Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Battle of Manzikert
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Battle of Manzikert
    Posted: 17-Mar-2006 at 16:24
Originally posted by BlindOne

Evrenosgazi:

 Manziketrt as a battle wasn't devastating for the empire, it was a minor battle with a few loses and almost no land lose.

 It has however some devastating outcomes for the empire. What that was:

- Dukas with the biggest part of the army when back to Constantinouple and because Emperor. So with two emperors a civil war was inevitable. That civil war which took part in Asia minor devastate the empire. Empires army because weaker and the empires people sicked for the leadership behaviour.

 So with the Empires army weaker from a long civil war it was easy for the Seljuks to conquer a big part of Asia minor, they have meet almost no resist.

Also that civil war make the other nations (like the armenians) to because sick with the empire. It was actually the armenians that ask for the empire help against the Seljuks. So when they see the empires fell into a civil war after a minor battle , with had no real lost,  it is understantable to try make their own  state, so they can defend their lands.

 Also i want from you to stop calling the armenian states pitty, Seljuk statement wan't any better......

 

Rengimunt:

 Alp Aslan didn't make everything right. He did what he knew. Seljuk tactic as i said in my former post was ancient (Byzantine have faced such tactics from the birth of their empire).

 The formation that Romanus follow was the correct to counter the Seljuks.

 Why he lost the battle? For a couple mistakes he made:

 It's what you wrote. Dukas almost mock the emperor openly. It is really a mistery why he give him such authorities in the army.

But i have to disagree when you say that it was Romanus mistake to follow Alp Aslan. I believe that the general knew that the Seljuks retreat was feint (as i said many time here the have seem it in the past) but they couldn't say in one spot for the rest eternity...

Byzantine formation was the correct one, they have the infantry protected by their heavy cavalary and their hose archers. It was impossible for the Seljuks to break that formation. The plan was that the army would move as one body. Here is the crittical point. As we see from facts Ducas wanted to provoce a defeat so what he could do? Break the formation. So he stayed behind and let the Romanus move forwat alone . The formation was broked and the first line surrounded.

 But even now the battle wasn't lost. As we see the Seljuks needed a big time to defeat the surrounded army. And here most istorians says that even if the Ducas changed his mind and deside to attack alp aslan would be dead that day.

 What i want to say is that the biggest enemies above all that surround the empire was itself and not the others....

What is devastating for you . I think loss of anatolia, the manpower of Romans is terrible. If there was no 1071, there will be no 1204.

Ofcourse Romans again performed brilliant vitality, Komnenos was a luck for romans ,  and at 12th century Romans were powerful again, but can not be compared with post macedonian dynastic Romans.
Back to Top
RomiosArktos View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309 		  Quote RomiosArktos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2006 at 17:00
Ducas played a very nasty role and is responsible to some extent for the outcome of the battle.If it hadn't been for his treachery I can't see how the battle would be lost
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2006 at 17:04
Originally posted by RomiosArktos

Ducas played a very nasty role and is responsible to some extent for the outcome of the battle.If it hadn't been for his treachery I can't see how the battle would be lost

Dont forget that seljuks fought with mnmal capacity. The main army was in Syria against Fatimids because of this is important victory for turks.
Back to Top
RomiosArktos View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309 		  Quote RomiosArktos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2006 at 17:24
I agree with you that it was a major blow and an important victory for the Seljouks but as I said the outcome ,in my opinion would be much different if Ducas didn't betray his emperor.
I think however that the loss of the  Byzantine control in Asia Minor was irreversible only after the battle of Myriokefalon,nearly one century later.Even after the Manzikert due to the Komneni the empire managed to press hard against the Turks.But after Myriokefalon....things became very difficult.
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2006 at 17:27
Yes you are right. Myriokephalon is a devastative defeat to, but land loss was minimal
Back to Top
BlindOne View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120 		  Quote BlindOne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2006 at 06:22
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

Originally posted by BlindOne

Evrenosgazi:

 Manziketrt as a battle wasn't devastating for the empire, it was a minor battle with a few loses and almost no land lose.

