No dissolution of theme system

[Aldarion]

Byzantine Empire lost Anatolia in late 11th century for several reasons. Main trigger however was the demobilization of the "Iberian Army" by Constantine IX. This was a group of themes which covered Iberia and Mesopotamia, and numbered a total of 50 000 highly skilled troops. Said themes had formed the backbone of the Imperial army, and also provided a number of emperors. By contrast, many interior themes had been effectively demobilized during the Macedonian resurgence, with soldiers asked to pay taxes in lieu of military service. This money was then used to expand the Imperial tagmata as well as hire mercenaries. As a result, the army of Western Anatolia was basically dissolved even though soldiers remained on the rolls. End result: the Empire had no effective soldiers in themes, and after tagmata was destroyed at Manzikert and in the following civil war, Anatolia was left defenseless.

What would have changed if, say, Constantine IX was not such a fool, and Iberian Army was not demobilized? Would have that, on its own, been enough to prevent the collapse of the Anatolian frontier under Seljuk expansion, and thus the loss of Anatolia?

 

[LifeisTiresome]

I believe that Byzantiums decline also was caused by endless civil strife in form of civil wars and the crusade sacking it didn't help. So sure, the proper army remaining is good but those other issues are still there.

 

[Aldarion]

I believe that Byzantiums decline also was caused by endless civil strife in form of civil wars and the crusade sacking it didn't help. So sure, the proper army remaining is good but those other issues are still there.

Endless civil wars happened before the theme system dissolved as well, yet proved survivable in a way later civil wars did not. As for 4th Crusade, that is a direct consequence of loss of Anatolia to Turks. Said loss of Anatolia led to the First Crusade and Crusades in general, as they were launched in response to Byzantine plea for help. So Byzantines keep Anatolia = no Crusades = no 4th Crusade = no sack of Constantinople*.

*Except for various internal usurpers who manage a successful rebellion, but that never proved really devastating to the Empire.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Endless civil wars happened before the theme system dissolved as well, yet proved survivable in a way later civil wars did not. As for 4th Crusade, that is a direct consequence of loss of Anatolia to Turks. Said loss of Anatolia led to the First Crusade and Crusades in general, as they were launched in response to Byzantine plea for help. So Byzantines keep Anatolia = no Crusades = no 4th Crusade = no sack of Constantinople*.

*Except for various internal usurpers who manage a successful rebellion, but that never proved really devastating to the Empire.

Fair enough point.

 

[stevep]

Byzantine Empire lost Anatolia in late 11th century for several reasons. Main trigger however was the demobilization of the "Iberian Army" by Constantine IX. This was a group of themes which covered Iberia and Mesopotamia, and numbered a total of 50 000 highly skilled troops. Said themes had formed the backbone of the Imperial army, and also provided a number of emperors. By contrast, many interior themes had been effectively demobilized during the Macedonian resurgence, with soldiers asked to pay taxes in lieu of military service. This money was then used to expand the Imperial tagmata as well as hire mercenaries. As a result, the army of Western Anatolia was basically dissolved even though soldiers remained on the rolls. End result: the Empire had no effective soldiers in themes, and after tagmata was destroyed at Manzikert and in the following civil war, Anatolia was left defenseless.

What would have changed if, say, Constantine IX was not such a fool, and Iberian Army was not demobilized? Would have that, on its own, been enough to prevent the collapse of the Anatolian frontier under Seljuk expansion, and thus the loss of Anatolia?

Aldarion

It would definitely have helped. Having a proper army in the region, especially since the terrain was highly favourable to the defence and doubly so for local troops who know the area would have made Turkish incurisons a lot more difficult. IIRC it took a while after Manzikert for the Antioch area to fall to Turkish control simply because there were local military forces there.

From what I've read, although not in great depth and for a few years, there seemed to be a reaction against the military, possibly as a perceived threat to the civilian bureaucracy and also it was present to the emperor that there was no great threat so it was better having those men paying taxes and hence supplying funds rather than keeping their role as theme troops. Which unfortunately the emperor accepted. Although after Basil II the empire seemed to suffer a serious shortage of competent leaders. The assorted clashes between nobles seeking the throne in the 10thC was costly and destructive but did produce leaders who were militarily competent, both securing the empire and enabling the request of a sizeable amount of territory from neighbouring states.

Steve

 

[Aldarion]

It would definitely have helped. Having a proper army in the region, especially since the terrain was highly favourable to the defence and doubly so for local troops who know the area would have made Turkish incurisons a lot more difficult. IIRC it took a while after Manzikert for the Antioch area to fall to Turkish control simply because there were local military forces there.

It was quite a large area too. I couldn't find the map I saw, but apparently someone went and modified map of Empire in 1025:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Map_Byzantine_Empire_1076-fr.svg/1963px-Map_Byzantine_Empire_1076-fr.svg.png

Also, it seems that it was not so much Turks on their own as Latin mercenaries that directly caused the loss of Anatolia. So even if battle itself was lost, it is possible thematic system in border area might have prevented Turks from making inroads into Anatolia.

 

[stevep]

It was quite a large area too. I couldn't find the map I saw, but apparently someone went and modified map of Empire in 1025:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Map_Byzantine_Empire_1076-fr.svg/1963px-Map_Byzantine_Empire_1076-fr.svg.png

Also, it seems that it was not so much Turks on their own as Latin mercenaries that directly caused the loss of Anatolia. So even if battle itself was lost, it is possible thematic system in border area might have prevented Turks from making inroads into Anatolia.

Aldarion

Very interesting thanks. I knew there were some problems with the Normans operating from Sicily/Naples and invasions of the Balkans by them but not about this. The basic problem was internal squabbling between assorted Byzantine factions but this definitely didn't help.

Recently read a book by Peter Frankopan, The First Crusade: The Call from the East, which seems to argue that the empire maintained a fair degree of influence in western Anatolia by basically relying on Turkish auxiliaries. He argued that Anna Comnena, in her Alexiad misrepresented the earlier overrunning of Anatolia by the Turks to cover up the failure of her father's policies. I would be interested in your view on that please if you don't mind me asking.

Actually the activities of de Bailleuil remind me of an element in the Misplaced Legion series by Harry Turtledove, which I think is his earliest work and possibly his best as he had a PhD. in Byzantine history. I recognised he had 'borrowed' a lot of events from actual Byzantine history, albeit with some changes, so suspect that happened with this as well?

Steve

 

[ATP]

Byzantine would remain strong till 1240 - but then Mongols would come.But - with theme system existing,they would survive.
No Ottomans,i think.
Byzantine would eventually retake Jerusalem,after that....No strong Moscow,Lithuania and Poland ? some kind of HRE made for orthodox states?