From what I've read, it's my impression that the Byzantines lost at Manzikert because of being betrayed by a general or one of the emperor's rivals, not because of any significant military reasons.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Partly betrayal ans partly bad strategy is what I seem to remember... Before the battle the Byzantines divided their host in two. One of the parts were Turk mercenaries which, when on their own, decided they didn't want to fight their Turkish brethren... And the the Normans left too...
The point Sokollu has is that the turks were so many, and the Byzantines so few because of internal strife, degeneration of the themata system => dependancy of mercenaries, mostly Turks. Celtic Britain is a pretty good example of what may happend when you get too dependant of foreign mercenaries
(I'm sure someone will manage to arrest me on the details here, btu I'd say the essence is correct
)
The turks werent many, they were 60.000 in Matzikert (and of course no turkish people other than that army were in anatolia) if i remember correctly, and the entire byzantine army was around 110.000. That army was divided first to 35.000 and 75.000, the latter of which went with Emperor Romanos to Matzikert, while the first 35.000 moved to the north of anatolia to prevent other turkish attacks (the turkish "army" wasnt organised like the middle eastern traditional armies, it consisted mostly of light archers on horces and they pretty much divided into small groups even after losing a battle, pillaging areas in the borders of anatolia). It was a bad move to set the 35.000 going elsewhere, but still the greeks had a bigger and better army at Matzikert, and were winning the battle until the noble leading the second part of the byzantine army (40.000 under Romanos, 35.000- mostly weaker units- under the son of Kaisaras Ionannes, a strong byzantine family) shouted that "The emperor has died" and the result was panic and retreat. That is how we lost at Matzikert, in the ussual greek-byzantine way, by traitors.
Then what about the Cuman (and Petcheneg) mercenaries the Byzantines had? They were turks...
Better? AFAIK most of the greek army was badly equipped and lacking in training...
havard the cumans and petsenegs indeed were part of the mercenery force, yet they hardly had anything to do with the seltzuks, and were on the byzantine pay-roll for ages. Of course the byzantine army had been badly equiped due to the terrible emperors after Basil the second, yet still in comparisson with the turkish "army" which was just light archers on horseback it was a serious army.
Yeah, and we could upgrade Byzantine Armies. Also, if we win at Manziert then we could concertate at upgrading and strengthen the Byzantines. Thus, we could push turks back, or redirect them into Mestompia? Why not that we make turks go where we want, I mean make it looks appealing for turks to go south or into Ukraine where it would be Kiev Russian's worries while Byz have the time to strengthen then bye to heathen.
iwannhs>
My point wasn't about one battle. When I said Manzikert was sooner or later going to happen, I meant that there were a lot of Turkish tribes moving west. And even if the Byzantines won in Manzikert, there were more Turks coming. More battles would be on the way.
The Byzantines couldn't keep up with one battle after another.
And light archer cavalry was something the Turks excelled at, they inflicted a lot of damage to opposing armies, the byzantines the crusades...
Zhai>
There were already Turkic tribes that already moved to Ukraine and beyond.
Surprise Surprise: Magyars, Huns, Bolgars(Avar Turks), Pecheneks, Golden Horde, Crimerian Turks, Tartars, Gagavuz.....
Although not exclusively Turks, these people were all moving west. And for the Oguz part of the Turks, The Osmanlis(Ottomans), Karamans, Teke, Germiyans, Ak and Karakoyunlus(Ak and Karasheep); they came down from the Caspian sea. Anatolia' high platoues were the perfect spot for the nomadic tribes.
What it comes down to: It was inevitable to stop the Turkish migration into Anatolia. There just wasn't enough armies or people to stop them.
My point wasn't about one battle. When I said Manzikert was sooner or later going to happen, I meant that there were a lot of Turkish tribes moving west. And even if the Byzantines won in Manzikert, there were more Turks coming. More battles would be on the way.
The Byzantines couldn't keep up with one battle after another.
