Why is that battle taken as the turning point instead of Alparslan's earlier victories in Armenia? After that battle, century by century...you get it. If you want to label any Byzantine resurgences subsequent to Manzikert as "temporary setbacks" or whatever why not append the same label to Romanos IV's victories? I mean, there are certainly some military engagements with obvious macrohistorical impact but IMHO Manzikert isn't one of them.
Most Important Battle in History
- Thread starter Dreadnought
- Start date
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
Béal na mBláth 22 August 1922
My basic premise is that each event opens up a range of new options with new probabilities. An event which drastically changes those options and probabilities with the greatest impact, is decisive. All events follow preceding events, but no matter how much so and so survived other events and was influenced by so and so before that, it still comes down to so and so's actions at that pivotal moment that decided the issue in question. Warfare by its nature is very disruptive, and can overturn a thousand years of social inertia or progress. Chance success or an individual's inaction can turn the tide of destiny. What if Pizarro had gotten lost in the mountains and was rescued by the Incas ?
Your point is taken that the further back you go, the more potentially drastic or far reaching minor changes are. But I do have a problem believing such tenuous connectivity to a particular future descendant or place is that world altering, when the same forces of change are already at work, and might lead to a similar outcome through some other agent or mechanism. The logic is flawed to assume there is only one way a given outcome could be achieved; so it is a more interesting exercise to restrict your analysis to the choices made or events surrounding those who did change history, and what they could have done differently.
Obviously the more recent the past is to the present, the range of possible options narrows quickly. For instance, in the 0.025 seconds after I've commenced squeezing the trigger, that moment when you feel the pressure on the trigger start to slack off before it releases the hammer, one of two things can happen. My finger might react to that delayed impulse that I thought twice about it, and if my hands are reeeally steady, succeed in not shooting you. Otherwise, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to prevent that bullet from ripping through your head. Then I might regret it, and probably go to jail, or become a fugitive and die in a gun fight years later.
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
I'd say Manzikert's greatest significance was it's role in leaving the Greeks weak enough that Alexios I Komnenos would even entertain the thought of appealing for Western assistance - and all that follows from that appeal. Any effect it had on the Greek-Turkish power balance - long or short term - is secondary at best. Not the "Most Important Battle in History" by any means, but of greater macrohistorical import than Dachs credits it with
That said, I'm with aronnax on this one, though anyone with any intellect at all knows the Most Important Battle in History was the Races of Castlebar.
Well, Alexios et al. were already asking for mercs, and had been ever since that nut Konstantinos Doukas destroyed the themes. One of the reasons the Turks were able to achieve short-term military success in Anatolia was because of the revolt of many of those mercenaries, Normans (!) under one Crispin, who decided they liked Armenia and thought carving out an independent Norman Kingdom (as Normans are wont to do) was a good idea.
Is there anywhere the Normans didn't try to carve out a kingdom? I'm half-expecting to come across references to them trying to take over Guangdong.
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
OK, I'll grant you that.
However, it seems without Manzikert and the loss of Anatolia at that juncture, Alexios's pleas might only have brought more penny-packets of mercenaries and adventurers. Without the Empire in such dire straights, would Urban have seen the need to rescue - or the opportunity to exploit - the situation with a full-fledged crusade as opposed to merely dispatching a vassal or two here, hiring a couple of mercenary companies there? If the Greeks were still perceived as being strong enough to hold back the Muslim tide, and by implication of being able to hold on to their territories or enforce fealty from newcomers, would as many ambitious Western leaders have been as eager to heed the pope's call?
I agree with you that Manzikert's import may often be overstated, but saying that it has no macrohistorical significance seems to overstate the case.
Well, I dunno if the pope was all that concerned about the Greeks' ability to' hold back the Muslim Turks' as compared with what the Turks were doing to Western Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land - something decidedly out of the Byzantines' purview even before they lost Anatolia and northern Syria. Certainly the Crusaders made no effort to shore up the Byzantine Empire, and actively undermined it once they actually conquered states of their own.
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
You're missing my point. The weakness of the Greeks in the period post-Manzikert presented a previously unimagined opportunity for both the Western Church and Norman adventurers to expand their own spheres of influence at the expense of Turk and Greek alike while couching their efforts in the language of preserving Christendom from the Islamic menace. Had Manzikert not happened, had the Empire remained a viable entity in the eastern Med even if only for a few more decades, it is highly likely that the Crusades would never have reached the level of intensity that they did. Considering how pivotal the Crusades are on a cultural and economic level, if not a political or military one, it is hard to argue that Manzikert had no far-reaching repercussions.
Which doesn't answer my main problem with the focus on that engagement, namely that it can be seen as a hiccup between the previous Seljuq successes on the eastern frontier before the intervention of Romanos Diogenes and the later ones. Wouldn't the events leading to the entry of the Seljuqs into the scheme and the events leading to the Byzantine dismantling and partial reconstruction of their military play a greater role than Manzikert? It's like fixating on the Battle of the Bulge at the expense of the 1941-3 campaigns in Eastern Europe and North Africa. (In one respect, anyway.)
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
Battle of Midway,and Invasion of Sicily/Italy in WWII.
How did it lead to the A-bomb? I agree it was probably the pivotal battle of the Pacific War - though even winning it would have only bought the Japanese time - but how did it affect the Manhattan Project?
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
Well, that led the way for America to invade Japan and then it was only a matter of time before the Manhattan Project went into full swing and saved about 1million American lives.
By that argument, I'd say Pearl Harbour led the way for America to invade Japan. Actually, it was the USA telling the UK to cancel their naval alliance with Japan that led the way for America to invade Japan and blow the A-bomb over their heads. (Strawman FTW)
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Salamis easily takes this.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Well if it weren't for Second Battle of İnönü, you could've had turkey.
... I apologize for that.
Similar threads
