Battle Of Manzikert . . . What If?

[Spartan90]

Apologies if there's already a thread on this, just something I'm curious about...

We've all read the theories about what would happen if the Byzantines 'hypothetically' won the Siege of Constantinople in the 1400s, would they still be around? The vast majority agreed that the Byzantines were well and truly dead a long time before the Queen of Cities fell to the Ottomans. Primarily because of the devastating loss to the Turks at the Battle of Manzikert hundreds of years earlier, which led to the loss of huge amounts of lands in Anatolia, and marked the beginning of the end of the Empire.

So, another 'hypothetical': What would've happened if the Byzzies did win at Manzikert? If they held the Turks at bay, keeping their wealthy lands in Asia Minor? Or do you think they still would have fallen due to stagnation and internal corruption...

[Pious Agnost]

IIRC the stagnation hadn't began by then, I think they would've existed a lot longer, but who knows? They could've been destroyed by the Golden Horde and Il-Khanate (That was the one with Georgia, right?) which it would be so inconveniently placed between

I think it would've gone better for the Byzantines if Emp. Romanos had been killed in the fighting at Manzikert

[Arto]

The Seljuks would attack some 10 years later.

[Pious Agnost]

Yes, but they might not win

[Arto]

Yes, but they might not win

There's a chance for that.

[Romios]

The Seljuks would attack some 10 years later.

I'm gonna have to agree with that. What happened after Manzikert was inevitable.

[Steel of Fury]

I think the only way Byzantium could have survived was through consistent assistance from Europe.

[Antigenes]

Depends on how Great Seljuq does in Iran and whether they have any inclination to switch gears and fiddle around further East. Being a staunch opponent of any sort of historical inevitability, I don't think that there was enough energy in the Seljuqs to automatically allow for a push into Anatolia, bugger anything the Romaioi could do. There are the oft-quoted arguments - Romanos had campaigned a few years earlier with success, and so on - for the Roman side. Anyway, I don't see it as particularly unreasonable that they could have held on to Anatolia for some time afterward. The big questions arise when you talk about the Mongols - though assuming that their rise as well as the sequence of events that led them into the Middle East is predestined is also fallacious - or other Iranian powers that may arise, or Western Christendom. The Crusading dynamic will change a bit, though to what extent I haven't the background in Western medieval history to say; I understand that the Romaioi already used some Western mercenaries, and am not sure if the need to hold onto Anatolia would generate sufficient demand for a call for help, or for the Papacy to issue a call. It has been noted that by default the crusading spirit and nature of operations was already going on in the Reconquista, but to what extent that is extended to the Holy Land is greatly an issue of the personalities of the age that will arise by this time, and thus difficult to speculate on.

I am fond, though, of responding to the Manzikert counterfactual by citing other good options for Roman retention of Anatolia, namely: not joining battle at all, or perhaps the removal of the conspiracy beforehand by Romanos; and, going back earlier, sufficient sexual activity on Basileios II's part to generate an heir, something infinitely preferable to Konstantinos VIII and Zoe and her husbands. The former would have probably had the same substantive effect on the Seljuq-Roman dynamic as winning the battle itself would have, but gets points for plausibility; the latter avoids the decay that many scholars have taken note of in the mid-11th century Empire for a much better suited empire to resisting whatever power arises from the contemporary struggle for supremacy in Iran (which ended up, as we know, first the Empire of the Great Seljuq and later Khwarizm, but at the time of Basileios II could easily have gone the way of, say, the Buwayhids).

Let us not forget in any estimations of Roman longevity the inherent energy that the Komnenoi harnessed in the 12th century. While relying somewhat on the strength of the crusading movement, by and large it was by Roman operations that half of Anatolia was restored and the other half nearly reclaimed (before Manouel I's disastrous turn westward and the resultant defeat at Myriokephalon). Is it not fair to extrapolate from that series of successes that the Romaioi had a legitimate chance at holding on to what already was theirs in the 11th century? And that isn't even discussing what extra they could have done with the resources of all Anatolia at their backs. It is mostly a matter of speculation, but it's reasonably safe to say that the Romaioi would have lasted a good long time had they retained Anatolia in the 1070s and 1080s.

[Stalins Ghost]

What would happen? They'd have retained Anatolia. What happens after that is anyones guess.

