The Byzantines win the Battle of Manzikert in 1071

[WolfBear]

What if the Byzantine Empire wins the Battle of Manzikert in 1071? Does this permanently solve the Seljuk threat or are the Seljuks simply going to try again in five or ten of fifteen or twenty years until they'll succeed? What do you think, @stevep @History Learner?

For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert

One big effect of this that I can see, of course, is that it will either prevent the Crusades altogether or at least change their timing.

 

[ATP]

What if the Byzantine Empire wins the Battle of Manzikert in 1071? Does this permanently solve the Seljuk threat or are the Seljuks simply going to try again in five or ten of fifteen or twenty years until they'll succeed? What do you think, @stevep @History Learner?

For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert

One big effect of this that I can see, of course, is that it will either prevent the Crusades altogether or at least change their timing.

Easily done - if everybody except Varagians do not betrayed ERE emperor,he would win ,or at least do not lost.
What next? turks would coming,true - but,it do not matter then they must win.

 

[stevep]

What if the Byzantine Empire wins the Battle of Manzikert in 1071? Does this permanently solve the Seljuk threat or are the Seljuks simply going to try again in five or ten of fifteen or twenty years until they'll succeed? What do you think, @stevep @History Learner?

For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert

One big effect of this that I can see, of course, is that it will either prevent the Crusades altogether or at least change their timing.

I think it depends on how they win and how strong the empire is or stays. Without the division and treachery that marked the empire after Basil II death in 1025 - his great crime being to have failed to secure the succession - then its likely to last a lot longer. The Turks would continue to be a problem as nomadic raiders always are but secure the hinterland and mountains of eastern Anatolia by not dismantling the theme system and their likely to be a problem rather than a real threat. IIRC their prime aim was the defeating of the Fatimid's who ruled Egypt and Palestine at the time - the latter being Shia's so if a strong empire defeats Turkish probes and doesn't show such critical vulnerability the Seljuk's probably largely bypass imperial lands in northern Syria and head for Palestine. Not sure how things would go from there.

Sooner or later the empire will have a period of weakness and disunity as it did in the post-1015 period but also sooner or later it will have a strong reforming emperor, either from the Macedonian dynasty or someone overthrowing it after a civil war. Whichever comes 1st and what neighbouring powers are like at the time would be decisive. Of course if the Mongols still come along most of Anatolia is likely to be devastated but could be regained as the Mongols ebb or even prompt the Mongols in the ME region to end up Orthodox Christian. They are unlikely to last but could make it easier for the empire to regain lost lands and possibly push further.

If you did get a stronger empire, which secure its eastern reaches then it main focus could be the Balkans probably with clashes with Venice or Hungary or Sicily/S Italy to which they had historical claims. In which case any crusades called by the Papacy could well be against the empire.

 

[Navarro]

The Mongols are unlikely to swoop into Anatolia, which is a very mountainous region unsuited for their style of warfare - their natural path of expansion is into Syria and Mesopotamia, and they're likely to devastate it as they did IOTL. In that case the post-Mongol chaos could lead to Byzantium expanding once more into the region. As for anti-Byzantine Crusades, the East Romans are unquestionably fellow Christians - you have to remember that the Fourth Crusade was already excommunicated when they sacked Constantinople as a result of getting caught up in Roman court politics.

A surviving strong East Roman Empire into the modern period ... it's probably going to be a rough parallel to the Ottomans as a rival to Austria (though an ally to Russia), though naturally more friendly to Christianity and will likely be a strong centre of the Renaissance when that comes around. I can see it lasting at least into the early 1900s.

 

[stevep]

The Mongols are unlikely to swoop into Anatolia, which is a very mountainous region unsuited for their style of warfare - their natural path of expansion is into Syria and Mesopotamia, and they're likely to devastate it as they did IOTL. In that case the post-Mongol chaos could lead to Byzantium expanding once more into the region. As for anti-Byzantine Crusades, the East Romans are unquestionably fellow Christians - you have to remember that the Fourth Crusade was already excommunicated when they sacked Constantinople as a result of getting caught up in Roman court politics.

