WI: Manuel I Komnenos Didn't Make Peace With the Turks and Kept Up the Pressure?

[Putnam]

I've been listening to the History of Byzantium podcast by Robin Pierson and during his coverage of Manuel's reign he notes how he felt that Manuel making peace with the Turks when he did was a mistake and he should've kept up the pressure against the them, perhaps leading to the Sultanate cracking (as it eventually did against the Mongols).

Does this have any merit? Personally if it was a big mistake I would say it was only his second biggest mistake at most. His biggest mistake was not killing his cousin Andronikos when he very easily could have.

I'll be e-mailing a link to this thread to Robin so that he can maybe join in on the conversation and grant us more insight into his reasoning.

 

[Elfwine]

The Sultanate of Rum was only one of Manuel's many concerns, but essentially leaving it to its own devices for a considerable length of time was certainly a mistake.

Not sure that without hindsight I can say leaving Andronikos alive and unblinded was a worse error.

 

[Lascaris]

It's not a new argument. It goes back to Vasiliev if not Paparrigopoulos. And it certainly has more than a fair bit of merit. Manuel was spending resources a lot of them into campaigns he could have avoided in South Italy, Egypt and Hungary that produced no tangible results. Putting the same resources into continuing the reconquista in Anatolia would had likely produced far better results.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

It's not a new argument. It goes back to Vasiliev if not Paparrigopoulos. And it certainly has more than a fair bit of merit. Manuel was spending resources a lot of them into campaigns he could have avoided in South Italy, Egypt and Hungary that produced no tangible results. Putting the same resources into continuing the reconquista in Anatolia would had likely produced far better results.

I completely agree with this. Manuel reigned for 37 years, and you rarely get an emperor to rule for that long. Those 37 years could have better be spent gathering the resources required to put continued military and diplomatic pressure on the Turks. Egypt was more or less a prestige project and I am not really sure what the end goal was in Hungary. But Southern Italy makes sense. How long had the Normans been causing trouble to the empire (and would cause more after Manuel's death, followed by the Hohenstaufen and the Angevins)? If a war needed to be fought against them, better fight it in Italy, rather than the Balkans, with the added advantage that the addition of Apulia could not have been bad for the imperial treasury.

 

[Nivek]

I've been listening to the History of Byzantium podcast by Robin Pierson and during his coverage of Manuel's reign he notes how he felt that Manuel making peace with the Turks when he did was a mistake and he should've kept up the pressure against the them, perhaps leading to the Sultanate cracking (as it eventually did against the Mongols).

Does this have any merit? Personally if it was a big mistake I would say it was only his second biggest mistake at most. His biggest mistake was not killing his cousin Andronikos when he very easily could have.

I'll be e-mailing a link to this thread to Robin so that he can maybe join in on the conversation and grant us more insight into his reasoning.

He wouldn't have endure and might have get killed

 

[Elfwine]

hose 37 years could have better be spent gathering the resources required to put continued military and diplomatic pressure on the Turks.

What do you propose Manuel do in regards to Syria in this regard, assuming the goal is to simply hold what the empire already has (potentially but not obviously including Serbia) in Europe plus doing what can be done to keep the Normans in check?

 

[Nuraghe]

What do you propose Manuel do in regards to Syria in this regard, assuming the goal is to simply hold what the empire already has (potentially but not obviously including Serbia) in Europe plus doing what can be done to keep the Normans in check?

I would suggest maintaining the anti-Norman alliance with the Hohenstaufen, then initially supporting the Italian campaigns of Conrad III ( or perhaps making the military actions against the Altavilla coincide, after all, Manuel was on good terms with Conrad, both family and personal ) and continuing the policy of détente with the papacy ( Manuel Otl was the emperor Byzantine / Eastern Roman more respected in the West ) push to retake Iconium ( which allows easier access and above all a better defense to the southern Anatolian coast which connects to Outremer ) finally I would still try the card of representing myself as defender as well as their guardian of the crusader states like Otl but without wasting men and money on campaigns with little chance of success ( so you are calmly open to supporting them in a military campaign in Syria, less so one that has Egypt as its objective )

 

[Evil Crusader]

