The Battle of Manzikert: Military Disaster or Political Failure?

[Mister D]

On the 26th of August 1071, an army under the command of the Byzantine emperor Romanus IV Diogenes (1068-1071AD) was defeated on the borders of Armenia by the army of the Seljuk Turkish Sultan, Alp Arslan (1063-1072AD). Since that time, historians have identified the Battle of Manzikert as the mortal blow that led to the inevitable collapse of the Byzantine Empire. How accurate is this interpretation? Was the loss of Anatolia the result of Romanus IV Diogenes’ failed military campaign against the Seljuk’s or was it a political failure of his predecessors or successors? This paper examines Romanus’ Manzikert campaign and the significance of his defeat, and assesses whether the Byzantine position in Anatolia was recoverable, and if so, why that recovery failed?

http://web.archive.org/web/20110605022121/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/markham.htm

[Peter1469]

Byzantine lasted another 400 years or so. It may have been a massive blow, but they may have been able to recover with better leadership.

[Mister D]

Byzantine lasted another 400 years or so. It may have been a massive blow, but they may have been able to recover with better leadership.

After Manzikert and the loss of Anatolia it was never the same. This is a pretty good article. I would also criticize the leadership but not just the Emperor. The political class seems to have developed divergent aims.

[Peter1469]

After Manzikert and the loss of Anatolia it was never the same. This is a pretty good article. I would also criticize the leadership but not just the Emperor. The political class seems to have developed divergent aims.

I think it was a natural cycle of a nation burning out.

[RollingWave]

They did recover most of western Anatolia and the North / Southern coast during the Komenian years, though the hinterland was never fully recovered, however the Sultanate of Rum was essentially a vassal to them for a good part of that period as well. The height of the Komenian years the power of the Empire wasn't significantly worse off than during the the Macedonian dynasty.

Romanus IV Diogenes was a rather tragic figure though, most accounts say that he was a likable and popular general, his "rise" to the throne was a ugly and absurd twist that defined the Byznatium during the years after Basil II (Bulgar Slayer) until Alexious I . Thought it must also be noted that Alexious' family was hardly innocent of all the intrigues during this period, especially Alexious' mother.
It should be pointed out that, most of Anatolia wasn't actually lost after Manzekert (which was more ironically, in greater Armenia ) it was actually the ridiculous intrigues afterwards that caused it, as many generals rush to claim the throne in the wake of the battle, many areas were abandoned, or even openly traded for Turkish aid by ambitious claimants.

The truly fatal blow to them was the fourth Crusade. though they were certainly on their way down anyway especially after Bulgaria rose up and broke away. but the 4th Crusade made it completely irreversible.

[Mister D]

No doubt the sack of Constantinople and the short-lived "Latin Kingdom" was a calamity but I think that the loss of manpower, revenue, and strategic breathing space that the loss of Anatolia represented spelled the end at least of Byzantine pretensions if not to the actual existence of Constantinople and its environs. True, the "empire" was able to regain a foothold in Anatolia and retained land in Greece but Anatolia was the real heartland of the empire. The 4th Crusade weakened a Byzantium that by then amounted to only a shadow of its former glory.

[Peter1469]

It is 1000 years of history to digest. I have stood next to the spot where the eastern emperors were crowed for those 1000 years; I have seen the graffiti from the Viking mercenaries in the same place- the Hagia Sophia. I have seen the Golden Horn, where the great chain was stretched across the water to prevent a naval attack. And I need to go back to Istanbul Constantinople and its spice market to re stock.

[RollingWave]

The Komenian era did however have Bulgaria which the Macedonian era largely didn't have until its' very end after an extremely bloody war. (of course the Macedonian era also still held on to parts of Southern Italy)

At the point in around 1170 the Empire was actually in a very good position, the Seljuqs had completely fell apart by then, there was an on going big struggle over the control of Persia between the Kwarezmids and Ghorids, while the Abbasid Caliph had recovered a good portion of their strength, so there were several medium Islamic power but no strong one, Nur Ad Din was powerful but nothing in comparison to the Seljuqs at their height.

Meanwhile Egypt was riped for the taking, the Sultanate of Rum in Anatolia largely reduced to a vassal, as was the Armenian Principality in Cilicia and even the Crusader Principality of Antioch. meanwhile, the Kingdom of Georgia was at it's height which also provided a good shield for the Byzantiums from the east.

