Yeah it was a capital of the northern frontier and it's theme which they controlled for decades just a century prior I think it's fine calling it wanting to reconquer old byzantine frontier territory and strategic one at that
WI: Manuel I Komnenos Didn't Make Peace With the Turks and Kept Up the Pressure?
- Thread starter Putnam
- Start date
This among one of the worse alt hist takes or even history takes in general reminds me a lot of Jonh green joke WW1 would not have happens has the mongols kept control of Russia yeah it's correct but it answers nothing
Because as I will mention later yeah the war would have occured had they not reconquered those territories but even if we ignore the territory that territory Manuel wanted made sense it ignores war was going still likely going to occur
This isn't entirely true I mean yes during bela rule peace but bela soon began to expand to the Balkans first taking Bosnia and then split to say tensions didn't exist when bela was taking over the byzantine sphere of influence
To go back to spend his energy elsewhere I think this criticism of Manuel makes no sense for even let's say he never annexed Hungarian territory and conquered the Turks earlier why do people assume the empire survives? Manuel gains died off very quickly after his death Manuel focusing on Anatolia doesn't fix the issue as the events that brought down the regency of Maria of Antioch and rise of Andronikos I had little to with Anatolia or Hungary.
Last edited:
Putting aside the matter of Géza II, if Manuel doesn't aid the pretenders and doesn't take over the previously mentioned lands, then Stephen III simply doesn't have any real reason to fight him. Ofcourse, some conflict could still erupt in Serbia that could potentially get the Hungarians involved, but that's not garantueed. Not to mention, a quick war over Serbia would still very likely be much less demanding in terms of finances, manpower and time, compared to what went down IOTL. All of those things could potentially get better utilised elsewhere.
Bosnia as Byzantine sphere of influence? They could barely keep Serbia Proper in their sphere, Bosnia was far too removed for any real concern or tension to develop over its conquest.
It doesn't 100% garantuees its survival, but it greatly increases its chances. The Hungarian matters by themselves don't really matter that much, but if more of Anatolia is reclaimed, then that gives that much more buffer in front of the empire's other lands and core areas. Not to mention it also weakens the remaining external threat, which gives more wiggle room to survive and deal with internal problems.
That's not entirely correct. After the death of Manuel, the Hungarians and the Seljuqs attacked Byzantium from two sides almost simultaneously. The defeats and losses suffered from these attacks greatly contributed to the unpopularity an shaky position of the regency. In a scenario inwhich Hungary is not hostile and the Turks are not strong enough to really challenge Byzantine positions in Anatolia, then Andronikus can't really capitalise on the discontent aimed against the regency as much as he IOTL did. His rebellion (if it occurs) could quite easily come to a premature end.
Except what I was talking about were events that had a direct and consequent cause and effect relation to each other, while your analogy uses events that are centuries removed from each other. Don't be hostile.
Last edited:
Are we forgetting that Manuel won the wars you make it seem like Manuel was loosing a lot and managed to barely win this ain't Heraclius bankrupting the empire for a major war even then
I disagree with this completely for one the Hungarians in the otl under bela when Manuel was still alive were in good relationship with the empire bela just attacked them after his death I don't see how Hungary is eliminated here and while the Seljuks wouldn't be why do we assume the Turks wouldn't use the hated regency to revolt at max they would have been roman subjects for 25 ish years assuming it takes little time to conquer Anatolia at worst some years which just makes it also even if a revolt fails the simple fact that the latins are quite hated would still lead to massive tensions
Conquering Anatolia doesn't fix any of the problems that caused the chaos of 1180-1204
I'm not hostile I just say it's terrible take also not quite when exaggerated the analogy still applies because you assume byzantine Hungarian peace is a given or even likely which let's answer this point
Stephen III at first not but then again with Manuel not doing his thing it secures his position also the fact that even if he decides to not expand further as mentioned geza actions already have caused tensions with Hungary there is also the wildcard of bela III who could seek to expand his own personal holdings my point is not having the 1160s intervention doesn't meant no war in fact I think the changes quite high even higher if there is no 1149 war as geza would have shown that Manuel did not care for the expansion to his sphere of influence
So yes while who knows what would have occurred it think the scenario just set ups Hungary as the invading force here we can argue whether or not Manuel should have been of the defensive and focus on Anatolia .
But I think my point stands conquering Anatolia alone fixes nothing Manuel would have to make a series of strong reforms so that the Seljuks don't revolt and slipt off after his death and some how smooth tension over the latins
As I see it even if the Turks remain under roman rule if andronikos gets to power which is still very likely and even if doesn't the regency would still be hated , in that case you just added a series of players in Anatolia for civil war
Last edited:
Only really due to the disastrous reign of Andronikos.
Never said that it did.
Earlier? The Empire never conquered the Turks...
And why do we assume that? Simple. It was the Turks that ultimately conquered the Empire in 1453. Without that the Empire isn't falling in that way. Also, an Empire that has total control over Anatolia will be well positioned to weather pretty much any storm.
Conquering the Turks doesn't necessarily mean the empire survives. What it does mean is a much shorter frontier and more prosperous Anatolia. Anatolia is more populated then the entire Balkans, much less the parts the Byzantines ever had much success controlling post Arabs. I don't expect this to be easy. Yes Basil the Bulgar Slayer won. It also consumed the first 42 years of his reign. A lot of it is attritional skirmishing, but what you are doing is using your greater manpower, wealth, fortification ability. Sure you will suffer ugly defeats. But one side can handle those better than the other . Slowly you grind down the territory smaller and smaller then one of those decades they get a major defeat mop up.