A surviving strong East Roman Empire into the modern period ... it's probably going to be a rough parallel to the Ottomans as a rival to Austria (though an ally to Russia), though naturally more friendly to Christianity and will likely be a strong centre of the Renaissance when that comes around. I can see it lasting at least into the early 1900s.

I don't know as the Seljurks did it and then Tamur. Plus the Mongols crossed some pretty mountainous terrain in their battle in Iran, Afghanistan etc. Also if the empire is strong its likely to be seeking to defend the very rich and historically important locations in N Syria, such as Antioch so you could well see a crushing defeat here that shatters imperial forces, especially if the emperor was to die here.

Agree that with a well prepared and organised defence there are chunks of Armenia and neighbouring locations that will be tough for the Mongols, especially since such attacks aren't likely to be until ~1240 or a bit later which will mean Genghis is dead and there could be divisions between assorted Mongol factions. However with the sort of power they had in the 1240-60 period and under a decent leader the Mongols are going to be damned tough to stop.

The west organised crusades against groups that were Christians but considered heretical so I wouldn't put it past the papacy. Especially if a strong eastern empire was stomping through southern Italy and refusing to accept the Popes claims of being the supreme head of the church and also independent of the emperor. Or possibly if the Emperor secures Jerusalem and using that to claim power over the western church.

Would agree that a surviving strong empire would be similar in many ways to the Ottoman one, which is going to have a huge impact on areas such as the Balkans and Anatolia, possibly also parts of Italy, the Hungarian plain and even say Egypt if really successful. Not sure it would be as flexible in its early days as the Ottomans were but a powerful Orthodox state controlling the Balkans and Anatolia could change the balance of power between east and west Europe. Although sooner or later western powers are going to start finding a way around Africa to the eastern trades or try going west and find an obstacle in the way which will shift things in their favour. Doubly so if the west manages to remain politically divided without being totally dominated by either the empire or some other policy.

 

[ATP]

The Mongols are unlikely to swoop into Anatolia, which is a very mountainous region unsuited for their style of warfare - their natural path of expansion is into Syria and Mesopotamia, and they're likely to devastate it as they did IOTL. In that case the post-Mongol chaos could lead to Byzantium expanding once more into the region. As for anti-Byzantine Crusades, the East Romans are unquestionably fellow Christians - you have to remember that the Fourth Crusade was already excommunicated when they sacked Constantinople as a result of getting caught up in Roman court politics.

A surviving strong East Roman Empire into the modern period ... it's probably going to be a rough parallel to the Ottomans as a rival to Austria (though an ally to Russia), though naturally more friendly to Christianity and will likely be a strong centre of the Renaissance when that comes around. I can see it lasting at least into the early 1900s.

Without Ottomans,Hungary would never fall,which mean weaker Habsburgs.
Moscov would be weaker without title of "third Rome" - and fighting ERE,not ally.
Both mean surviving Poland.

We have Europe with more relatively strong states,and,as a result,more normal wars - but no such things as WW1 and WW2.
Prussia would never conqer other german states,too.

 

[stevep]

Without Ottomans,Hungary would never fall,which mean weaker Habsburgs.
Moscov would be weaker without title of "third Rome" - and fighting ERE,not ally.
Both mean surviving Poland.

We have Europe with more relatively strong states,and,as a result,more normal wars - but no such things as WW1 and WW2.
Prussia would never conqer other german states,too.

Unless Hungary falls to a strong eastern empire. Possibly even after an equivalent to the OTL 1240's Mongol attacks if the empire survives the Mongols in a good condition. Alternatively the two will clash over their common border as Hungary did with the Ottomans.

Moscow - or whichever Russian state emerges on top will likely be weaker without being the major power of the Orthodox faith but its status is likely to be a sometimes rival, sometimes ally to the empire. Especially depending on the threats from east or west. If it does get its act together and control most of OTL Russia down to the Caspian then its going to be a potential threat to everybody to the east. Possibly even more so if Byzantium is supplying technological aid or simply allowing easier access to the Med and elsewhere than the Turks did OTL.