I honestly think it's a hindsight-fueled assessment. At Manuel's death, the Empire was at its strongest since Basil's times, fairly large, definitely wielding more influence in European affairs (who were now much more relevant to the Empire, too); had the Byzantines won at Myriokephalon like they did at Hyelion and Leimocheir just one year later, it is entirely possible the Seljuks would've been vanquished.
I don't recall whether it's Ostrogorsky or Luttwak that made the claim, but I agree with it nonetheless: that by the half of the 12th century a certain Mediterranean grand theater was emerging, and that Byzantium had to play the part of the Roman Empire it asserted to be or greatly lose face, something that proved a curse more often than a blessing.
To me, a far greater travesty was the fate of Béla-Alexios II, somebody who proved a great ruler and could've actually put the achievements of Manuel to work towards an even greater result. The following long regency was bound to be very troublesome even without Andronikos going pretty much nuclear.

 

[Nuraghe]

I honestly think it's a hindsight-fueled assessment. At Manuel's death, the Empire was at its strongest since Basil's times, fairly large, definitely wielding more influence in European affairs (who were now much more relevant to the Empire, too); had the Byzantines won at Myriokephalon like they did at Hyelion and Leimocheir just one year later, it is entirely possible the Seljuks would've been vanquished.
I don't recall whether it's Ostrogorsky or Luttwak that made the claim, but I agree with it nonetheless: that by the half of the 12th century a certain Mediterranean grand theater was emerging, and that Byzantium had to play the part of the Roman Empire it asserted to be or greatly lose face, something that proved a curse more often than a blessing.
To me, a far greater travesty was the fate of Béla-Alexios II, somebody who proved a great ruler and could've actually put the achievements of Manuel to work towards an even greater result. The following long regency was bound to be very troublesome even without Andronikos going pretty much nuclear.

the problem with Bela, despite being an excellent ruler, is that the Hungarians would not want to be commanded by Byzantium and the nobles of Constantinople would not want a half-barbarian ( no matter how cultured he was in the Romanitas ) who was also of Latin faith, in the end Bela would have been forced to choose between Hungary and Byzantium, certainly with hindsight, he could always have entrusted the former to his a possible second son, but the risk would have been enormous, Manuel's real problem is that after his presumed defeat a Myriokephalon, he became very demoralized until to let himself die, if he had lived longer, just long enough for Alexios II to come of age, he would have been remembered as an excellent Emperor, and yes indeed Byzantium was in a bad situation where losing its ability to influence and act outside the empire could make it appear weak and therefore potentially an easy target

 

[Elfwine]

To me, a far greater travesty was the fate of Béla-Alexios II, somebody who proved a great ruler and could've actually put the achievements of Manuel to work towards an even greater result. The following long regency was bound to be very troublesome even without Andronikos going pretty much nuclear.

I have to agree with this as far as it goes. Not necessarily that it had to be Bela, but Manuel dying without an adult heir turned a brittle but not weak position into a rapidly spiraling downward spiral.

 

[Hastings]

Yeah, probably good for someone to fill the role of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer but in Anatolia instead of Balkans. Make it your life passion, keep on if defeats. Expands core territory, shortens frontier. Close the gap between the realm of Edessa and Trebizond. Very defensive terrain, traditional frontier in east.

 

[E_x_c_u_b_i_t_o_r_e]

Yeah, probably good for someone to fill the role of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer but in Anatolia instead of Balkans. Make it your life passion, keep on if defeats. Expands core territory, shortens frontier. Close the gap between the realm of Edessa and Trebizond. Very defensive terrain, traditional frontier in east.

I agree completely, it's why I've always thought John was the better emperor in every against Manuel despite his relative strong position.

 

[CHKeeley]

Reading this article about Turkish migrations and Byzantine attempts at controlling and eventually losing Anatolia make this seem a lot more difficult than is being presented. It seems as if it was exceedingly difficult to not just capture but hold new regions, and necessitated years and years of campaigning while consolidating the populations in neokastron fortified settlements to protect the locals against roving bands of Turkic troops. I'm far from an expert here, but even before Myriokephalon it seems as if this process of incorporating and securing more and more of Anatolia was less about sweeping in and just conducting regular warfare against strongpoints but instead involved a constant seasonal ebb and flow across the entire stretch of frontier. Manuel's objectives here seem far more sensible and modest, which was capturing strategic and commanding points where imperial borders could be secured from intermittent raids from nomads/raiders from the interior. Keeping up the pressure across the entire expanse doesn't seem as easy or feasible as it reads like in this thread. Perhaps someone who knows more about these campaigns and the dynamic between Manuel's imperial armies and the Turkic forces could explain it to me though. What does "keeping up the pressure" realistically mean in this kind of warfare?