As mentioned this ignores the problems that caused the collapse after 1180 tensions with the latins are still growing and it's not all andronikos faults while Niketas Choniates has many problems in his view he didn't entirely make the corruption during the rule of Manuel also exaggerated
The Pronoia had become bigger factor in his reign now if you said Manuel not only only reconquered Anatolia but also reformed the tax based and re introduce the thematat then yeah I think the empire could survive assuming the mongols don't show up and undo everything
Which he can still come to power Manuel re conquering Anatolia alone does nothing to address the issues that allowed him to take over
I think it's because as Goldensilver said, Anatolia gave them the demographic upper hand, so once it was lost, recovery suddenly became a lot more difficult. Plus we see it as where the end came from and thus makes for more active POD searching.
But from the Byzantine POV, that was less immediately evident.
Manuel already controlled the richest, most populated parts of Anatolia. That made him complacent in the belief that he already retook Anatolia by forcing the Seljuks into vassalage and that he could snuff out the Turks at any time.
In a way, it was quite true. It just relied on the Byzantine leadership not committing strategic suicide, and rolling some ugly failures on top.
Seems to me that Manuel needs to not get scatter brained and focus on one area at a time or just do things right and not half ass it. Egypt was unnecessary and Italy seemed rather unnecessary too or at least don’t fuck up there too. I think his wars with Hungary were alright and not a wasteful thing. So focus on Anatolia while the going was good and not get bogged down in fights everywhere else. If he’s focused there first then warred with the Norman’s and such after he had Anatolia secured then fine, as he could add onto his reconquest of the most important part of the empire. Also he definitely needs an adult male heir by the time he dies, as all the successful wars or reforms don’t count for shit if the succession doesn’t go well. Maybe Maria is born a boy or she has a brother or my favorite is him never having alexios II and he has Maria marry Bela Aprad. Either way, he needs to have a capable ruler succeed him that can continue to rule capably and not allow the empire to commit political suicide.
I think his attempt to conquer Southern Italy could have been much more successful had he committed much more resources there. Egypt, Levant and Anatolia are where his policies became one of ego over substance. He spent way too much resources buying the recognition of the Crusader states with nothing to return for. His campaign in Egypt probably would have caused way more trouble like a split with the crusader states over territorial division than in profit. Had he devoted the same resources towards Italy instead he might have succeeded there. Similarly, he should have used that resource to liquidate the Turks as well.
I agree with Egypt and the crusader states. While I think surviving crusader states benefits the empire, the time and men and money spent there was wasted when Anatolia was still not fully retaken from the Turks. If he had Anatolia back under control already then such power projection wouldn’t be a horrible thing, although the Egyptian campaign would always be a mistake imo. And I agree that retaking southern Italy or part of it could be beneficial and worth it, but only after Anatolia is secure.
Acting as the protector of the crusader lords was good PR work for Manuel (I think someone mentioned here how he was very popular in Western Europe) while also reinforcing his own prestige (an emperor shepherding those helpless frankish lords must have looked great back home). It also probably allowed him better access to diplomatic channels with the rest of Christendom. A way better option than what the Angelos did with Egypt (bad PR and no concrete advantage gained with the alliance). So I'd say throwing his weight around when an external factor starts threatening the Holy land (and therefore his own influence/prestige there) was a good idea, but anything more than that (expedition in Egypt) was just a waste of resources for an insufficiently reasonable reward. A weaker Outremer served Constantinople's interest better.
Well, concrete material gains and hard borders/territories are more important than "prestige". "Prestige" is fine but should only be cared about after the first two are secured.
This. It’s not like that prestige translated into anything substantial either. For all the money Manuel put into the crusader states, they were blinded by their own greed and lost the opportunity to take out Egypt once and for all.
Prestige is what would have lessened talks and chances of attacks from the West. During the age of Crusades, many lords and kings discussed (way before the IV crusade) the idea of attacking the empire, and some acted on it: the Normans for example, while Henry VI was able to impose a tribute while Constantinople's image was at its lowest. Prestige and appearances are what allow an emperor to focus on a specific policy (like conquest) without sudden distractions.
exactly, this is why Manuel was truly excellent in this field, given that with his " Latinophilia " he managed to gain respect in Latin Europe ( like no one before or after him ) even going so far as to be a close friend of his imperial "counterpart" in West and actively collaborating with various pontiffs, without falling into the usual ever-present mistrust between the papacy and Constantinople, something that made many in his empire turn up their noses, particularly in the upper echelons of the clergy
furthermore some famous examples of hostility against Byzantium are Louis VII during the second crusade ( who thought that the defeats suffered against the Turks were the work of the Byzantines , a theme that later returned with Frederick Barbarossa and Isaac Angelos during the 3rd crusade, but this was also due to the previous Byzantine support for the Lombard league )
Do you think that, even with the relatively inconclusive defeat at Myriokephalon, that a Bela-Alexios II on the Roman throne to succeed Manuel could have eventually resumed the Anatolian reconquista?
I am working on a TL where Bela Alexios spends 1180-1190 consolidating his large realm and then takes advantage of the third crusade, marching alongside Barbarossa to capture Iconium, shatter the Sultanate (as Frederick did in OTL) and avenge Myriokephalon 14 years after the fact.
How plausible does that sound? I feel like Manuel’s greatest failing was his inability to provide for a stable succession. The frontiers in 1180 in Anatolia at his death were still solid.
As i pointed out in your own other thread, I don't feel Bela-Alexios would need much encouragement.
Jerusalem is to fall soon, and when it does, he'll have to campaign regardless, so the Turks are in for a tough fight regardless.