The HRE is unlikely to get drawn into fighting in Hungary so much but could still become more powerful especially if its not distracted by an Ottoman equivalent continually threatening its eastern border. Plus with so many centuries to consider just about anything could happen.

While some settlement is likely to occur at Berlin I don't think it even existed at the PoD so whether a Prussian state as we understand it could never exist.

 

[ATP]

Unless Hungary falls to a strong eastern empire. Possibly even after an equivalent to the OTL 1240's Mongol attacks if the empire survives the Mongols in a good condition. Alternatively the two will clash over their common border as Hungary did with the Ottomans.

Moscow - or whichever Russian state emerges on top will likely be weaker without being the major power of the Orthodox faith but its status is likely to be a sometimes rival, sometimes ally to the empire. Especially depending on the threats from east or west. If it does get its act together and control most of OTL Russia down to the Caspian then its going to be a potential threat to everybody to the east. Possibly even more so if Byzantium is supplying technological aid or simply allowing easier access to the Med and elsewhere than the Turks did OTL.

The HRE is unlikely to get drawn into fighting in Hungary so much but could still become more powerful especially if its not distracted by an Ottoman equivalent continually threatening its eastern border. Plus with so many centuries to consider just about anything could happen.

While some settlement is likely to occur at Berlin I don't think it even existed at the PoD so whether a Prussian state as we understand it could never exist.

Berlin existed,as small slavic stronghold arleady taken by germans.But you are right,it probably remain small and unimportant.
Mongol invasion - they beaten everybody,so ERE would suffer,too.Probably as much as Hungary.
HRE - you are right.
Hungary - they never fought seriously ERE in OTL,why start later? well,there would be small border skirmishes,but that would be all.
Moscov - they become powerfull becouse they acted as state taking taxes for mongols from others - so,nobody change here.
Except they remain weaker - Nowogrod the Great probably would never fell here.
Lithuania could become orthodox and never unite with Poland,and Poland could remain average kingdom.

So,instead of PLC fighting Moscov and Turkey,we would have Moscov,Novogrod,Lithuania,Poland,Hungary and ERE in that place.

 

[stevep]

Berlin existed,as small slavic stronghold arleady taken by germans.But you are right,it probably remain small and unimportant.
Mongol invasion - they beaten everybody,so ERE would suffer,too.Probably as much as Hungary.
HRE - you are right.
Hungary - they never fought seriously ERE in OTL,why start later? well,there would be small border skirmishes,but that would be all.
Moscov - they become powerfull becouse they acted as state taking taxes for mongols from others - so,nobody change here.
Except they remain weaker - Nowogrod the Great probably would never fell here.
Lithuania could become orthodox and never unite with Poland,and Poland could remain average kingdom.

So,instead of PLC fighting Moscov and Turkey,we would have Moscov,Novogrod,Lithuania,Poland,Hungary and ERE in that place.

How early was Hungary looking southwards toward the Slava and lower Danube? I think by that time the empire was greatly restricted OTL so there was no basis for conflict between the two. If instead of Serbia and Bulgaria on their southern borders - and then latter the Ottomans - there was a powerful and large ERE there would be clashes, although at time possibly also alliances.

A lot with the Mongols and also if a Timur equivalent turns up a lot would depend on the state of the empire at the time. Its still likely to take a kicking as both of them did that to everybody they faced but the terrain and a strong empire could restrict that somewhat.

Moscow became powerful as you say by being a de-factor ally to the Khans but it might be that some other nation takes that status. Or if the Golden Horde ended up Orthodox a lot of potential butterflies there. Novogrod was I think limited because it depended so heavily on food imports from other states but possibly might change into a major power. However I suspect it would be too far north to become the lasting capital of any unified Russian state.

Interesting idea about Lithuania going Orthodox. That would mean it clashing with the catholic powers to its west but if it survived that it could end up as a significant power as religious wars aside it would have access to the Baltic for trade. Possibly it would seek to keep the assorted Russian states disunited to avoid one becoming too powerful for it. Which would however mean they stay vulnerable to assorted nomadic hordes so would complicate matters.