And light archer cavalry was something the Turks excelled at, they inflicted a lot of damage to opposing armies, the byzantines the crusades...
Zhai>
There were already Turkic tribes that already moved to Ukraine and beyond.
Surprise Surprise: Magyars, Huns, Bolgars(Avar Turks), Pecheneks, Golden Horde, Crimerian Turks, Tartars, Gagavuz.....
Although not exclusively Turks, these people were all moving west. And for the Oguz part of the Turks, The Osmanlis(Ottomans), Karamans, Teke, Germiyans, Ak and Karakoyunlus(Ak and Karasheep); they came down from the Caspian sea. Anatolia' high platoues were the perfect spot for the nomadic tribes.
What it comes down to: It was inevitable to stop the Turkish migration into Anatolia. There just wasn't enough armies or people to stop them.
The Turks were already in Mesopotamia at this point - the Abbasid Caliph was already their vassal. They were in part pushing out of Mesopotamia by this point.
Now redirecting them towards Egypt, now there is a possibility. That is the way Alp Arslan was heading anyway when a few skirmishes in Armenia developed into an all-out war between him and the Byzantines....
BTW, there is nothing "inevitable" inhistory. The plateaus of Iran are just as suitable for the Turks as those of Anatolia. If things have gone different, they might have just set up living there...
There were Turks in Egypt, although they were the ruling class and not the masses. The Mameluks were brought there to fight and they took over the government later on.
When I meant inevitable I meant in the circumstances. The plateaus of Iran were just not enough, although there are 10-20 million Azeri Turks living there right now.
There is a push of population from Central Asia through Iran into Anatolia. All these people are coming, and it's pretty hard to stop them.
Actually Turks from central Asia moved out to every direction. The Baburs were founded by Turks in India, Some went east to China, some north to Yakutistan, some even near to the Bering sea. etc
Anyway, does anybody know what the population was in Anatolia pre-Manzikert? Was it just Antioch, Trabzon, and a few of the bigger cities, and the rest just under-developed (under-populated)?
We can relate this to the original question of the thread. If there weren't enough people in Anatolia, then the Byzantines hold would be weak anyway. Therefore trying to defend it wouldn't be effective and even not practical.
When I meant inevitable I meant in the circumstances. The plateaus of Iran were just not enough, although there are 10-20 million Azeri Turks living there right now.
There is a push of population from Central Asia through Iran into Anatolia. All these people are coming, and it's pretty hard to stop them.
Actually Turks from central Asia moved out to every direction. The Baburs were founded by Turks in India, Some went east to China, some north to Yakutistan, some even near to the Bering sea. etc
Anyway, does anybody know what the population was in Anatolia pre-Manzikert? Was it just Antioch, Trabzon, and a few of the bigger cities, and the rest just under-developed (under-populated)?
We can relate this to the original question of the thread. If there weren't enough people in Anatolia, then the Byzantines hold would be weak anyway. Therefore trying to defend it wouldn't be effective and even not practical.
Well, the Turks weren't quite in Egypt at the time of Manzikert; Egypt was under the Fatimid dynasty from North Africa, reputedly descended from the daughter of the Prophet. The Mameluks wouldn't get in until the 1300s...
The population of Anatolia pre-Manzikert was quite substantial - it was the backbone of the Byzantine state. Of course, it was true that many of the larger cities lay along the coast (Trabizond, Nikomedeia, Nikaia, Ephesos, etc.) but the interior did posses a fair number of large cities such as Kaisareia, Sebasteia, Amorion, Ikonion, Angora, and so on. It was only after Manzikert, when the Turks evicted the peasantry to make way for their herds, that the population of Anatolia dropped.
