Was Manzikert that devasting to the Eastern Roman army?

[ray243]

A lot of people has noted Manzikert as the event the brought down the military might of the Eastern Roman army. The lost of recruitment base for their empire basically sealed its doom

However, I have to ask, is that really the case? The Romans managed to rebuild their armies again and again, such as Cannae, and even expanded their legions despite losing legions again and again.

Did they lost their military might because they lose a recruitment base? That is a weird argument, because manpower alone does not bring victory and military might. The Roman Republic managed to conquer and take down empires larger than them at times, from Italy alone. Alexander raised or inherited a army from the region of Greece alone, yet he managed to take down an empire larger than his entire kingdom.


Moreover, from what I gather, the Eastern empire did have a sizable population remaining in Greece. Why can't they rebuild their army, with recruits from Greece?

So, I have to question the rational that the lost of manpower from the Anatolian region cause the Eastern empire to fall. I don't believe that this is the reason behind that caused the Eastern Roman empire's military might to falter.

In fact, I would argue that it is the failure of the Eastern Empire military to adapt to the changing world, and being unable to reorganize itself from scratch, that caused the might of the ERE to fall.

[white-wolf]

There are many threads about Manzikert. Please check them.

[Pious Agnost]

In the first three pages, there is only one thread on Manzikert, and it's a What-if statement about the battle. This thread is justified.

It's been common thought for a while that the ERE was completely devastated by the losses of this battle, but I think that the casualties themselves may have been quite minor, Emperor Romanos' capture being what did the damage

[ray243]

In the first three pages, there is only one thread on Manzikert, and it's a What-if statement about the battle. This thread is justified.

It's been common thought for a while that the ERE was completely devastated by the losses of this battle, but I think that the casualties themselves may have been quite minor, Emperor Romanos' capture being what did the damage

Even then, the argument that the empire lost their biggest recruitment ground does not stand.

Unless Greece is severely underpopulated, raising an army is still possible.

A lot of Alt-historians seems to consider Manzikert as the point of no return. I don't believe in their argument at all. Even if Romanos was captured, the ERE still stand the chance to restructure their entire empire, and rebuild an army.

Hell, the ERE could even build an army out of the Roman Republic model if they wanted to do so, but they didn't.

Even if there is a civil war, we do know that the empire is capable of stabilizing and producing an able leader. The problem is, even when a decent emperor is around, the ERE failed to raise a proper army.

[Antigenes]

Unless Greece is severely underpopulated, raising an army is still possible.

Well, Anatolia was really the undisturbed heartland. Greece itself had suffered repeated incursions by Bulgarians and various other Slavs, and was at the same time a lot smaller. Raising an army from Greece alone was a much more difficult proposition than raising one from Anatolia.

A lot of Alt-historians seems to consider Manzikert as the point of no return. I don't believe in their argument at all. Even if Romanos was captured, the ERE still stand the chance to restructure their entire empire, and rebuild an army.

That's why the sequence of events after Manzikert is rather important.

Hell, the ERE could even build an army out of the Roman Republic model if they wanted to do so, but they didn't.

Explain.

[frontier-auxilia]

Well yes judging by the Seljuk taking Anatolia, Norman mercenaries/ nobleman taking their chance to curve small territories out for themselves and civil wars, manzikert is absolutely destructive to Byzantium's existence as a state.

Anyway this thread open up to a rather interesting discussion. How well would a early republic roman army fair against a medieval armies of the 11th century?

[John I Tzimisces]

Well, the treaty that followed manzikert really wasn't that bad. The ensuing chaos on both sides was really what hurt the Byzantines. Both Romanus (the emperor, right?) and Alp Arslan died and the treaty ultimate meant nothing. A state of anarchy = turkoman tribes had nothing to stop them as the forces that could have controlled or stopped them evaporated.

[Carpathian Wolf]

To the Roman army itself? Hardly a scratch. But when you add in the betrayel of the Emperor, the internal strife, the Norman invasion and general problems from the west, it had quite an effect.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

Highlight internal strife and the betrayal, you might want to discount the rest.

Also when you mention problems in the west, what exactly you have in mind?