 It has however some devastating outcomes for the empire. What that was:

- Dukas with the biggest part of the army when back to Constantinouple and because Emperor. So with two emperors a civil war was inevitable. That civil war which took part in Asia minor devastate the empire. Empires army because weaker and the empires people sicked for the leadership behaviour.

 So with the Empires army weaker from a long civil war it was easy for the Seljuks to conquer a big part of Asia minor, they have meet almost no resist.

Also that civil war make the other nations (like the armenians) to because sick with the empire. It was actually the armenians that ask for the empire help against the Seljuks. So when they see the empires fell into a civil war after a minor battle , with had no real lost,  it is understantable to try make their own  state, so they can defend their lands.

 Also i want from you to stop calling the armenian states pitty, Seljuk statement wan't any better......

 

Rengimunt:

 Alp Aslan didn't make everything right. He did what he knew. Seljuk tactic as i said in my former post was ancient (Byzantine have faced such tactics from the birth of their empire).

 The formation that Romanus follow was the correct to counter the Seljuks.

 Why he lost the battle? For a couple mistakes he made:

 It's what you wrote. Dukas almost mock the emperor openly. It is really a mistery why he give him such authorities in the army.

But i have to disagree when you say that it was Romanus mistake to follow Alp Aslan. I believe that the general knew that the Seljuks retreat was feint (as i said many time here the have seem it in the past) but they couldn't say in one spot for the rest eternity...

Byzantine formation was the correct one, they have the infantry protected by their heavy cavalary and their hose archers. It was impossible for the Seljuks to break that formation. The plan was that the army would move as one body. Here is the crittical point. As we see from facts Ducas wanted to provoce a defeat so what he could do? Break the formation. So he stayed behind and let the Romanus move forwat alone . The formation was broked and the first line surrounded.

 But even now the battle wasn't lost. As we see the Seljuks needed a big time to defeat the surrounded army. And here most istorians says that even if the Ducas changed his mind and deside to attack alp aslan would be dead that day.

 What i want to say is that the biggest enemies above all that surround the empire was itself and not the others....

What is devastating for you . I think loss of anatolia, the manpower of Romans is terrible. If there was no 1071, there will be no 1204.

Ofcourse Romans again performed brilliant vitality, Komnenos was a luck for romans ,  and at 12th century Romans were powerful again, but can not be compared with post macedonian dynastic Romans.

 i believe that i answer you what is devastating for me. The civil war that follow the battle of mazikert was devastating for the following reasons: 1st) The civil cost the lives of many soldiers of the empire. Those soldiers could easily fight the Seljuks and not their brothers in arms

2st) The economical destruction that the civil war caused

3st) The lost of the trust that other nation had on the empire, which means that the empires could recruit soldiers from them (i say soldiers and not mercenaries)

 Those effects came from the civil war and NOT the battle of Manzikert.

I also disagree that if there was no 1071 there was no 1204.

 1071 wasn't fatal for the empire, as you have sayed Komneni dynasty make the Empire really strong again.

 In 1204 the army that was in Constantinuple was bigger that the crusader's army. But it has two big negatives: 1st) The Byzantine heavy cavalary (Klivanioforoi or cataphracts was history then, weak emperor had dispant them years ago for economical reasons) 2st) There wasn't a good leader to inspire the troops in crittical situations

 
That I am stricken and can't let you go
When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know
That I am crippled by all that you've done
Into the abyss, will I run


Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2006 at 09:36

 In 1204 the army that was in Constantinuple was bigger that the crusader's army. But it has two big negatives: 1st) The Byzantine heavy cavalary (Klivanioforoi or cataphracts was history then, weak emperor had dispant them years ago for economical reasons) 2st) There wasn't a good leader to inspire the troops in crittical situations

No the crusader army was bigger than Romans. Romans were in a civil war, they were fragmanted, only the varangians fought valliantly. We know that in 1453 Constantinopole performed much better resistance than 1204. And I am insisting. If there was no 1071 there will be no 1204. Can you imagine crusader army approachs against Romanus in 1071. Byzantine army was so powerful that the crusader army had no chance. And I think that if Romanus wasnt executed he had a chance to save anatolia. Even in the Komnenos period the crusaders were frightened by Romans campaign. Let us think , if there was no manzikert. Which nation at the neighboorhood of Romans could perform a danger for them?
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231 		  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 05:47

 Manzikert and Myriokephalon are 2 examples of battles that wernt especially devastating to the losing army, but had immense consequences afterwards.

