WI: byzantine bureaucracy never arise in the XI century?

[ioannis]

Imagine a different XI century for the byzantine history. After the death of Constantine VIII, Constantine Dalassenos become basileus instead of Romanos Argyros. The doux of Antioch was an experienced military commander, influential patrician, and unswervingly loyal to the ruling house. Could he prevent the arise of weak emperors such as Constantine Monomakos, the Doukai etc.? Imagine if he could grant the power at the dynatoi, maybe securing the throne to other figures like Maniakes, Romanos Diogenes and the Komnenoi, giving stability and starting the structural transformation of the empire. Probably the pronoia could have been instituzionalized before instead of the theme system, and - for sure - the empire's army would never decline.

 

[Evil Crusader]

No dead Emperor can influence more than the next heir, maybe two or three if succession is very quick. Regardless, overspending is pretty likely.
The Empire's army is probably better, but we should really keep in mind, it's a powerplay from the military aristocracy that made "Manzikert" such a famous name.
Overall, I'm not too sure how it would turn out.

 

[ioannis]

No dead Emperor can influence more than the next heir, maybe two or three if succession is very quick. Regardless, overspending is pretty likely.
The Empire's army is probably better, but we should really keep in mind, it's a powerplay from the military aristocracy that made "Manzikert" such a famous name.
Overall, I'm not too sure how it would turn out.

Sure, but about Manzikert I have to consider that the defeat arrived after 50 years of government of the bureaucracy. In fact:

• the emperors (Constantine IX, Constantine X, Michael VII) dismantled the army on the frontiers to swipe away the military power of the dynatoi;
• their fiscal policies favored the impoverishment of the stratiotai, who sold their lands to the dynatoi. Doing so the State lost a source of fiscal and military revenues;
• the bureaucratic party (Psellos first) disert the battle of Manzikert, because the Doukai wanted to cut-off Romanos IV, a dynatoi leader.

Plus, they replace the indigenous thematic troops with foreign mercenary troops, more expensive and unloyal to the Byzantine crown.
So no foreign policy adequate to the greatness of the XIth century's Byzantine Empire, weak internal politics with dynatoi and church, which favored the dissolution of the thematic system, of the navy. Even the disgregation in the east was accelerated by ethnic-religious tensions between Greeks, Syriacs and Armenians, without any intervention of the weak emperors. I think that if the power was granted to the dynatoi, they would've better administrated the interests of the empire, even transforming it in other ways (maybe a true feudalization with new institutions such as Alexios I's pronoia).

 

[Elfwine]

I think that if the power was granted to the dynatoi, they would've better administrated the interests of the empire, even transforming it in other ways (maybe a true feudalization with new institutions such as Alexios I's pronoia).

I'm not sure why the dynatoi would have handled these issues better. There were rivals within the group of "military families" and the Ducas family has a long history of ambitions counter to loyalty to the existing Emperor from long before Romanos IV. And the stratiotai selling their lands to the dynatoi seems like it would be encouraged, not discouraged, by giving more power to the dynatoi here.

This apart from any arguments on if the pronoia were that great for the empire (I'm inclined to argue no on this one too).

I'm not going to say that the existing choices were the best of all possible worlds, just that "empower the military families" is not a clear solution.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Sure, but about Manzikert I have to consider that the defeat arrived after 50 years of government of the bureaucracy. In fact:

• the emperors (Constantine IX, Constantine X, Michael VII) dismantled the army on the frontiers to swipe away the military power of the dynatoi;
• their fiscal policies favored the impoverishment of the stratiotai, who sold their lands to the dynatoi. Doing so the State lost a source of fiscal and military revenues;
• the bureaucratic party (Psellos first) disert the battle of Manzikert, because the Doukai wanted to cut-off Romanos IV, a dynatoi leader.

Plus, they replace the indigenous thematic troops with foreign mercenary troops, more expensive and unloyal to the Byzantine crown.
So no foreign policy adequate to the greatness of the XIth century's Byzantine Empire, weak internal politics with dynatoi and church, which favored the dissolution of the thematic system, of the navy. Even the disgregation in the east was accelerated by ethnic-religious tensions between Greeks, Syriacs and Armenians, without any intervention of the weak emperors. I think that if the power was granted to the dynatoi, they would've better administrated the interests of the empire, even transforming it in other ways (maybe a true feudalization with new institutions such as Alexios I's pronoia).