 

[Avrorrange]

Reading this article about Turkish migrations and Byzantine attempts at controlling and eventually losing Anatolia make this seem a lot more difficult than is being presented. It seems as if it was exceedingly difficult to not just capture but hold new regions, and necessitated years and years of campaigning while consolidating the populations in neokastron fortified settlements to protect the locals against roving bands of Turkic troops. I'm far from an expert here, but even before Myriokephalon it seems as if this process of incorporating and securing more and more of Anatolia was less about sweeping in and just conducting regular warfare against strongpoints but instead involved a constant seasonal ebb and flow across the entire stretch of frontier. Manuel's objectives here seem far more sensible and modest, which was capturing strategic and commanding points where imperial borders could be secured from intermittent raids from nomads/raiders from the interior. Keeping up the pressure across the entire expanse doesn't seem as easy or feasible as it reads like in this thread. Perhaps someone who knows more about these campaigns and the dynamic between Manuel's imperial armies and the Turkic forces could explain it to me though. What does "keeping up the pressure" realistically mean in this kind of warfare?

Which was what John II was doing and why his campaigns to capture Anatolia bit by bit worked. Manuel should have followed his father’s work.

 

[Silver01]

I will copy what Daniel from eastern roman history channel said :
he defeated the Hungarians and Serbs in three separate wars, all of which were defensive wars. When people say he spent too much time on the west, it's partially because he had to....

His Norman expedition was initially very successful and had the expedition not been defeat, it seems likely southern Italy would have been added to the empire again. In Anatolia, one thing Nicetas Choniates praises Manuel for, was the construction of new kastra in the Asian provinces. All of these areas were turned into Themes, properly integrating them into the administration. Though the Thematic armies did not return, troops were settled near these kastra as a permanent garrison. This was a significant factor in restoring the Anatolian provinces to prosperity. The Egyptian adventure was well intentioned but perhaps relied to much on mutual good will and was a disaster. Though it was the first real attempt to conquer the area since Constans II. Had it been more successful, The Crusader states would have likely stood a much greater chance of survival. Manuel also had to deal with several religious disputes and conspiracies. Perhaps a remarkable thing is just how well Manuel was able to project the soft power of the empire. Adventures such as his friendship with Henry II and his attempt to become holy Roman Emperor are certainly marks of this. He trashed the Venetians which is also a bonus.
I feel if anyone of his major conquests had succeeded we would be mentioning him in the same breath as Justinian, Basil or Heraclius

imo Egypt alone was not necessary but Serbia and Hungary were, and the Norman campaign made a lot of sense

 

[Lascaris]

What do you propose Manuel do in regards to Syria in this regard, assuming the goal is to simply hold what the empire already has (potentially but not obviously including Serbia) in Europe plus doing what can be done to keep the Normans in check?

After the third Norman invasion of 1147 was sent packing, there is little point in doing a counter invasion of south Italy. Or if you do an invasion regardless then don't take half measures. Don't send 10 ships send 100 ships and an army. Don't pursue campaigns into Hungary at the same time you are pursuing campaigns into South Italy. Manuel kept jumping from project to project and going for half measures. What tangible was gained by not completely smashing Raynald of Chatillon and annexing Antioch in 1159?

And I can't fail to think that continuing the policy of John with razzias year after year taking back Anatolia a bit at a time with Iconium recovered some time in the 1160s say 1167 when in OTL his generals won the battle of Sirmium in OTL would have worked much better off. In the end it was unfortunate that chance brought Manuel to the throne. Alexios the younger not falling ill in 1142 and becoming Alexios II o4 Andronikos the second son not also falling ill and dying would had probably both proven better if less spectacular for the empire.

 

[Elfwine]

After the third Norman invasion of 1147 was sent packing, there is little point in doing a counter invasion of south Italy. Or if you do an invasion regardless then don't take half measures. Don't send 10 ships send 100 ships and an army. Don't pursue campaigns into Hungary at the same time you are pursuing campaigns into South Italy. Manuel kept jumping from project to project and going for half measures. What tangible was gained by not completely smashing Raynald of Chatillon and annexing Antioch in 1159?