 Manzikert was terrible, but the situation should of been swiftly recovered and easily could of been, the removal of Romanus as Emperor and the immediate mis-management after Romanus made the situation post-Manzikert much much worse. Allowing the Turks, almost entirely unchallenged to settle in Anatolia.

 Myriokephalon is actually rather overhyped, Manuel I compared it to Manzikert, when infact the imperial army was campaigning the very next year in Asia Minor and the Balkans. Proving that the Byzantine army wasnt anywhere near destroyed at the battle of Myriokephalon, it was more a psychological blow.

 Manuel I had opportunities earlier in his reign to deal with the Seljuks, but instead wasted time on dreams of reconquering Italy and Egypt which came to nothing. The Byzantine army under the Comneni was more than capable of dealing with the Turks, when it came to the crunch though Manuels attention was taken up with trivial and pointless endeavours in the west rather than focusing on an at one point very weak Turkish presence in Anatolia.
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2006 at 06:41
Originally posted by Heraclius

 Manzikert and Myriokephalon are 2 examples of battles that wernt especially devastating to the losing army, but had immense consequences afterwards.

 Manzikert was terrible, but the situation should of been swiftly recovered and easily could of been, the removal of Romanus as Emperor and the immediate mis-management after Romanus made the situation post-Manzikert much much worse. Allowing the Turks, almost entirely unchallenged to settle in Anatolia.

 Myriokephalon is actually rather overhyped, Manuel I compared it to Manzikert, when infact the imperial army was campaigning the very next year in Asia Minor and the Balkans. Proving that the Byzantine army wasnt anywhere near destroyed at the battle of Myriokephalon, it was more a psychological blow.

 Manuel I had opportunities earlier in his reign to deal with the Seljuks, but instead wasted time on dreams of reconquering Italy and Egypt which came to nothing. The Byzantine army under the Comneni was more than capable of dealing with the Turks, when it came to the crunch though Manuels attention was taken up with trivial and pointless endeavours in the west rather than focusing on an at one point very weak Turkish presence in Anatolia.

In 1176 Byzantine army was in 2 sections. One section was totally destroyed, second resisted but they gave heavy losses. Campaigning for byzantine army doesnt mean they didnt take heavy losses. The 2 battles(Manzikert and Myriokephalon ) was devastating defeats. Whatever you say. After Manzikert turks reached from Vaspurakan to Smyrna(1600 km) in 5 years. And some people says that it wasnt devastating, Byzantine recovered only western anatolia and the seaside(With crusader help). Manuel Comnenos was one of the best Roman emperors, and Myriokephalon was devastating because the second greatest offensive against the turks was broken without doubt. II.Klcarslan gave  him 300 men to protect him from the local turcoman population when he was going Constantinople, this shows the heavy losses Ithink 

  If we think in this logic The Khaldenberg(1683) defeat of the ottoman army wasnt any devastative, if we compare it. It was only a skirmish 
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817 		  Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2006 at 00:11
The first crusade defeated the turks at doryleum 1097.But the same turks came back and defeated the second crusade.Why is it that the first crusaders were succesful against the turks when the Byzantines and second crusaders were not?
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231 		  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2006 at 06:15
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

Originally posted by Heraclius

 Manzikert and Myriokephalon are 2 examples of battles that wernt especially devastating to the losing army, but had immense consequences afterwards.

