Would there still be crusades? After all, the crusades started after the Byzantine emperor asked for help. The situation in Syria/Palestine would develop differently if the Byzantines had won at Manzikert. Of course, the answer depends on what would happen after Manzikert. Would the Byzantine empire expand its area? Would perhaps the Fatimid Caliphate be strengthened? If the Seljuq sultanate was weakened, maybe the Fatimid would have taken control of Syria, with Palestine?
WI: Byzantine victory at Manzikert (1071) ----> butterflies?
- Thread starter Eivind
- Start date
The Byzantines still have pretty big problems. The defeat at Manzikert itself did not do as much damage as the set of civil wars that followed. Winning at Manzikert gives Romanos Digenes some political capital, but a clash between him and the Doukas faction is inevitable. Add ambitious generals like OTL Nikepheros III, the whole Komnenos clan and a Sicilian entity rather interested in Greece.....
Yeah, the Empire is still in for a world of pain. Long-term expansion is out of question (can't rule out Romanos being stupid enough to make ephemeral annexations), and they need to spend quite a long time fixing their internal affairs. They may be able to avoid an organized Turkish attack for a while (if the Seljuks do get a bloody nose at Manzikert, since they OTL wanted Egypt way more) but unorganized turkmen incursions will continue and is likely beyond the ability of the Empire to stop after Constantine X gutted the frontier themes. An actual Seljuk movement into Anatolia also is likely if there is a long civil war. Without that, they will limp along till they get a good basileus to fix things or slowly decay like OTL, but demographics of eastern Anatolia will likely change a lot.
In the wider ME, I think the Turks will recover quickly and redirect attention towards Fatimids, who are probably going to be in a bit of a tight spot (worse than OTL). Any issues with pilgrims in Palestine could still lead to calls for a crusade, but at this time I do not think that a Latin army would risk trying to march through a hostile Byzantine Empire to get to Palestine. So it may just peter out, try to land in the Levant via the sea or convince the Empire to let them go through imperial territory (I don't think this is too likely).
Yeah, the Empire is still in for a world of pain. Long-term expansion is out of question (can't rule out Romanos being stupid enough to make ephemeral annexations), and they need to spend quite a long time fixing their internal affairs. They may be able to avoid an organized Turkish attack for a while (if the Seljuks do get a bloody nose at Manzikert, since they OTL wanted Egypt way more) but unorganized turkmen incursions will continue and is likely beyond the ability of the Empire to stop after Constantine X gutted the frontier themes. An actual Seljuk movement into Anatolia also is likely if there is a long civil war. Without that, they will limp along till they get a good basileus to fix things or slowly decay like OTL, but demographics of eastern Anatolia will likely change a lot.
In the wider ME, I think the Turks will recover quickly and redirect attention towards Fatimids, who are probably going to be in a bit of a tight spot (worse than OTL). Any issues with pilgrims in Palestine could still lead to calls for a crusade, but at this time I do not think that a Latin army would risk trying to march through a hostile Byzantine Empire to get to Palestine. So it may just peter out, try to land in the Levant via the sea or convince the Empire to let them go through imperial territory (I don't think this is too likely).
Hostile? There could be no crusade without Roman support unless that crusade was against the Muslims in Iberia.
Any first crusade would have to have the support of the Roman Empire. OTL's first crusade was with Roman support, and the crusaders all took an oath to Alexis. Of course, relations later broke down, but any crusade like OTL would have to be, at the least, have the support of Constantinople at the beginning.
Yes, any crusade other than in Spain, will not occur without the Byzantine call for help following the Saljuq capture of 90% of Anatolia. Make no mistake, until later time, the crusade was a venture to both rescue Byzantium and reunite Christendom following the schism of 1054.
CaliGuy
Banned
Question--didn't the Seljuk Turks actually not want to fight the Byzantines in 1071 and actually offer the Byzantines a generous peace deal (which the Byzantines rejected) before the Battle of Manzikert?
CaliGuy
Banned
Out of curiosity--how strong were the navies of the Western Europeans during this time? After all, can't the Crusaders use Cyprus as a base even without cooperation from the Byzantine Empire (as in, by literally capturing Cyprus and then using it as a base to launch attacks on the Holy Land)?
