The Battle of Manzikert

[Babur]

The Battle of Manzikert

Background



In 1064,nearly 50 years after the first Turkish incursion into Anatolia at Vaspuracan.Alp Arslan led forces across the river Araxes to invade Anatolia, attacking Ani, the ancient capital of Armenia, which fell after a siege of twenty-five days. The Arab chronicler, Sibt ibn al Gawzi quotes a supposed eyewitness of the Seljuk sack of Ani:

The army entered the city, massacred all its inhabitants, pillaged and burned it, leaving it in ruins and taking prisoner all those who remained alive…The dead bodies were so many that they blocked all the streets; one could not go anywhere without stepping over the. And the number of prisoners was not less than 50,000 souls. I was determined to enter the city and see the destruction with my own eyes.I tried to find a street in which I would not have to walk over the corpses; but that was impossible.

The conquest of Ani was met with great rejoicing throughout the Muslim world. The Abbasid Caliph, awarded Alp Arslan the title of “Abu-‘l-Fath” or “The Conqueror”. The following year, Alp Arslan sent an army under one of his generals into Anatolia, which attacked Caesareia and defeated a Byzantine army at Sebaste (Sivas), and the year afterwards, another Seljuk army penetrated as far west as Iconium.
Meanwhile the Byzantines had been unable to deal with the Seljuks due to incursions across the Danube by the Ghuzz and Pechenegs. In Autumn 1068, Romanus IV set out to Byzantine Syria and recaptured the fortress of Heirapolis near Aleppo, he then left a garrison at Melitene to guard his rear, however this failed to stop the Seljuks,who managed to launch a raid into western Anatolia and sack Amorium.In 1069, Romanus campaigned in north-east Anatolia, to attack the fort of Chliat, however the Seljuks defeated the Byzantine rearguard under Philaretus. Alp Arslan then managed to consolidate Seljuk power in the Van region by capturing Manzikert.
In 1070, Romanus attempted to arrange a truce with Alp Arslan, but this was to no avail.Meanwhile the Seljuks penetrated south-east Anatolia and sacked Chonae.The following year, Romanus IV would set out to strike a decisive blow against the Seljuks,he was to regret this decision.

The Battle



On 13 March 1071, Romanus set out east across the Bosphorus with an army of 100,000 men which included foreign mercenaries such as Franks, Rus, Ghuzz, Pechenegs, Georgians, Abkhazians, Khazars, Kipchaks, Alans and Armenians. Alp Arslan, the Seljuk leader, led a force north from Aleppo in Syria (which he was about to besiege) to meet the Byzantines. Romanus, meanwhile, divided his forces, sending the larger part against the Seljuk-held fortress of Khelat while he himself occupied the fortress town of Manzikert and laid siege to the fortress of Akhlat.

The first he knew of the proximity of the Seljuks was when a Byzantine reconnaissance force led by the commander of the Theodosipolitan theme, was virtually annihilated. Undeterred, Romanus drew up his force on a plain outside Manzikert in two lines and began to advance.Romanus rode in the middle with his guards and metropolitan provincial troops,while the second line consisted of foreign mercenary cavalry such as Normans,Alans and Armenians and so forth.
This second line was under the command of Andronicus Ducas who, unknown to the emperor, was his enemy and would desert him in the evening.
The Turks, however, proved an elusive enemy. Their mounted archers maintained harassing fire on the Byzantines from the flanks, but their centre refused battle. After an exhausting day chasing shadows, Romanus was far from his camp as evening fell and decided to turn back. This was the moment the Seljuks had been waiting for. They swarmed down from the hills around the plain and surrounded Romanus and his vanguard. The rearguard, made up of the Anatolian levies fled the field rather than aid the emperor. Almost all the troops who stayed with Romanus were killed, while he himself was taken prisoner but was treated well and released. Michael Attaliates left an account of the scene:

Outside the camp all were in flight, shouting incoherently and riding about in disorder; no one could say what was happening, Some maintained that the Emperor was still fighting with what was left of his army, and that the barbarians had been put to flight. Other claimed that he had been killed or captured. Everyone had something different to report…It was like an earthquake, the shouting, the sweat, the swift rushes of fear, the clouds of dust, and not least the hordes of Turks riding all around us. Depending on his speed, resolution and strength, each man sought safety in flight. The enemy followed in pursuit, killing some, capturing others and trampling yet others under their horses’ hooves.It was a tragic sight, beyond any mourning or lamenting. What indeed could be more pitiable than to see the entire imperial army in flight, defeated and pursued by cruel and inhuman barbarians; the emperor defenceless and surrounded by more of the same; the imperial tents, symbols of military might and sovereignty, taken over by men of such a kind; the whole Roman state overturned and knowing that the Empire itself was on the verge of collapse?.



