.
 
I would have to say Manzikert was the worst defeat in the long-term. Although spending summers in Anatolia wasn't great, the region was the Byzantines center of population and wealth, disregarding Constantinople. Without Anatolia, the Byzantines would have a much lower population. With the defeat at Myriokephalon, the Byzantines had already lost more than half of Anatolia to the Turks and did not have as much as a buffer zone as they did with Manzikert. The most destructive factor is the Byzantine civil wars that were occurring during a time when the Byzantines needed to unite against foreign threats, rather than squabble amongst themselves.
 
No Yarmouk, no Manzikert, no Myriokephalon :D

To be honest, I think that actually Yarmouk was worst of all. Without it, Byzantium could pull their stuff together and somehow save Egypt (and surely Levant). Thus, Byzantium would- upon recovery- stay superpower, rather than "only" first rate power.

Indeed,Yarmouk was indeed the worst Roman defeat,ever.It was the one battle where it lost decisively against a much smaller foe and it's territory never recovered.
What do you think would have been the best POD to eliminate this civil war? Byzantine victory at Manzikert? Death of Andronikos Doukas in the battle? Something else?

Byzantine victory at Manzikert won't butterfly the civil war unless it's really decisive.Judging from how the battle went until Andronikos' betrayal,it's going to be a minor victory or a draw at best.Romanos IV was made emperor on the premise that the empire needed someone to stop the Turkish raids.A minor victory might boost his reputation somewhat,but not enough to secure his position.By the time of the Battle of Manzikert,a lot of the elites were beginning to question his ability to solve the Turkish question.The whole purpose of the campaign was to shore up his position.Killing Andronikos during the battle on the other hand might actually weaken the support of the Doukas.
 
Last edited:
Top