No offense but it seems a bit too much of wish-washy, hindsight-fueled hopeful maximum program. I agree with Elfwine's points.
A State that is dominated by the dynatoi is going to handle fiscal policies in a similar way, and let's be honest, they would handle betrayal in a similar way prompting an alternate restructuring of the army.
I'm also very curious as to what would be the 'adequate foreign policy'; the Empire has absorbed all polities it could treat as vassals or allies, achieved good borders, and definitely has to play the part of the Empire of the Romans. It also is having 'victory malaise' and likely sees itself as not in need of any compromise.
Lastly, I don't think feudalisation has often been seen as a positive force; Ostrogorsky was moderately negative, seeing pronoia as a necessary but ultimately centrifugal step, and Kaldellis is pretty outspoken in how he feels the 'Komnenian paradigm' proved negative for the State revenue and the élites' eventual disaffection.

 

[ioannis]

I'm not sure why the dynatoi would have handled these issues better. There were rivals within the group of "military families" and the Ducas family has a long history of ambitions counter to loyalty to the existing Emperor from long before Romanos IV. And the stratiotai selling their lands to the dynatoi seems like it would be encouraged, not discouraged, by giving more power to the dynatoi here.

This apart from any arguments on if the pronoia were that great for the empire (I'm inclined to argue no on this one too).

I'm not going to say that the existing choices were the best of all possible worlds, just that "empower the military families" is not a clear solution.

It's easy to argue that their fiscal policies would be in favour of their landowning interests (so not in favour of the free-peasantry/stratiotai), but their main goal - aside from fighting for the crown - remains the military power of the empire. Don't forget that this class, along with the Macedonian dinasty, was the protagonist of the great victories of the X century, with Nikephoros II and John I; they also gave birth to the great generals that worked under Basil II's reign. So, as Vryonis said, they want the power, but they don't want to disgregate the State. One of their main goal was also to maintain the military force of the empire; doing so they achieve the preservation of the army, which decline OTL was one of the main cause of the collapse after Manzikert.

 

[Silver01]

the emperors (Constantine IX, Constantine X, Michael VII) dismantled the army on the frontiers to swipe away the military power of the dynatoi

No Constantine did it because of cost he debased the solidus because he was fighting both the Normans and Turks by 1050 and then the Pecheneg revolt occured the emperor needed cash as the Pecheneg defeated the army in 1050 debasing the solidus did work in the short term but I created a crisis the emperor's weakened the frontier because of cost due to debesment not weakening the dyantoi.

the bureaucratic party (Psellos first) disert the battle of Manzikert, because the Doukai wanted to cut-off Romanos IV, a dynatoi leader.

The doukas hated him because he took over not because he was landowner

Plus, they replace the indigenous thematic troops with foreign mercenary troops, more expensive and unloyal to the Byzantine crown.

A myth debunked by war in 11th century Byzantium

 

[Silver01]

With that clear Constantine in otl lived till 1042 aprox which means under a strong emperor you can probably sew Sicily being reconquered and not having court stupidity that makes maniakes revolt that likely means the Normans are dealt with eliminating the Italian front means if the Pecheneg revolt occurs the empire doesn't have to take as drastic measures as the otl in 1050

 

[ioannis]

No Constantine did it because of cost he debased the solidus because he was fighting both the Normans and Turks by 1050 and then the Pecheneg revolt occured the emperor needed cash as the Pecheneg defeated the army in 1050 debasing the solidus did work in the short term but I created a crisis the emperor's weakened the frontier because of cost due to debesment not weakening the dyantoi.

This is true for Constantine Monomachos, but not for Constantine X and Michael VII: the Momoachos did it - as you said - for strategic reasons, but with tragic consequences; the Doukai were creatures of Psellus, the incarnation of his dream of the "philosophers government", their cuts of military expenses (necessary for the defense of a so vast empire, with so many frontiers, by sea and by land) were part of a political program of dynatoi's weakening.

The doukas hated him because he took over not because he was landowner

Even in the case of Romanos IV, he was hated because he took over and he was coming from the dynatoi, hated by Psellus and his circle.

A myth debunked by war in 11th century Byzantium

The thematic troups were recalled after a long period of non-serving by Romanos IV for Manzikert. Here, they were not prepared for battles, due to having been set aside from military affairs for long time, for the precise task of unemploy the dynatoi's forces.

 

[Silver01]

Constantine X and Michael VII: the Momoachos did it - as you said - for strategic reasons, but with tragic consequences

The inflation didn't go away

; the Doukai were creatures of Psellus, the incarnation of his dream of the "philosophers government", their cuts of military expenses (necessary for the defense of a so vast empire, with so many frontiers, by sea and by land) were part of a political program of dynatoi's weakening.

No again no because the dyantoi didn't have that much power you are ignoring Constantine doukas inherited the inflation and made it worse but again psellus while a great source is clearly not acurrate here

Even in the case of Romanos IV, he was hated because he took over and he was coming from the dynatoi, hated by Psellus and his circle.

Again you are taking a primary source way to literally

The thematic troups were recalled after a long period of non-serving by Romanos IV for Manzikert. Here, they were not prepared for battles, due to having been set aside from military affairs for long time, for the precise task of unemploy the dynatoi's forces.