The Aftermath

Romanus IV rode to Dokeia in Paphlagonia, where he had learned that he had been deposed in Contantinople. John Ducas sent a force to Dokeia and defeated the battered veterans of Manzikert. Romanus fled to Cilicia and there, Andronicus, the eldest son of John Ducas, betrayed Romanus and he was brought back to Constantinople,where his eyes were burned out with a red hot iron, after which he was confined to a monastery he had founded on Proti, one of the Princes Isles in the Sea of Marmara near Constantinople. Romanus died from his wounds, the following summer and was buried in the monastery.

The Seljuks soon occupied Armenia and most of Anatolia. The following century, with the help of the crusaders, the Byzantines were able to regain part of Anatolia, but the Byzantine Empire never truly recovered from the defeat at Manzikert.Alp Arslan was killed on 25 November 1072,fighting to seize Mawarannahr (Transoxania) and was succeeded by Malikshah under whom, the Seljuk Empire would fragment. However the Seljuks had established themselves in Anatolia, paving the way for the eventual Turkish conquest of Anatolia.

[Nikos]

A good read +REP. Its better then my Western Civ. book which doesn't even touch on Manzikert .

[Babur]

Thanks

Well it was indeed a decisive event in Byzantine history,and since the Seljuks established their Sultanate in Rum later,then with hindsight.One could argue that it paved the way for the later conquest of Anatolia and south-east Europe etc by the Ottomans.

[Nikos]

Thanks

Well it was indeed a decisive event in Byzantine history,and since the Seljuks established their Sultanate in Rum later,then with hindsight.One could argue that it paved the way for the later conquest of Anatolia and south-east Europe etc by the Ottomans.

I think it is THE decisive event in East Roman history. Manzikert was the beginning of the end. Never again would E.Rome control all of Anatolia. It also started the Turkification of Anatolia.

[Babur]

You should perhaps replace "Patzinaks" with "Pechenegs", as that's what more people would know them as. I know this is what the Greeks and Armenians knew them but we're not all perfect

Thanks for the corrections .

Otherwise a good read

Thanks

I think it is THE decisive event in East Roman history. Manzikert was the beginning of the end. Never again would E.Rome control all of Anatolia. It also started the Turkification of Anatolia.

Yeah

And then in 1204 there would be that stupid crusade,which permanently divided the Byzantine Empire .

[Romios]

I think it is THE decisive event in East Roman history. Manzikert was the beginning of the end. Never again would E.Rome control all of Anatolia. It also started the Turkification of Anatolia.

Exactly.
Also worth mentioning is that the army of Romanus was not appropriate for a Roman emperor. They were very poorly equiped they lacked combat experience.

[Babur]

Exactly.
Also worth mentioning is that the army of Romanus was not appropriate for a Roman emperor. They were very poorly equiped they lacked combat experience.

Yeah and here is a source by the Greek chronicler Cedrenus which confirms that :

The emperor, leading an army that did not befit the emperor of the Rhomaioi, but one which the times furnished, of Macedonians and Bulgars and Cappadocians and Uzes [Ghuzz] and other foreigners who happend to be about, in addition also of Franks [Europeans] and Varangarians [the foreign imperial guards], set out hastily...These were bent over by poverty and distress and were deprived of armour.Instead of swords and other military weapons...they were bearing hunting spears and scythes...and they were without war horses and other equipment...These things being observed by those present, they were filled with despondency, as they reckoned how low the armies of the Rhomaioi had fallen...For the older and experienced were without horse and without armour, and the fresh detachments were without military experience and unaccustomed to the military struggles, whereas the enemy was very bold in warfare, persevering, experiences, and suitable.

[Nikos]

Exactly.
Also worth mentioning is that the army of Romanus was not appropriate for a Roman emperor. They were very poorly equiped they lacked combat experience.

And to top it off, a whole division fled the field and another division was never heard from again! Romanus is'nt what we would call a strategic genius.

And then in 1204 there would be that stupid crusade,which permanently divided the Byzantine Empire .

Who could forget that. Just as the Romans had a chance to rebuild, the chance was destroyed.

[Babur]

And to top it off, a whole division fled the field and another division was never heard from again! Romanus is'nt what we would call a strategic genius.

Well don't forget Andronicus Ducas' treachery too.

And to top it off, a whole division fled the field and another division was never heard from again! Romanus is'nt what we would call a strategic genius.


Who could forget that. Just as the Romans had a chance to rebuild, the chance was destroyed.

Yeah I think it was either Pope Bendict XVI or Pope John Paul II who apologised to the Greek Orthodox church for the 1204 crusade.A bit overdue .

[John I Tzimisces]

Exactly.
Also worth mentioning is that the army of Romanus was not appropriate for a Roman emperor. They were very poorly equiped they lacked combat experience.