 Manzikert was terrible, but the situation should of been swiftly recovered and easily could of been, the removal of Romanus as Emperor and the immediate mis-management after Romanus made the situation post-Manzikert much much worse. Allowing the Turks, almost entirely unchallenged to settle in Anatolia.

 Myriokephalon is actually rather overhyped, Manuel I compared it to Manzikert, when infact the imperial army was campaigning the very next year in Asia Minor and the Balkans. Proving that the Byzantine army wasnt anywhere near destroyed at the battle of Myriokephalon, it was more a psychological blow.

 Manuel I had opportunities earlier in his reign to deal with the Seljuks, but instead wasted time on dreams of reconquering Italy and Egypt which came to nothing. The Byzantine army under the Comneni was more than capable of dealing with the Turks, when it came to the crunch though Manuels attention was taken up with trivial and pointless endeavours in the west rather than focusing on an at one point very weak Turkish presence in Anatolia.

In 1176 Byzantine army was in 2 sections. One section was totally destroyed, second resisted but they gave heavy losses. Campaigning for byzantine army doesnt mean they didnt take heavy losses. The 2 battles(Manzikert and Myriokephalon ) was devastating defeats. Whatever you say. After Manzikert turks reached from Vaspurakan to Smyrna(1600 km) in 5 years. And some people says that it wasnt devastating, Byzantine recovered only western anatolia and the seaside(With crusader help). Manuel Comnenos was one of the best Roman emperors, and Myriokephalon was devastating because the second greatest offensive against the turks was broken without doubt. II.Klcarslan gave  him 300 men to protect him from the local turcoman population when he was going Constantinople, this shows the heavy losses Ithink 

  If we think in this logic The Khaldenberg(1683) defeat of the ottoman army wasnt any devastative, if we compare it. It was only a skirmish 

 There is no real evidence to suggest Byzantine casualties were as high as made out, the collapse of Byzantine Asia Minor post-Manzikert wasnt due to a lack of men caused by heavy casualties at Manzikert. The empire still had an army, it was just more often than not being used to in bids for the Imperial throne, by wannabe Emperors.

 Internal anarchy greatly aided Turkish expansion and soon enough settlement, Manzikert by itself although a defeat was not on a par with the likes of Adrianople or Yarmuk which were truly crushing defeats.

 Myriokephalon is the same, theres reason to believe Turkish casualties were also significant, had the victory of the Turks been total you would expect the entire Byzantine army to have been wiped out.

 However much of it survived intact, quite obviously since it was campaigning in the Balkans during the very next campaigning season. An army that had just suffered a "devastating" defeat would not have had the capability to campaign mere months after the battle of Myriokephalon.

 Neither battle was by no means a devastating defeat for the Byzantines in itself. Its all about the consequences of the battles and the aftermath.

 The internal aftermath after Manzikert was what allowed the rapid collapse of Byzantine Asia Minor and Manuels unwillingness to face the Seljuks again in a major campaign after Myriokephalon squandered the empires last real chance to achieve the reconquest of Anatolia. The byzantines without Crusader help actually reconquered much by themselves, infact for a long period of Comneni rule the crusaders were little more than mere vassals to the Emperor.

 Throughout the reigns of Alexius I and John II Byzantine advances were common, the likes of the Normans impeded Byzantine efforts for recovery in the east, had Manuel continued this gradual recovery it may well have been achieved.

 Manuels rule is a catalogue of missed opportunities for which he is entirely responsible, he wasnt anywhere near as good an Emperor as his father and grandfather had been. He showed alot ambition and a clear will to restore the empire to its former position, however he was unable to achieve anything of lasting significance.

 I'll paraphrase Norwich here when describing Manuel "Manuel achieved many victories, but consolidated none of them" it sums him up well I think.



Edited by Heraclius
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
ill_teknique View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 636 		  Quote ill_teknique Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2006 at 15:45
The one thing about Manzikert is that it was not a battle, no battle actually took place the Byzantine army disbanded by that time, or deserted.  Really the only troops left were the ones around the Emperor when he was captured.
Back to Top
Digenis View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694 		  Quote Digenis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2006 at 17:07
thats not true.
At first the Byzantine army pursuit the Seljuks.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2006 at 22:16

Diogenes was a butcher so he had been defeated.He killed many civilian in Anotolia cities which they refused his army request.All type of butchers have to lose in history.