CaliGuy
Banned
Wasn't another purpose of the First Crusade to strengthen Pope Urban II's power base and to weaken a rival claimant of his to the Papacy?
I think, even without a Byzantine loss of Anatolia, the Emperor might decide to at least grant the crusaders safe passage, for any one of the following reasons:
1) The crusading army looks big and fearsome, and he figures it'd be more sensible to let them pass through with a minimum of fuss and let the Turks weaken themselves fighting them.
2) He's having difficulty dealing with Turkish raids, and hopes that the crusades will distract the Turks, at least for a time.
3) He expects to be able to force the crusader states into some sort of subservient status if their crusade is successful.
CaliGuy
Banned
Stated where exactly?
Indeed, if my memory is correct, this is a part of what I learned in a course about the Crusades that I took at my university a couple of years ago.
Yep-Romanos IV wanted war, and got one from a reluctant Arp Arslan, who wanted to attack Egypt and leave the Empire alone. We now know how much of a paper tiger Byzantium was at the time, but they were the big player in the region on paper-with a century and half of reasonably major successes, and so the Turks were likely reluctant to provoke them to full on war. To be fair, Romanos wanted Turkmen attacks on Anatolia to stop and Arp Arslan was not stopping those (he likely could not have), but going to war without first exhausting the diplomatic sector was a bad move.
I don't think they could. Venice was a rising power but the atrophy of the Byzantine navy had not yet reached extreme stages. It depends on the time too, to be honest-OTL 1070s is one thing while 1090s is another (by then the Normans will have a functional navy which likely could beat the Romans). Without the full on post Manzikert chaos, I think the Navy would continue to decline but be strong enough to be able to hold Cyprus (especially as a hostile Cyprus is a big problem for the naval base at Attaleia in southern Anatolia) till TTL first crusade. All this depends a great deal on how the internal political crisis of the Empire is resolved, to be honest.
Im skeptical of this. The crusaders were not viewed favorably and it sounds political suicide to let a large foreign army march through the whole of Anatolia (still with the Empire), possibly raiding and pillaging. OTL it was a much weaker Empire with basically nothing in Anatolia left, so passage over the straits was a safe bet. This time though, the crusaders have a long march over Roman lands-which can only end badly. You don't even have to be as bad as Isaac II Angelos to oppose this.
If I were Emperor at that time, I'd use whatever fleet I have left (and buy/rent stuff from Venice) to directly send a particularly threatening crusading horde via sea to Antioch/Laodecia in Syria, where they can do their own thing and not be a problem. Either that, or send so many men with them on the march across Anatolia that trouble is kept to a minimum (this sounds hard).
I didn't think of putting them on a fleet, although now you mention it it does seem a logical choice. Though IIRC the "official" First Crusade army wasn't more badly behaved than any other army (the Peasants' Crusade was another matter), so unless the logistics supply breaks down they probably wouldn't do much raiding and pillaging of Byzantine land. The Emperor might not want to risk it, though.
As in, papal power and dominance was inferred. Whereas the reason that was stated or the casis beli was to engage the Saljuq Turks in battle outside Nicea and thus rescue Byzantium bringing them back into the fold of Christendom as previously the HRE seemingly was. The Crusaders then proceeded to do its intention and in short order, the Saljuqs where pushed from most of Anatolia and Armenia and soon after the Saljuqs would fall after successive loss in wars.
The idea that the crusaders before 1204, truly betrayed Byzantium is mislead in my opinion regardless of degree or tenure. The Byzantines had not ruled Palestine and Lebannun since the 600s AD. They also had submitted most of these lands to the Fatimids and had more or less underhand deals with them. Thus, Byzantium had no rights to then come in and demand all these Levantine lands except Antioch and Cilicia. So it is no surprise that the Latins defended their territory from the Byzantines who attempted to pry these lands from their holders by force of arms (as in, might is right, the greatest claim to land is power, which Byzantium lacks).
Well, considering Diogenes policies seemed to be a balance of austerity and cleaning up the military, if he has the capital of being victorious in the field, the future depends on how the victory was achieved. Do a number of mercenaries still defect? In which case he might be driven further into ensuring a purely Roman Army, if they all stay on side, then he may choose to phase them out more slowly.