The population of Anatolia pre-Manzikert was quite substantial - it was the backbone of the Byzantine state. Of course, it was true that many of the larger cities lay along the coast (Trabizond, Nikomedeia, Nikaia, Ephesos, etc.) but the interior did posses a fair number of large cities such as Kaisareia, Sebasteia, Amorion, Ikonion, Angora, and so on. It was only after Manzikert, when the Turks evicted the peasantry to make way for their herds, that the population of Anatolia dropped.
Reading this thread make me wondering if we could redirect anybody to anywhere?
It is true, Asia Minor was the recuirt center for Byzantines, that was then reason they were able to keep on those land for long time until Manizert. Most of Byz population had been in Asia Minor. It was the center of army, economy. It had been a rich land until Turks took over.
It is true, Asia Minor was the recuirt center for Byzantines, that was then reason they were able to keep on those land for long time until Manizert. Most of Byz population had been in Asia Minor. It was the center of army, economy. It had been a rich land until Turks took over.
A few points
1) Read "The Making of Byzantium" by Mark Whitlow. It gives a lot of the info I note below. He looks not only at the history, but the geography and climate of the region in explaining it's history.
2) Central Anatolia was not really the heartland of the Empire. It's a fairly dry arid plateau. Only in modern time with irrigation has it become a fertile territory - it doesn't get enough rainfall. Before then, it was mainly pastoral agricultural territory - and did not support a large population. A few large cities, but the main ones (Smyrna, Trebizond, Thessalonica, Constantinople, Nicea, Nicomedia, etc. were on the coasts of the Empire).
3) The real value of Anatolia was its defensive role. It played the role of a buffer zone, protecting the truly key cities and fertile agricultural grounds around the river valleys following into the Med on the rim of Asia Minor. The real problem with the loss of central Anatolia was now the key coastal cities were now continuously exposed to Turkish raids, invasions, sieges, attacks, something that happened only rarely previously. Whitlow points out that constant Arab raids kept Anatolia poor, but it served its purpose - it protected the much more richer and fertile coastal areas as a defensive shield/glacis.
5) Also Anatolia was buffered by mountain ranges, which gave it great defensive strength. Often the Byzantines ambushed raiding Arab armies crossing the mountains. Again, this was lost after Manzikert. And with central Anatolia lost, the defensive line was now stretched out all along the rim of Asia Minor - much harder to defend and no defensive depth.
6) Byzantium being overwhelmed by Turkish hordes was not inevitable. The Arabs had outnumbered the Byzantines by at least 10 to 1 for centuries but never conquered Anatolia. The Turkish advantage was most likely even less than this. As previously noted, the Seljuks really didn't even want the war - they were much more interested in attacking Arab Egypt. Given a strong army and adequate fortifications, there's no reason the Empire had to fall to the Turks - the problems were these didn't exist at the time because most emperors after Basil had let the army disintegrate. Romanus made a start, but just didn't have enough time.
7) Someone is several centuries behind the times. The idea that the Byzantines still used Roman "phalanx" style tactics is silly. The Byzantines were masters of combined arms. Their armies trained the infantry and cavalry to work together, more so then most likely any army of the period. Most armies were probably 25% to 50% cavalry, cataphracts with lance, sword/axe and bow. The cavalry was trained to attack with the infantry acting in support, supplying the cavalry a place of safety if they ran into trouble and had to withdraw. At their height, they were good, very good.
Grifman
1) Read "The Making of Byzantium" by Mark Whitlow. It gives a lot of the info I note below. He looks not only at the history, but the geography and climate of the region in explaining it's history.
2) Central Anatolia was not really the heartland of the Empire. It's a fairly dry arid plateau. Only in modern time with irrigation has it become a fertile territory - it doesn't get enough rainfall. Before then, it was mainly pastoral agricultural territory - and did not support a large population. A few large cities, but the main ones (Smyrna, Trebizond, Thessalonica, Constantinople, Nicea, Nicomedia, etc. were on the coasts of the Empire).