 

[ATP]

How early was Hungary looking southwards toward the Slava and lower Danube? I think by that time the empire was greatly restricted OTL so there was no basis for conflict between the two. If instead of Serbia and Bulgaria on their southern borders - and then latter the Ottomans - there was a powerful and large ERE there would be clashes, although at time possibly also alliances.

A lot with the Mongols and also if a Timur equivalent turns up a lot would depend on the state of the empire at the time. Its still likely to take a kicking as both of them did that to everybody they faced but the terrain and a strong empire could restrict that somewhat.

Moscow became powerful as you say by being a de-factor ally to the Khans but it might be that some other nation takes that status. Or if the Golden Horde ended up Orthodox a lot of potential butterflies there. Novogrod was I think limited because it depended so heavily on food imports from other states but possibly might change into a major power. However I suspect it would be too far north to become the lasting capital of any unified Russian state.

Interesting idea about Lithuania going Orthodox. That would mean it clashing with the catholic powers to its west but if it survived that it could end up as a significant power as religious wars aside it would have access to the Baltic for trade. Possibly it would seek to keep the assorted Russian states disunited to avoid one becoming too powerful for it. Which would however mean they stay vulnerable to assorted nomadic hordes so would complicate matters.

Twer was Moscov competitor for mongols affirmation - but,they manage to outsmart them/if i remember correctly,Twer prince married mongol princes,moscov agents killed her and blamed it on Twer,and mongols choosed Moscov.
But,till 1485 they were independent.

Lithuania border in 1408 was 80km from Moscov,and they had almost 80% of russian lands.
But - they were first pagans,and later catholics.If they were orthodox....

Fighting mongols/Timur - if they still had thamata system,they coud bloody their noses - but still lost.

 

[History Learner]

What if the Byzantine Empire wins the Battle of Manzikert in 1071? Does this permanently solve the Seljuk threat or are the Seljuks simply going to try again in five or ten of fifteen or twenty years until they'll succeed? What do you think, @stevep @History Learner?

For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert

One big effect of this that I can see, of course, is that it will either prevent the Crusades altogether or at least change their timing.

Manizkert literally happened as an accident, rather than any sort of serious desire on the part of the Seljuks to occupy Anatolia. The Sultan did it as a means of securing his flank to secure Syria for himself; the runaway success was not expected. Without this decisive battle, there will probably still be a coup by someone to replace the ailing current crop of elites, and without the military disasters of the East and West, Byzantium will flourish once again. It is likely the Balkans issue would be settled and, perhaps, a return to Italy which could be used to mend the East-West Schism.

All around, a much better world.

 

[ATP]

Manizkert literally happened as an accident, rather than any sort of serious desire on the part of the Seljuks to occupy Anatolia. The Sultan did it as a means of securing his flank to secure Syria for himself; the runaway success was not expected. Without this decisive battle, there will probably still be a coup by someone to replace the ailing current crop of elites, and without the military disasters of the East and West, Byzantium will flourish once again. It is likely the Balkans issue would be settled and, perhaps, a return to Italy which could be used to mend the East-West Schism.

All around, a much better world.

Schizm could not be mended.Becouse for ERE emperors church was part of their state,and they were leaders who decided what is wrong and good.
They even castrated boys to serv on court,becouse they thought that Emperor among eunuchs is mirror of God among angels.
Anybody in West would oppose that.

But yes,world would be better.

 

[stevep]

Schizm could not be mended.Becouse for ERE emperors church was part of their state,and they were leaders who decided what is wrong and good.

Well that was the situation before ~800 when the then Pope used weakness in the empire and the brief power of Charlemagne to escape the dominance of the empire. Which led to centuries of wars over who was dominant in the west, church or state. As such it was the standard system until that time.

Its unlikely that either pope or emperor while both had independent power would have accepted any theoretical check on their power so I would agree that the schism is unlikely to be ended. If fact a strong eastern empire, especially if it responded to Norman attack by seeking to regain its lands in S Italy, then the 1st crusade could well have been called against the empire.