Khroudj is a factor I don't know much about, but an alliance with a Turkish General? Whatever for? It almost certainly spells out an aggressive stance against the Turks. Combine the political situation in Constantinople, with the need for political capital that can be gained with victory, and I think we might be looking at someone who wants to push into Syria, and push hard, furthering direct control over the Levantine coast, with inland protectorates. But the Turkish general might be an interesting option for a N.Mesopotamian client. A victory at Manzikert (even better if it includes the capture of Alp Arslan), could be followed up with an invasion of Armenia and N.Mesopotamia if Khroudj is to be used as I expect. Armenia to Constantinople and N.Mesopotamia to Khroudj.
I have no idea what an execution or capture of Alp would cause, perhaps a civil war amongst the various Turk groups, which would make it easier for Diogenes to fortify his more austere rule, with the spoils of war going to the army to keep it friendly. If that happened, and Khroudj is used as I expect, then a war with the Fatamids may be next, and if successful, an attempt to take the coast down to the Sinai, and protectorates in the interior.
Khroudj is a factor I don't know much about, but an alliance with a Turkish General? Whatever for? It almost certainly spells out an aggressive stance against the Turks. Combine the political situation in Constantinople, with the need for political capital that can be gained with victory, and I think we might be looking at someone who wants to push into Syria, and push hard, furthering direct control over the Levantine coast, with inland protectorates. But the Turkish general might be an interesting option for a N.Mesopotamian client. A victory at Manzikert (even better if it includes the capture of Alp Arslan), could be followed up with an invasion of Armenia and N.Mesopotamia if Khroudj is to be used as I expect. Armenia to Constantinople and N.Mesopotamia to Khroudj.
I have no idea what an execution or capture of Alp would cause, perhaps a civil war amongst the various Turk groups, which would make it easier for Diogenes to fortify his more austere rule, with the spoils of war going to the army to keep it friendly. If that happened, and Khroudj is used as I expect, then a war with the Fatamids may be next, and if successful, an attempt to take the coast down to the Sinai, and protectorates in the interior.
Haha, it is not so much a question of how badly behaved the army was than what it was perceived to be (see Anna Komnena for impressions)-but their march would likely not be quite smooth (at least based on how Crusade II went, if I am remembering my Odo right-though source biases there too).
Also, a crusader army with a bunch of Normans in it is very unlikely to be allowed to make it through without Anatolia being almost completely taken away like OTL. They were the other major pain in the rear for the Empire at the time. Big host of Normans in Anatolia-what could ever go wrong with that?
The Crusaders did not intend to betray Byzantium explicitly per say (even Episode IV was Venetian sponsored for the most part), but there were pretty good reasons for the Byzantines to be skeptical about Crusaders (aside from the general cultural issues):
a) High density of Normans who were making life hell for them in the west for round 1
b) Issues arising over march across Anatolia for Crusades II and III. Isaac Angelos deserves a lot of blame for this, but the Crusaders by the Third one were quite willing to cut the Empire up (Cyprus) or conquer outright (Barbarossa)-not exactly things suggesting things were great before 1204, per say.
c) The Crusaders also kicked out the Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem soon after round 1-not the best way to make friends.
I would not say Crusaders refusing to return every piece of land they conquered was betrayal, but they were not particularly unwilling to escalate tensions with what was still the only great Christian power in Near East. The Emperors themselves were also to blame, caught up in their perception of their high office to the extent of being pseudo delusional about reality-but the Crusaders should get some blame.
(I do agree with the might making things right bit though
) Honestly though, I don't see Diogenes having the political acumen to actually get rid of the Doukai. He is more likely to squander his political capital on a eastern campaign (we agree till that part) that would turn into a disaster. If he is smart-he'd play divide and rule and a client state in N.Mesopotamia would be great-but I doubt the Empire has the means to actually achieve that at that point in time.
If Diogenes was smart he'd hold off from doing anything stupid and actually work on getting rid of the Doukai-marry a Bryennos or Komnenos to get their support maybe? Im likely being unfair to the guy but he'd likely overextend and either die in some ditch in Syria or be disposed off by a coup. I also don't think Alp Aslan being captured then would be very damaging-man died within a year of Manzikert OTL and the Seljuks still did OK.