[Carpathian Wolf]

Normans and also the economic methods of the west.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92CaT...e=channel_page

[justicar5]

Normans and also the economic methods of the west.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92CaT...e=channel_page

That documentry is interesting, but I can't help feeling that is calling for an autocracy in modern russia.

[Crimson Scythe]

As most have alluded to, the defeat itself wasn't all that important, but the political effects were.

The Battle of Myriokephalon (1176) was far more significant in the military sense.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

True, it also broke Manuel's confidence completely for some reason.

[ray243]

As Paul K. Davis writes, "Byzantine defeat severely limited the power of the Byzantines by denying them control over Anatolia, the major recruiting ground for soldiers. Henceforth, the Moslems controlled the region. The Byzantine Empire was limited to the area immediately around Constantinople, and the Byzantines were never again a serious military force."

Take this guy's comment for instance. He said the ERE was unable to raise a serious army, yet we have an Komnenian army to dispute his views.

The ERE lasted for a few hundreds years after that battle, and is capable of raising an army of similar size, in comparision to the army at the battle of Manzikert.

Also, if the Komnenian army is able to raised a 40,000 men army, the same army size of the Roman Republic at the battle of Cannae, I find it hard to accept that the military might of the ERE army ended at the battle of Manzikert.

If the Komenian army is able to field 40,000 men, would they be able to field a much larger army, if the Roman Republician system of consription was re-introduced, to protect the Greek homeland?

Well, Anatolia was really the undisturbed heartland. Greece itself had suffered repeated incursions by Bulgarians and various other Slavs, and was at the same time a lot smaller. Raising an army from Greece alone was a much more difficult proposition than raising one from Anatolia.

Same goes to the Roman Republic during its early years with the gaulic invasions , and during the Punic wars.


So, is the battle of Manzikert really the point of no return for the Roman army?

[motiv-8]

ray, you might want to check how much of the Komnenian army consisted of mercenaries instead of regular soldiers conscripted from the lands of the empire. Either way, the idea that the empire could have reformed itself a la the Republican system from millenia eariler is absurd, considering nary a single Byzantine would have known about that particular system or its military.

As for Davis's statment; I have not read anything from him, so I fear I may be taking it out of context, but:

Byzantine defeat in the field near Manzikert was not severely limiting. It is well-known that the majority of the army left the battle intact, a large part of it having not even engaged the enemy due to deceit. What was limiting was the disintegration of the army after Manzikert, which was not a sudden process but one lasting several years after as central government broke down and nomadic settlement by Turkish tribes became more pronounced. This process had also already begun decades before, the most notable example being the dissolution of the Armeniac Theme with its 30,000 man army.

The focus on a singular event to explain dramatic change is the result of lazy work or historical sensationalism; the serious historian knows that the event, while being potentially important nonetheless, is but a dot on the historical curve.

[hellheaven1987]

Godsh, I don't even know how to respond this thread, as nearly all ideas here did not even related with Byzantium's situation at all.

I would suggest everyone go and study some ERE military system before even continue the discussion.

[motiv-8]

Oh? And what books on the state of the empire's 11th century military have you read and can recommend to us unwashed masses?

[hellheaven1987]

Sure, two books come to my mind:

Byzantium at War AD 600-1453

And my favor, good for general information.

I have read both and they are good for novice; I cannot find the best one I have read now though and needs to do a bit of search for it.

Edit: This is another good one, although it deals late Byzantine Warfare.

[motiv-8]

Sure, two books come to my mind:

Byzantium at War AD 600-1453

Oh, silly me, stuck with Treadgold's Byzantium and Its Army, 284-1081. Guess I just don't know the real history.

And my favor, good for general information.

I again would prefer Treadgold's more interesting History of the Byzantine State and Society, though I am also trying to get through Norwich. He is just so tangential.

I have read both and they are good for novice; I cannot find the best one I have read now though and needs to do a bit of search for it.

Yes, thanks, but I am no mere novice.

[Stavroforos]

Oh, silly me, stuck with Treadgold's Byzantium and Its Army, 284-1081. Guess I just don't know the real history.


I again would prefer Treadgold's more interesting History of the Byzantine State and Society, though I am also trying to get through Norwich. He is just so tangential.


Yes, thanks, but I am no mere novice.

I really like that post you made "proving" that the Ottonians were the actual Roman Emperors and that Byzantines weren't.