Relations between the Fatimids and the Byzantines

Well they did not interact a hell of alot thanks to geography. Becoming a force to be reckoned with in the early 10th century when they occupied Egypt, they were thrown headlong into conflict with Byzantium once the Byzantines began their agressive reconquista of northern Syria. Syria had been under the rule of independent Emirs until then who had formed a buffer, but once the Byzantines retook Antioch in the 960s (I think, can't be bothered looking it up) the two nations were in conflict. John I Tzimeces managed a military campaign all the way down to Lebannon and Palestine before he turned back in 968-969. Throughout most of the second half of the 10th century Byzantium and Fatimid Egypt were in conflict.

Under Basil II they tried to take Antioch, coming very close. However, the imaginative Basil loaded half his army on to donkeys to get them to relieve the city before it fell. Under Basil II the Fatimids were continually frustrated in their attempts to take land from the Byzantines, but the actual border between Byzantium and the Fatimids was quite small, limited to parts of Northern Syria. The main problem the Byzantines faced in the East remained the local Emirs of Northern Syria. With the arrival of the Turks there was no longer a border between the two states and would never be again. The Turks took both Northern Syria and Anatolia from Byzantium, while under Nur-ed-Din Fatimid rule would be terminated in the 1160s.

In the age of the Crusader States the Byzantines assisted in operations against the Fatimids as far as providing guides and provisions. As it was the Fatimids were of little concern to Byzantium now, the Turks being the major threat. However, there was one expedition launched jointly by the Crusaders and the Byzantines against the Fatimids as part of the alliance made by Manuel Komnenos and Baldwin III (who was dead when the expedition took place). The Byzantines were to provide the navy and the Crusaders the ground troops, with the object being the Egyptian port of Damietta followed by the rest of Egypt. The expedition failed thanks to the Crusaders being extremely late and the Byzantines turning up on time. By the time the Crusaders got themselves ready and in the field the Byzantines had exhausted their supplies and it was late in the campaigning season. After some brief fighting the campaign had to be abandoned. On its way home the Byzantine fleet was wrecked in a storm off the Levant coast, her already malnourished marines battered to the point that few ships made it back to Constantinople.

So, as I take it, there were never any moments of good relations between the two? Was reason for such animosity one of religion, territory, or simply ego?

Wasn't Alp Arlan (Turkish Sultan) worried about an East Roman/Fatimid alliance against the Seljuks in the late 1060s and in the prelude to Manzikert?

Alp Arslan's main concern was to destroy the Shi'ite Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt and restore what he considered proper Sunni authority in the area. He only turned back to tackle Byzantium because Emperor Romanus IV marched out to deal with independent Turcomen raiders who were probably not even under the control of Arslan. It seems unlikely to me Byzantium and the Fatimids would have concluded an alliance against the Turks until the Turks had strongly established control over Syria and the Levant coast. Until such a time Byzantium and Fatimid Egypt were in direct competition and had much less reason to put aside their differences.

 This makes Manzikert even more hard to swallow, the fact Alp Arslan was more interested in Byzantiums rival the Fatamids, why couldnt Romanus have just left Alp Arslan to deal a blow to his empires major rival?

 Ive also read had Romanus accepted Arslans offerings of peace just prior to Manzikert, Alp Arslan would have continued his expedition against the Fatamids, anyway and all would of been alright.

 Hindsight is a beautiful thing, but isnt your enemies enemy meant to be your friend? I think in this situation he should of been and I think Alp Arslan should have been left alone, maybe Byzantium could have intervened later on.

Edited by Heraclius

There were a number of reasons Romanus actually refused the truce offered by Alp Arslan. Firstly he thought the Turks would betray it. Unlike the centralized Byzantines, Arslan did not control all of his peoples. Many turks operated as independent raiding parties and these had often been responsible for attacking Byzantine territory inspite of diplomatic agreements between the Byzantines and Turkish rulers in Iraq. The Byzantines saw this as treachery on the part of the Turks for allowing their horsemen to continue raiding inspite of previous agreements.

Secondly, the Turks were notoriously hard to pin down, being highly mobile cavalry raiders. Romanus' previous campaigns had never met with total success owing to Turkish elusiveness. Now Romanus had Arslan and the raiders right in one nice confined area arrayed for battle, an opportunity he had never before been presented. Wipe them out here and the incessant raids may be partly alleviated.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Romanus could not return to Constantinople without having fought the Turks. Although a capable man, he had many political enemies back home just waiting for the chance to overthrow him. His position was especially tenuous, the last Byzantine possessions in Italy had just been lost earlier that year and his enemies held important positions in the Church and government. If he returned to Constantinople having not met the Turks in battle after he had set out earlier in the year to defend the glory of the Empire, rumours of treason would run rife and it would not be long before conspiracies were hatched to do away with him.

Good points though I must add a few things. Though the original Byzantine army which set out was larger, the force which actually engaged the Turks in battle was most likely outnumbered. Historians scetch a picture of 35-40,000 Byzantine troops facing 40-50,000 Turks at Manzikert itself.

The baggage train being luxurious was not a bad thing, it was actually good for the Emperor to constantly remind the men under his command that their ruler was dazzlingly wealthy and powerful, a true successor to Augustus. The problem arose when a series of bad omens arose, which led the Emperor to move his baggage train and tent away from the rest of the camp. Such a move would have undermined the superstitious soldiers' confidence in their leader and the expedition, though I don't consider that to have been decisive to the campaign's outcome.

Wikipedia is all very nice but my sholarly sources at university have given me the figures I have provided above. See Ostrogorsky, Norwich, Diehl etc for more information. Again though, everyone is making estimates. The primary sources at the time are quite unreliable, Matthew of Edessa (fanatically anti-Byzantine) even makes the ridiculous claim that the Byzantines mustered one million men. After many years of neglect and mismanagement, the Byzantine army was both far smaller and worse equipped than it had been 50 years before.

LOL, some people .

Truth is we can only make educated guesses about the numbers. I do not consider numbers the decisive factor in the battle's outcome. In ordinary circumstances the Byzantines would have repulsed the Turks like they had done countless invaders over the centuries, something they normally achieved inspite of having a smaller army than their enemies. Manzikert's outcome was a result of a number of serious weaknesses in the Byzantine Empire which undermined the army in the field.

Alp arslan too he was one of greatest commander in all history,If Romanus accept Alp arslan truce maybe the turk never settle their land in anatolia.