(I may also be biased since I just reached Manzikert in my own TL-hopefully my thoughts have not seeped in too much
)In a TL where the Byzantines win at Manzikert, the Empire would almost certainly be stronger than IOTL, so the Normans would be less of a menace; they probably wouldn't have tried to invade Greece, for example, or if they did they'd have been more easily repelled.
Honestly though, I don't see Diogenes having the political acumen to actually get rid of the Doukai. He is more likely to squander his political capital on a eastern campaign (we agree till that part) that would turn into a disaster. If he is smart-he'd play divide and rule and a client state in N.Mesopotamia would be great-but I doubt the Empire has the means to actually achieve that at that point in time.
If Diogenes was smart he'd hold off from doing anything stupid and actually work on getting rid of the Doukai-marry a Bryennos or Komnenos to get their support maybe? Im likely being unfair to the guy but he'd likely overextend and either die in some ditch in Syria or be disposed off by a coup. I also don't think Alp Aslan being captured then would be very damaging-man died within a year of Manzikert OTL and the Seljuks still did OK.
(I may also be biased since I just reached Manzikert in my own TL-hopefully my thoughts have not seeped in too much
To be honest, I'm trying to make an assessment based on minimal information and inference - we only have 3 years of a reign, and the PoD is his disaster that built his reputation for us. Switching that on its head leaves us a bit short on "who was this guy and what was he capable of" - makes good TL fodder. I see this as a chance for a good boring reign once he gets his house in order.
I actually directly disagree on his strategy, because even he saw that he had little to no political power in Constantinople, partially because of his policies (which tbh, the Byzantines sorely needed at this point, less dross, more savings). As a result he needed a war, and if he won it, he could remove his enemies. The people and the army love a winner in the field, especially if he brings home loot. Using his fiscal prudence and an anti-corruption campaign could well bring the army on side (if not some of the old generals) and cement his rule after a victorious war, allowing him to get rid of the Doukoi, and set the stage to bring the Komnenoi and the Bryennos onto his side, if they haven't been alienated by corruption charges.
I think we'd not be able to see either of your proposed alliances without some more success in the field - having Alp is a great prestige boost, not as great as the reverse was a prestige loss, but certainly enough to garner some respect for the Emperor. Until then, the Doukoi are still the better option. Get rid of the Doukoi, and suddenly house Diogenes is the best house to marry into.
I think a successful Diogenes would make a political alliance with the Komnenoi, and through them the Bryennos. Alexios served under him, and if they are both regularly in the field, Alexios may well make not only a good officer, but a later ally to marry a daughter to. (If the situation gets as such, he might become a particularly effective co-emperor as well). If there is an alliance there, I think he'd be a prime candidate to promote to the frontier - either to re-institute the Katepanate of Ras, or (my preference) reconquer S.Italy from the Normans. With a cleaner, more reliably paid army - and the money to turn Normans over to the Roman side, that would keep Alexios very busy, and help Diogenes, either by getting rid of a capable rival, or giving him S.Italy again, under a capable commander that would be able to turn Italia into a net gain. That could be repeated in Serbia (or reverse the positions) with Bryennos as his lieutenant in Serbia to become Katepan of Ras. Which leaves Diogenes with a much cleaner house to work with, so he can focus on using his not civil-war-torn Empire to strengthen it anew and take advantage of whatever piecemeal conquests he can.
Admittedly, this is an optimistic (I'm not saying best case), I'm assuming that the Komnenoi aren't about to try and seize the throne from Italy, and same with the Bryennos. But I think we'd see a reign defined by Diogenes, but well known for the Katepans of Ras and Italia, and their successes, with the moderately improved health of the Empire as a whole. Bit boring, no great conquest of Egypt, but instead smaller conquests of the Levantine coast. A good position, but not a great one that a bad heir, messy usurpation, or massive Seljuk invasion couldn't ruin - but I think the latter might be avoided - the Byzantine Paper Tiger hasn't been exposed, and has been made a bit more substantial by his reign, which may be enough to have Malik-Shah continue as per normal, without invading Anatolia - and collapse into civil war later. Boring, but good - exactly the sort of Emperor it needs at this moment. Egypt can wait for the next Emperor.