[Nakharar]

Well, i think it would change alot more, after Manzikert it wasnt just land, after recently finishing a book on Byzantium it would have given the army more push, against Sicilian Invanders at Durazo. Also the Manzikert battle was a offensive operation into Armenia, if the Romans inflicted a crushing victory they could captured more lands and pushed on further, with the main Seljuk army finished the Romans had a morale bonus and could of pushed furter. If the Romans had pushed further and were in a powerful position who knows maybe the Crusades wouldnt have been called, afterall Emperor Alexius seeing his struggle against the East tried to imply a crusade

[kkaana]

Well, i think it would change alot more, after Manzikert it wasnt just land, after recently finishing a book on Byzantium it would have given the army more push, against Sicilian Invanders at Durazo. Also the Manzikert battle was a offensive operation into Armenia, if the Romans inflicted a crushing victory they could captured more lands and pushed on further, with the main Seljuk army finished the Romans had a morale bonus and could of pushed furter. If the Romans had pushed further and were in a powerful position who knows maybe the Crusades wouldnt have been called, afterall Emperor Alexius seeing his struggle against the East tried to imply a crusade

You only talk about your guess. Battle of Manzikert was an overrated battle. Roman armies didnt lose so much in numbers. Their just lost their emperor. If the Seljuk lost battle of Manzikert in 1071, they would win another one in 1072 or 1073 or 1074. its like asking the same question as "The battle of Ankara...what if?". The history could not change 180 degrees in one battle.

[Antigenes]

You only talk about your guess. Battle of Manzikert was an overrated battle. Roman armies didnt lose so much in numbers. Their just lost their emperor. If the Seljuk lost battle of Manzikert in 1071, they would win another one in 1072 or 1073 or 1074. its like asking the same question as "The battle of Ankara...what if?". The history could not change 180 degrees in one battle.

But prior to the engagement, the Seljuqs weren't an inexorable force sweeping all before them. Romanos had shattered Alp Arslan's invading force as per the Strategikon's diktat a few years before, after all. Saying that they'd just keep coming is a little silly.

[kkaana]

But prior to the engagement, the Seljuqs weren't an inexorable force sweeping all before them. Romanos had shattered Alp Arslan's invading force as per the Strategikon's diktat a few years before, after all. Saying that they'd just keep coming is a little silly.

Battle of Manzikert was not the only turkic attempt to invade to Anatolia. Turkic people was settling into the Anatolia. Turkish forces would sooner or later try to conquer Anatolia. There were a rich land and sick empire standing in front of the Turks and the silly thing would be expecting that the Turks saying "thats enough, they beaten us, no more invading to Anatolia." The Byzantine armies defeated Alparslan and the Turkish armies in 1070 in Cilicia, but what happened then? Turks trien to invade again in 1071. So why wouldnt they try again in 1072?

If the Turks would beaten in battle of Manzikert; Romanus Diogenes would still be ruling the empire and that would worsen the empire future more than the battle did ...

[dogukan]

Battle of Manzikert was not the only turkic attempt to invade to Anatolia. Turkic people was settling into the Anatolia. Turkish forces would sooner or later try to conquer Anatolia. There were a rich land and sick empire standing in front of the Turks and the silly thing would be expecting that the Turks saying "thats enough, they beaten us, no more invading to Anatolia."

If the Turks would beaten in battle of Manzikert; Romanus Diogenes would still be ruling the empire and that would worsen the empire future more than the battle did ...

I'd agree....considering that the Great Seljuks were growing big...they'd sooner or later rise even a larger force. But the history would be much more different(like Ottomansnot emerging...etc)...The asian side of Anatolia would fall to hands of Turkic people anyways. Or at least would have a large amount of Turkic population, but they'd be Christian.
Turkification was inevatible but the ruling state could be anybody.

[Wolfcp11]

It was more the West that destroyed the Byzantine Empire than the East... better "if" would be if a certain Dodge lost more than his eyesight in a fight...

[Faramir D'Andunie]

The success of the 4th crusade reflects the extremely poor state of the empire, general corruption, incompetent emperors who were quickly overthrown by another just as incompetent or even more, state officials who were interested more in their own well beeing.


Nations comit suicide they do not get murdered, or so I have come to believe.

[Wolfcp11]

Hmm, true- now, what if John Komnenos didn't die early by a freak accident?

[Faramir D'Andunie]

Didn't he die while hunting? If my memory serves me right he accidenticaly got wounded by a poisoned arrow while reaching for his quiver, while killing a boar.

A lot would depend on the result of the campaign Ioannes Komnenos was undertaking when he died, and what impact it would have in the middle east. Personally I believe the greatest mistake of Manuel was to shift too much resources and campaigning on the western parts instead of the east.
Also there is the issue of internal policies and reforms. Andronikos Comnenos understood he had to battle the "nobility" and corrupt officials to bring life back to the empire, back it can be argued that he tried it a bit late and was not helped by circumstances.

[Carpathian Wolf]

The battle was lost in the courts of Constantinople, not on the battlefield. The Romans had very light losses. A better questiond would be what of the Emperor had not been betrayed from the inside? The Romans would have atleast been able to hold the border. I've said this before that the main 2 reasons the Romans were brought down was:

1. Internal Strife
2. Too many enemies

I think it could handle one or the other but not both for a prolonged period.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

The E. Roman Empire was long dying by Manzikert. When they lost all of Africa (including Egypt), Palestine, and Syria to the Arabs it was basically the beginning of the end. The Turks would have wore them down eventually, or the Mongols would have. Don't forget that Eastern Europe didn't particularly like the Romans/Greeks as well, as was demonstrated in 1204