Don't forget the Romans had the "wisdom" to deport the local armenian nobility (to Cilicia, Macedonia, and Mesopotamia) and disband the local army prior to the battle, which rendered the area totally defenseless while the Romans ripped each other to pieces (Although Philaretos Brachiamos didn't do too bad.)

Not to mention annexing the armenian kingdoms completely removing the buffer state(s) that were generally capable of fighting either western or eastern neighbors, given they fought is a manner similar to steppe peoples.

1) Battle of Adrianople, defeat from Goths, beggining of the decline;

Buddy boy I'm going to go with the crisis of the 3rd century as the beginning of things unraveling in Rome. Barbarian defeats in the 5th century had little to do with the death of the west.

[Acco]

I think it is THE decisive event in East Roman history. Manzikert was the beginning of the end. Never again would E.Rome control all of Anatolia. It also started the Turkification of Anatolia.

It was a gargantuan battle and had a tremendous affect on the later Roman years, however historians over the ages have exaggerated the importance of the battle. The Roman losses were considerable low, the Seljuks had not occupied Malazgirt nor did they pursue the fleeing Romans. The Seljuks did not push into Anatolia until the death of Arslan in 1072 CE, militarily-speaking, I would place the decline of the Romans on the disentegration of the theme system, the theme system could mobilise many soldiers in a somewhat short time, however when the system ended the Roman army became less efficient.

Anyway, excellent article, Chaghatai Khan! :-)

[Babur]

It was a gargantuan battle and had a tremendous affect on the later Roman years, however historians over the ages have exaggerated the importance of the battle. The Roman losses were considerable low, the Seljuks had not occupied Malazgirt nor did they pursue the fleeing Romans. The Seljuks did not push into Anatolia until the death of Arslan in 1072 CE, militarily-speaking, I would place the decline of the Romans on the disentegration of the theme system, the theme system could mobilise many soldiers in a somewhat short time, however when the system ended the Roman army became less efficient.

Well I think historians have tried to turn it into a battle between Christianity and Islam perhaps.Well when did the Theme disintegrate exactly?.

Anyway, excellent article, Chaghatai Khan! :-)

Thanks

some rep would be appreciated too

[therussian]

I think it is THE decisive event in East Roman history. Manzikert was the beginning of the end. Never again would E.Rome control all of Anatolia. It also started the Turkification of Anatolia.

Manzikert has the notoriety of being way too hyped up about being "THE decisive event in East Roman history". Sure, Byzantium never again controlled most of Anatolia, but Alex Comnenus (and the subsequent Comnenus Emperors) sure was on his way to doing so. It was the sack of 1204 that really sealed the deal.

[John I Tzimisces]

You should perhaps replace "Patzinaks" with "Pechenegs", as that's what more people would know them as. I know this is what the Greeks and Armenians knew them but we're not all perfect

Otherwise a good read

[iksterminator]

Yes, manzikert was a huge blow, but I consider Arab invasions as the end of Roman Empire and start of Byzantine one. It was then, when the empire lost it's multicultural and multiethnic Roman Imperian style and became a Greek dominant empire.
Never after emperor Iraklis did Rome happen to be dominant power of mediteranian.

[Romios]

Yes, manzikert was a huge blow, but I consider Arab invasions as the end of Roman Empire and start of Byzantine one. It was then, when the empire lost it's multicultural and multiethnic Roman Imperian style and became a Greek dominant empire.
Never after emperor Iraklis did Rome happen to be dominant power of mediteranian.

You know of course that the actual empire was the Roman and there was no byzantine or greek empire right? These terms were made up like a century after the fall of Constantinople.

[Babur]

You know of course that the actual empire was the Roman and there was no byzantine or greek empire right? These terms were made up like a century after the fall of Constantinople.

Yeah since the Eastern Roman Empire was never accepted as a true successor to the Roman Empire.

[Romios]

Yeah since the Eastern Roman Empire was never accepted as a true successor to the Roman Empire.

Ok we getting a bit of topic but, what?
I mean, yes the ERE was not the successor of the Roman empire because it was the Roman empire.

[iksterminator]

Ok we getting a bit of topic but, what?
I mean, yes the ERE was not the successor of the Roman empire because it was the Roman empire.

I agree, technically there was no Roman Empire ever, it was always SPQR. But anyway, "Eastern Roman Empire", "Byzantine Empire", "Greek Empire" are all names popularized after Gibbon (why do people are so impressed with him?).
Actually whole history of late Roman Empire is a bit of a forgotten topic, thrown over the last shelves.
Yes, I date as following:
1) Battle of Adrianople, defeat from Goths, beggining of the decline;
2) Arab invasions, the end of glorious Roman Empire;
3) Manzikert - end of imperial influence in international politics;
4) 1204 - The end of the empire;
5) 1453 - The trails are wiped, so we can forget.

What are your calls?

[IEROS LOXOS]

awesome!