They even castrated boys to serv on court,becouse they thought that Emperor among eunuchs is mirror of God among angels.
Anybody in West would oppose that.

But yes,world would be better.

Castrato. I'm surprised you don't know about that tradition given how heavily the papay was involved in it.

 

[ATP]

Well that was the situation before ~800 when the then Pope used weakness in the empire and the brief power of Charlemagne to escape the dominance of the empire. Which led to centuries of wars over who was dominant in the west, church or state. As such it was the standard system until that time.

Its unlikely that either pope or emperor while both had independent power would have accepted any theoretical check on their power so I would agree that the schism is unlikely to be ended. If fact a strong eastern empire, especially if it responded to Norman attack by seeking to regain its lands in S Italy, then the 1st crusade could well have been called against the empire.



Castrato. I'm surprised you don't know about that tradition given how heavily the papay was involved in it.

Castrato - from 15 century,and it was one of Byzantine ideas which come to Italy after fall of Constantinopole.
But,it was byzantine tradition,for unknown reason taken by papacy.Maybe Borgias liked it?

 

[stevep]

Castrato - from 15 century,and it was one of Byzantine ideas which come to Italy after fall of Constantinopole.
But,it was byzantine tradition,for unknown reason taken by papacy.Maybe Borgias liked it?

It does breach the argument that the papacy is incapable of error which is what your repeatedly argued before.

 

[ATP]

It does breach the argument that the papacy is incapable of error which is what your repeatedly argued before.

In case of morality and dogma.And when they speak Ex Catedra.Last case was in 1953,i think.
In all other cases - they coud be wrong.
Popes who copied ERE was wrong,Borgias was wrong,those from pornocracy period was wrong,and now Franciszek is wrong.

 

[WolfBear]

Manizkert literally happened as an accident, rather than any sort of serious desire on the part of the Seljuks to occupy Anatolia. The Sultan did it as a means of securing his flank to secure Syria for himself; the runaway success was not expected. Without this decisive battle, there will probably still be a coup by someone to replace the ailing current crop of elites, and without the military disasters of the East and West, Byzantium will flourish once again. It is likely the Balkans issue would be settled and, perhaps, a return to Italy which could be used to mend the East-West Schism.

All around, a much better world.

The fact that Romanos IV Diogenes's enemies overthrew him after Manzikert destabilized the Byzantine Empire and significantly helped the Seljuk Turks conquer the Anatolian interior, correct?

 

[History Learner]

The fact that Romanos IV Diogenes's enemies overthrew him after Manzikert destabilized the Byzantine Empire and significantly helped the Seljuk Turks conquer the Anatolian interior, correct?

I generally take him as a result of the political stagnation in the Empire rather than the sole cause; the 1030s to the 1080s is just insanely unstable in Byzantium.

 

[WolfBear]

I generally take him as a result of the political stagnation in the Empire rather than the sole cause; the 1030s to the 1080s is just insanely unstable in Byzantium.

Which in turn is the result of Basil II failing to produce an heir, right?

 

[stevep]

Which in turn is the result of Basil II failing to produce an heir, right?

Very much so while also suppressing a lot of the regional nobles who had produced a number of soldier emperors in his youth. It was good for his dynasty in removing rivals and also made the ordinary people very loyal to the Macedonian dynasty but when that, compounded by the intrigues of the bureaucracy produced a couple of generations of almost total lack of leadership things went to hell.

I do recall reading that the Turks were actually willing to withdraw from Anatolia on receipt of a large amount of gold which Romanos IV Diogenes' was trying to obtain when he was overthrown. That's a possible butterfly but it would require some strong force rebuilding the military and constraining the bureaucracy else you have a similar problem further down the line.

Even after that and with most of Anatolia in chaos with Turks rampaging all over the place the response of the main figures was to fight another war over who established a new dynasty. Which greatly weakened the European armies that had escaped the losses in Anatolia and then of course the Normans started attacking as well.

All in all a mess due to the lack of clear leadership emerging at any time after Basil's death in 1025!