The book I mentioned debunks the notion again inflation did the most damage to the themata not some plot to weakened the dyantoi who were not even that powerful to begin with this whole idea of dyantoi vs civil aristrocats created the crisis is an outdated view from 20th century scholarship that books like streams of gold from Anthony kaldellis has debunked

 

[Elfwine]

It's easy to argue that their fiscal policies would be in favour of their landowning interests (so not in favour of the free-peasantry/stratiotai), but their main goal - aside from fighting for the crown - remains the military power of the empire. Don't forget that this class, along with the Macedonian dinasty, was the protagonist of the great victories of the X century, with Nikephoros II and John I; they also gave birth to the great generals that worked under Basil II's reign. So, as Vryonis said, they want the power, but they don't want to disgregate the State. One of their main goal was also to maintain the military force of the empire; doing so they achieve the preservation of the army, which decline OTL was one of the main cause of the collapse after Manzikert.

It's hard to see them as a class suddenly developing an interest in the good of the empire over their own good. This is not how nobility in other places tends to act, and this is not how they've acted before or since the 11th century, either.

I don't think it's so much them deliberately sabotaging the army (the standing regiments of the tagmata are probably going to be well funded and the officers generously rewarded, instead of say the attitude of Michael VI), but empowering the "large landowners" even further is pretty much the last thing I'd do if I wanted to keep them from acquiring more lands from the free peasantry regardless what care any ruling emperor from that group might do with the tagmata.

That's sort of inevitably where their empowerment leads - not necessarily with any goal of a weak army or weak empire, but the fact the generals of the 10th century came from this class wasn't out of selfless love of the state and the good of the population as a whole. I think the Komnenoi (looking at brothers and cousins of emperors, not just emperors) we see OTL are a pretty good indication that being from a "military family" is no guarantee of concern for either.

 

[ioannis]

The book I mentioned debunks the notion again inflation did the most damage to the themata not some plot to weakened the dyantoi who were not even that powerful to begin with this whole idea of dyantoi vs civil aristrocats created the crisis is an outdated view from 20th century scholarship that books like streams of gold from Anthony kaldellis has debunked

So, what could've been the right solution to stop inflation without these military expenses cuttings?

 

[ioannis]

It's hard to see them as a class suddenly developing an interest in the good of the empire over their own good. This is not how nobility in other places tends to act, and this is not how they've acted before or since the 11th century, either.

I don't think it's so much them deliberately sabotaging the army (the standing regiments of the tagmata are probably going to be well funded and the officers generously rewarded, instead of say the attitude of Michael VI), but empowering the "large landowners" even further is pretty much the last thing I'd do if I wanted to keep them from acquiring more lands from the free peasantry regardless what care any ruling emperor from that group might do with the tagmata.

That's sort of inevitably where their empowerment leads - not necessarily with any goal of a weak army or weak empire, but the fact the generals of the 10th century came from this class wasn't out of selfless love of the state and the good of the population as a whole. I think the Komnenoi (looking at brothers and cousins of emperors, not just emperors) we see OTL are a pretty good indication that being from a "military family" is no guarantee of concern for either.

It's pretty sure that they developed their own interests, but their thirst for power was not centrifugal to the byzantine state. For sure their reliance on the militarism (than the capital bureaucracy) would emphasize a crucial aspect to the life of the state. The key figures of the dynatoi were great generals so they perfectly know the military interests of the empire. I think that, even with inflation, they wouldn't swipe out the army's force. Look at the last experiences of dynatoi's emperors before Manzikert: Isaac I and Romanos IV were fully conscious that the army's would've been reinforced and trained.

I think that half-a-century competition between Constantinople's bureaucracy and magnates destroyed the empire and lead to Manzikert. In this phase a strong leadership of the dynatoi would've been better than what happened OTL. The experience of Basil II and the structure of the middle empire, indicates way too clear that the good health of the empire relied too much on the figure of a sole strong emperor.

 

[Elfwine]

It's pretty sure that they developed their own interests, but their thirst for power was not centrifugal to the byzantine state. For sure their reliance on the militarism (than the capital bureaucracy) would emphasize a crucial aspect to the life of the state. The key figures of the dynatoi were great generals so they perfectly know the military interests of the empire. I think that, even with inflation, they wouldn't swipe out the army's force. Look at the last experiences of dynatoi's emperors before Manzikert: Isaac I and Romanos IV were fully conscious that the army's would've been reinforced and trained.

It's not about how the emperors of this class acted (whose self interest is naturally a stronger state - that's true of all the emperors who had any interest in ruling whatsoever, whatever their affiliations), its how the class acted outside those wearing the purple - and that is consistently no more interested in the good of the state than the figures you're decrying here.