And I can't fail to think that continuing the policy of John with razzias year after year taking back Anatolia a bit at a time with Iconium recovered some time in the 1160s say 1167 when in OTL his generals won the battle of Sirmium in OTL would have worked much better off. In the end it was unfortunate that chance brought Manuel to the throne. Alexios the younger not falling ill in 1142 and becoming Alexios II o4 Andronikos the second son not also falling ill and dying would had probably both proven better if less spectacular for the empire.

While I agree that razzias year after year in Anatolia makes sense (and fewer "a little here, and a little there"), I do think it's interesting that discussions on this treat it like Anatolia was the one and only area the Byzantines really needed to worry/care about, which honestly doesn't seem to have been a perspective pretty much any emperor reigning from Constantinople had.

Genuinely not sure on either of Manuel's older brothers, just by not knowing enough about them.

 

[Fehérvári]

he defeated the Hungarians and Serbs in three separate wars, all of which were defensive wars. When people say he spent too much time on the west, it's partially because he had to....

In which world? Sure, Géza II aided Uros against Manuel, but the Byzantine campaign against Southern Hungary in early 1151 was an overall unnecessary escalation, which only achieved putting the two realms on long-term colliding course. Later on, Manuel sending Ladislaus II and Stephen IV against Stephen III was unquestionably an act of unprovoked (and therefor unnecessary) aggression, with the sole goal of vassalising/conquering Hungary. All these energies wasted on Hungary could have been spent elsewhere.

 

[Silver01]

In which world? Sure, Géza II aided Uros against Manuel, but the Byzantine campaign against Southern Hungary in early 1151 was an overall unnecessary escalation, which only achieved putting the two realms on long-term colliding course.

How is it escalation geza didn't sent like 1000 troops he sent a large contingent to support the Serbs in any sense this is an act of war also relationship between the two were already strained prior to 1151, they had fought a war only a generation before

Later on, Manuel sending Ladislaus II and Stephen IV against Stephen III was unquestionably an act of unprovoked (and therefor unnecessary) aggression, with the sole goal of vassalising/conquering Hungary. All these energies wasted on Hungary could have been spent elsewhere.

I sort of agree Manuel second invasion was not defensive rather aggressive unless he wanted those border territories but the last war, but the last confrontation was because Hungary had broken the agreement still the sole goal of vassalizing Hungary doesn't seem right when Manuel mostly reconquered old byzantine Territory in the border like Sirmium

 

[Fehérvári]

How is it escalation geza didn't sent like 1000 troops he sent a large contingent to support the Serbs

AFAIK we don't really know how many Hungarian units were sent to aid the Serbs, however it is known that mostly foreign auxiliary forces (Khalyzes, Pechenegs) were sent, and that the bulk of the Royal Army was not present, since it was campaigning in Halych at the time.

in any sense this is an act of war also relationship between the two were already strained prior to 1151, they had fought a war only a generation before

It is reasonable to argue that Manuel was justified in his punitive expedition against Hungary, I don't refute that, however it was still a conscious continuation/escalation of the conflict considering that Serbia was already subjugated by then. In retrospect, the war didn't bring any benefit.

relationship between the two were already strained prior to 1151, they had fought a war only a generation before

The war (1127-'28) between Stephen II and John II was fought specifically because the latter sheltered Prince Álmos (who constantly conspired to dethrone his nephew) and refused to hand him over (or keep him somewhere far away).

It was the son of this very same Prince Álmos who latter succeeded Stephen II, namely Béla II. During Béla II's reign, there was no confrontation between Hungary and Byzantium, the relations weren't strained.

but the last confrontation was because Hungary had broken the agreement still the sole goal of vassalizing Hungary doesn't seem right when Manuel mostly reconquered old byzantine Territory in the border like Sirmium

Vassalisation efforts completely failed because of the extreme unpopularity of both Ladislaus II and Stephen IV, that's why Manuel scaled back his ambitions to just the acquisition of Syrmium and (through Béla-Alexios' claim) Croatia-Dalmatia.

On another note, calling Sirmium old Byzantine territory doesn't really ring that good, considering that Byzantium only possessed the town between 1018 and 1071 in recent history. Prior to that it was in Hungarian, Bulgarian, Frankish, etc. hands. The area wasn't in Roman hands since the 5th century.

Still, it's true that the last conflict was started by the Hungarians. They tried to reconquer the lost territories, but if there are no lost territories to speak of, then that conflict would also be averted.