Byzantine/Eastern Roman WI

[Xenophonte]

What If Leo Tornikios, an E. Roman/Byzantine Doux from an important family and Emperors relative, didn't rebel or rather if he would, that he'd be prevented to do so. Either imprisoning him effectively or at the times practice, making secure that even if willing he couldn't be considered apt for to wear the purple.
So, I would like to discuss exploring what possibles consequences would be from this seemingly minor and long forgotten pod...
From, what recall perhaps, without a rebellion to worry about and diverting troops. I think that it would have improved and strengthened the imperial forces available in Anatolia to the then co-emperor Constantine IX Monomachos to assemble and deal more effectively than OTL, with the near simultaneous Seljuk incursion/raid.
Thus, preventing them to get so many and valuable loot, so as preventing the wanton destruction inflicted to the region that was subjected to their loot incursion... Would have been possible that if feasible, that an important enough defeat of the raiding Seljuks army 'd have prevented future raids/slowed, (at least for the short/middle term), their expansion?
Also, if so, it'd be possible that it would have helped to did prevent or at least delay the hiring and settling of some of the so called 'Franks' (Normands?) dangerously unruly mercenaries. How would it affect the Seljuk-E. Roman relations...

 

[Evil Crusader]

I'm tempted to say that, unless butterflies, not much changes.
The main problem is not that Byzantines are vulnerable (porous as it was, the border held a whole generation still) but that it's politically expedient for the Seljuks to fight them, to prove themselves as ghazi and cement their own rule, and that when push comes to shove, traitorous elements are likely to desert and undermine an otherwise underwhelming military leadership that still had some degree of victory disease - factors that the POD doesn't exactly hamper. If you want the Byzantines to be more ready for the Seljuks, Maniakes or Isaac Komnenos make for better candidates to bolster.

 

[Silver01]

I'm tempted to say that, unless butterflies, not much changes.
The main problem is not that Byzantines are vulnerable (porous as it was, the border held a whole generation still) but that it's politically expedient for the Seljuks to fight them, to prove themselves as ghazi and cement their own rule, and that when push comes to shove, traitorous elements are likely to desert and undermine an otherwise underwhelming military leadership that still had some degree of victory disease - factors that the POD doesn't exactly hamper. If you want the Byzantines to be more ready for the Seljuks, Maniakes or Isaac Komnenos make for better candidates to bolster.

The revolt did have an immediate effect on the Pechenegs raiding and the Pecheneg revolt

 

[Vabasion]

That’s just changing a single occasion. Byzantines had an endemic problem with treason, Lloyd and coups. Seizing the throne was legitimate more or less. It led to endemic problem of picking the worst into leadership roles and generalship in order to prevent a rise of a rival to you. Nothing would change long term, the same issues persist and Byzantines keep digging themselves further into the hole

 

[Xenophonte]

I'm tempted to say that, unless butterflies, not much changes.
The main problem is not that Byzantines are vulnerable (porous as it was, the border held a whole generation still) but that it's politically expedient for the Seljuks to fight them, to prove themselves as ghazi and cement their own rule, and that when push comes to shove, traitorous elements are likely to desert and undermine an otherwise underwhelming military leadership that still had some degree of victory disease - factors that the POD doesn't exactly hamper. If you want the Byzantines to be more ready for the Seljuks, Maniakes or Isaac Komnenos make for better candidates to bolster.

That’s just changing a single occasion. Byzantines had an endemic problem with treason, Lloyd and coups. Seizing the throne was legitimate more or less. It led to endemic problem of picking the worst into leadership roles and generalship in order to prevent a rise of a rival to you. Nothing would change long term, the same issues persist and Byzantines keep digging themselves further into the hole

I'm aware that's been a minor pod and indeed the E. Romans, at this time we're facing a series of chronic problems both as a State, and from their leadership but aside that, I think that, this pod would at very least, could have helped to provide a respite to the Empire.
Cause, even if were troubles/ systemic political fault lines they still weren't insurmountable. And, (iirc), Constantine IX, was rather competent emperor and the Empire, he ruled, still was a regional power.
So, rather than to 'bolster' one of the more traditional/usual characters, I think that the Tornikios rebellion was a pod worth to be explored.
Given that it couldn't have happened at a worse time as for it was near simultaneous to the Seljuk first great incursion as well that, it (imo, again) played a key part in both to the way that the incursion was/could be dealt with.
As well as it allowed that would have to start with building a negative socio-politically-military momentum that would leave them on the back foot.
Cause, it allowed to the Seljuk to not only to return with their loot and to get ransoms but perceive that the obvious benefits to ravage/plunder the Empire Anatolian borders would far outweigh the risks of facing the Empire military response.
All of which had the foreseeable economic, social, population, and tax negative impacts, not only on the Empire capacity to keep in check this new menace, as the next decades would prove.
But, also, cause even the variety of 'traditional way' of use, some barbarians against others, that the Empire devised/implemented to deal with it. Which was the hiring and settling of 'Franks' mercenaries while somewhat work for a while, it backfired in the worst way for the next E. Roman/Byzantine emperors/rulers.