3) The real value of Anatolia was its defensive role. It played the role of a buffer zone, protecting the truly key cities and fertile agricultural grounds around the river valleys following into the Med on the rim of Asia Minor. The real problem with the loss of central Anatolia was now the key coastal cities were now continuously exposed to Turkish raids, invasions, sieges, attacks, something that happened only rarely previously. Whitlow points out that constant Arab raids kept Anatolia poor, but it served its purpose - it protected the much more richer and fertile coastal areas as a defensive shield/glacis.
5) Also Anatolia was buffered by mountain ranges, which gave it great defensive strength. Often the Byzantines ambushed raiding Arab armies crossing the mountains. Again, this was lost after Manzikert. And with central Anatolia lost, the defensive line was now stretched out all along the rim of Asia Minor - much harder to defend and no defensive depth.
6) Byzantium being overwhelmed by Turkish hordes was not inevitable. The Arabs had outnumbered the Byzantines by at least 10 to 1 for centuries but never conquered Anatolia. The Turkish advantage was most likely even less than this. As previously noted, the Seljuks really didn't even want the war - they were much more interested in attacking Arab Egypt. Given a strong army and adequate fortifications, there's no reason the Empire had to fall to the Turks - the problems were these didn't exist at the time because most emperors after Basil had let the army disintegrate. Romanus made a start, but just didn't have enough time.
7) Someone is several centuries behind the times. The idea that the Byzantines still used Roman "phalanx" style tactics is silly. The Byzantines were masters of combined arms. Their armies trained the infantry and cavalry to work together, more so then most likely any army of the period. Most armies were probably 25% to 50% cavalry, cataphracts with lance, sword/axe and bow. The cavalry was trained to attack with the infantry acting in support, supplying the cavalry a place of safety if they ran into trouble and had to withdraw. At their height, they were good, very good.
Grifman
Personally I think Byzantium is doomed if it gets the Angeli dynasty for any large amount of time. Otherwise, they've got a decent chance, even with Manzikert, to survive as a significant regional power in the eastern mediterranean.
Aye, however even if they get unscathed from Manzikert I think that the biggest threat to the empire is internal not external.
Didn't Baibars take control of Egypt after he killed the Sultan Turanshah in 1250? Baibars was the first Mameluk Leader.
I meant 13th century, a little mix up there...
BTW, one more reason that the Turkis invasion was different than previous ones. In the immediate aftermath of Manzikert, the Turks did not immediately move into Anatolia. Alp Arslan only demanded a few border areas and then released the Emperor, concentrating on Egypt once again . Had Emepror Romanos survived in power, things might have been different, but he was deposed and Alp Arslan didn't feel obliged to honor the treaty as a result. Plus, the Emperors immediately afterwards, until Alexios I, were incompetant fools who left the Anatolian frontier basically unguarded. As a result, it was several years after Manzikert before the Turkish tribesmen began to move into Anatolia, but once they did, their advance was basically unchecked, and then it was too late.
BTW, one more reason that the Turkis invasion was different than previous ones. In the immediate aftermath of Manzikert, the Turks did not immediately move into Anatolia. Alp Arslan only demanded a few border areas and then released the Emperor, concentrating on Egypt once again . Had Emepror Romanos survived in power, things might have been different, but he was deposed and Alp Arslan didn't feel obliged to honor the treaty as a result. Plus, the Emperors immediately afterwards, until Alexios I, were incompetant fools who left the Anatolian frontier basically unguarded. As a result, it was several years after Manzikert before the Turkish tribesmen began to move into Anatolia, but once they did, their advance was basically unchecked, and then it was too late.
Hence my idea that the threat to the empire should be primaraly internal, not external. An empire that is strong internaly like during the Macedonian dynasty should be a real bulldozer against it´s enemies.
Greek historians i have read all agree that the empire fell because it had lived for more than a millenium and its nobles thought that it was going to last forever nomatter what.
Yeah, I do it all the time.
When it is my turn to rule the world I am going to change it so that the centuries start with zero so that the 1300s WILL be the 13th century.