I think that half-a-century competition between Constantinople's bureaucracy and magnates destroyed the empire and lead to Manzikert. In this phase a strong leadership of the dynatoi would've been better than what happened OTL. The experience of Basil II and the structure of the middle empire, indicates way too clear that the good health of the empire relied too much on the figure of a sole strong emperor.

There's an argument to be made that stronger leadership would have been better than OTL's emperors and their relatively weak position -

But empowering the dynatoi, as a class and handing out imperial revenue (in regards to your comment on the pronoia replacing the thematic system) is not going to provide that.

And I'm not sure what exactly you have in mind by feudalization, but that feels like it's going to make the interest in weak emperors dependent on the aristoscracy stronger, not weaker, in the military-focused families. - their ideal situation is not One Emperor Under Heaven, Vice-Gerent of God able to demand anything he damned well wants of them.

 

[ioannis]

It's not about how the emperors of this class acted (whose self interest is naturally a stronger state - that's true of all the emperors who had any interest in ruling whatsoever, whatever their affiliations), its how the class acted outside those wearing the purple - and that is consistently no more interested in the good of the state than the figures you're decrying here.



There's an argument to be made that stronger leadership would have been better than OTL's emperors and their relatively weak position -

But empowering the dynatoi, as a class and handing out imperial revenue (in regards to your comment on the pronoia replacing the thematic system) is not going to provide that.

And I'm not sure what exactly you have in mind by feudalization, but that feels like it's going to make the interest in weak emperors dependent on the aristoscracy stronger, not weaker, in the military-focused families. - their ideal situation is not One Emperor Under Heaven, Vice-Gerent of God able to demand anything he damned well wants of them.

I'm sure that strong power in the hands of the high aristocracy would have allowed the concentration of the land in the hands of a few families. The legislation achieved would've institutionalized the tax collection and justice as happened under Monomachus, certainly with the same exemptions. The POD in this would've been the fate of theme's army: the dissolution of the same wouldn't have proceeded in the same way, because the power managed by the dynatoi would not have been favorable to the disappearance of those who, in the stratiotai kthemata, had become their armies faithful during the riots, but also vital armies for the defense of the empire from external invaders. In my opinion, the process of transformation of the stratiotai into paroikoi in their large estates would have been plausible, therefore with exemption from paying taxes but not from military service. Perhaps this process would've generated a few but large and solid estates, which would also have ended up significantly limiting the struggles for power. This economic and social change of dynatoi's empowerment was (unsuccessfully) slowed down by Emperor Basil II. He expanded legislation that protected smallholder peasants from the great families. He also forced magnates to pay for the arrears owed by peasants. He sought to build a free peasants society with a simple agrarian (and rather primitive) economy because he considered that this would provide strong foundations for the imperial government. He wanted the economy and society to be organized in such a way that they would support the imperial war effort and thus he felt that they needed to be under rigid imperial control. His policies favoured the bureaucracy and therefore a political, socio-economic crysis resulting from the tensions with the landowning aristocracy.

 

[Elfwine]

The power managed by the dynatoi would not have been favorable to the disappearance of those who, in the stratiotai kthemata, had become their armies faithful during the riots, but also vital armies for the defense of the empire from external invaders.

It was OTL. It was very, very favorable to their disappearance because more land in their (the dynatoi's) hands meant they were wealthier and more powerful if anything.

Why it's not TTL is frankly beyond my understanding, I'm afraid to say.

 

[ioannis]

It was OTL. It was very, very favorable to their disappearance because more land in their hands meant they were wealthier and more powerful.

As free-landowners for sure the dynatoi wanted them to disappear, but not as soldiers. If they (the dynatoi) would’ve managed the State (over their own land’s administration and justice) I think that this wouldn’t happen. Just because the administration of the Military forces was a State’s prerogative.

 

[Silver01]

So, what could've been the right solution to stop inflation without these military expenses cuttings?

Stop the reason why said inflation began the debasement truly started with Constantine IX because as mentioned he was essentially fighting a three front war in Italy, against the Seljuks and now the revolving Pechenegs just make an alt 1050 have no revolt or one of the enemies having been dealt with the easy option here is get rid of the Normans

 

[ioannis]

Stop the reason why said inflation began the debasement truly started with Constantine IX because as mentioned he was essentially fighting a three front war in Italy, against the Seljuks and now the revolving Pechenegs just make an alt 1050 have no revolt or one of the enemies having been dealt with the easy option here is get rid of the Normans

So as you said before a better management of the of the Maniakes campaigns in Sicily (before under Michael IV and after under Constantine IX) could’ve prevented the costs of three-front wars. At this point I add the observation that a strong military-faction reign (of Constantine Dalassenos or Maniakes himself, instead of Orphanotrophos family) would’ve rapidly take Sicily, closing the Italian front.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

I think the Komnenoi succeeding the Macedonians through Isaac living longer is actually the best timeline for this.