Diogenes' goal was honour,Alpaslan's goal was fight for Islam.

Alpaslan's warcry before the Battle ;''..I dont say ''stay'' to abondeners,I dont thank to stayers..'' 

Do u know that 7 swords crashed,and 6 horses died that he had used during the battle ?
Back to Top
BlindOne View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 120 		  Quote BlindOne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 07:08
Originally posted by Warhero

Diogenes was a butcher so he had been defeated.He killed many civilian in Anotolia cities which they refused his army request.All type of butchers have to lose in history.

Diogenes' goal was honour,Alpaslan's goal was fight for Islam.

Alpaslan's warcry before the Battle ;''..I dont say ''stay'' to abondeners,I dont thank to stayers..'' 

Do u know that 7 swords crashed,and 6 horses died that he had used during the battle ?

 

That was a joke right????
That I am stricken and can't let you go
When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know
That I am crippled by all that you've done
Into the abyss, will I run


Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711 		  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 07:14
Diogenes was personally quite brave and he understood better than any of his predecessors the gravity of the Turkish threat. He appears to have actually been quite capable, but his predecessors left him a disastrous legacy to manage. The eliminating the 50,000 strong Armenian force and then having the Turks build up their confidence left Romanus IV with a problem so severe no previous Emperor had had to face it since the height of the Arab invasion centuries earlier.

Romanus IV may not have been a genius, but he was a capable and brave leader. The situation he found himself in was beyond his abilities, but was also something he had not caused.
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231 		  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 12:59
Originally posted by Warhero

Diogenes was a butcher so he had been defeated.He killed many civilian in Anotolia cities which they refused his army request.All type of butchers have to lose in history.

Diogenes' goal was honour,Alpaslan's goal was fight for Islam.

Alpaslan's warcry before the Battle ;''..I dont say ''stay'' to abondeners,I dont thank to stayers..'' 

Do u know that 7 swords crashed,and 6 horses died that he had used during the battle ?

 By that, you could easily argue many a Turkish Sultan was a butcher, Romanus doesnt stand out at all as especially brutal, certainly not compared to the vast majority of his contempories.
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943 		  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 14:38
Originally posted by Warhero

Diogenes' goal was honour,Alpaslan's goal was fight for Islam.


Whenever I browse AE, I spend a whole lot of time wondering what kind of books some of you read. It seems to me in some cases, that the answer is none at all.

Fight for Islam? That's the last thing that would've entered Alp Arslan's mind. Prior to the battle, he did his utmost to reach a truce with the Byzantines, offering quite favourable terms (see my earlier post for specifics) to avoid the whole conflict. This because Alp Arslan was already waging war on the muslim Fatimids, and was quite anxious to focus his energies on this campaign. Now you could argue the Fatimids were shiites, but the whole idea still rings false to me.

Originally posted by Warhero

Diogenes was a butcher so he had been defeated.He killed many civilian in Anotolia cities which they refused his army request.All type of butchers have to lose in history.


This isn't true either. My great-grandfather was a butcher, Diogenes was an Emperor.

Originally posted by Warhero

Do u know that 7 swords crashed,and 6 horses died that he had used during the battle ?


Splendid, let's all hope that means he slew a lot of filthy infidels, good riddance I say.

Edited by Reginmund
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 07:27

U r free to believe what ever u want.

it is all about ur conscience
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231 		  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 13:32
Originally posted by Warhero

U r free to believe what ever u want.

it is all about ur conscience

 Its about the facts, not belief, show us some evidence that Romanus Diogenes was the sadistic "butcher" that you claim he was and we will see if our view of him needs revising.

 Otherwise don't make claims you can't back up with something more than belief based on squat.
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.105 seconds.