They really had no major threat at that point. which was why Manuel was under taking some very very ambitious attempts to recover the empire, some even accusing him of holding Justinian visions, while that might be a stretch, the very fact that he made serious attempts to retake Egypt and Southern Italy, and even entertained fairly serious discussion on the merger of the Church, certainly spark the imagination.

Another major pet project for Manuel was the potential merger of the Hungarian Kingdom to the Empire, he was grooming Bela III to succeed both him and the Kingdom of Hungary, but then he had a son late in his life and that fell through, and that was perhpas the worst thing to happen, one would almost certainly wonder what would happen if Bela III actually did succeed Hungary and Rome. certainly the Bulgarian Revolt and the 4th Crusade was unlikely to have happened. and then you would get to the point where the Mongols would be blowing away all the Islamic powers. even assuming the Crusaders were still toast. it would have been a totally different ball game as that would have made retaking the now very weak Anatolian Turks seem likely.

[Mister D]

The Komenian era did however have Bulgaria which the Macedonian era largely didn't have until its' very end after an extremely bloody war. (of course the Macedonian era also still held on to parts of Southern Italy)

At the point in around 1170 the Empire was actually in a very good position, the Seljuqs had completely fell apart by then, there was an on going big struggle over the control of Persia between the Kwarezmids and Ghorids, while the Abbasid Caliph had recovered a good portion of their strength, so there were several medium Islamic power but no strong one, Nur Ad Din was powerful but nothing in comparison to the Seljuqs at their height.

Meanwhile Egypt was riped for the taking, the Sultanate of Rum in Anatolia largely reduced to a vassal, as was the Armenian Principality in Cilicia and even the Crusader Principality of Antioch. meanwhile, the Kingdom of Georgia was at it's height which also provided a good shield for the Byzantiums from the east.

They really had no major threat at that point. which was why Manuel was under taking some very very ambitious attempts to recover the empire, some even accusing him of holding Justinian visions, while that might be a stretch, the very fact that he made serious attempts to retake Egypt and Southern Italy, and even entertained fairly serious discussion on the merger of the Church, certainly spark the imagination.

Another major pet project for Manuel was the potential merger of the Hungarian Kingdom to the Empire, he was grooming Bela III to succeed both him and the Kingdom of Hungary, but then he had a son late in his life and that fell through, and that was perhpas the worst thing to happen, one would almost certainly wonder what would happen if Bela III actually did succeed Hungary and Rome. certainly the Bulgarian Revolt and the 4th Crusade was unlikely to have happened. and then you would get to the point where the Mongols would be blowing away all the Islamic powers. even assuming the Crusaders were still toast. it would have been a totally different ball game as that would have made retaking the now very weak Anatolian Turks seem likely.

Interesting points.

After Manzikert and the loss of Anatolia I just don't think the empire could afford the constant political infighting any longer. Indeed, the author cited argues that that is precisely why they lost the Anatolian heartland. This defeat was not so much the result of Turkish arms but of internal power struggles. Domestic intrigue seems to have plauged the Byzantines. On the other hand, that helped them to develop sharp diplomatic skills and a penchant for the double cross. :wink: They successfully played enemies off against one another which is exactly what they came to rely on after the disaster in question. That is continued to prop up their empire when military strength alone would not suffice.

[Mister D]

And remember, the First Crusade played a role in helping Byzantium achieve success in Anatolia.

[Mister D]

Interestingly, the Byzantines began hiring Frankish mercenaries as early as the 1060s. Franks had been fighting in Byzantine service for decades before the First Crusade and had fought at Manzikert.

[RollingWave]

Interestingly, the Byzantines began hiring Frankish mercenaries as early as the 1060s. Franks had been fighting in Byzantine service for decades before the First Crusade and had fought at Manzikert.

though they were also part of the trouble post Manzekert, as the mess and chaotic situation left many of them unpaid, so they obviously took to themself to getting paid ;)

Certainly the Doukas family betrayal was part of the problem that lead to the defeat, though it was debatable that if they would have won even if that didn't happen, seeing that most source seem to indicate that the Byzantiums didn't anticipate Alp Arslan showing up around the city at all, as their intelligence had informed them that he was fighting in Syria (he was, but he also got news of the Byzantium attack into Armenia so he was able to come back quickly, the Turks had a considerable mobility advantage on the Byzantiums for obvious reasons. )

Also, Turks had been coming into Anatolia before the battle anyway. the Turkish migration came in many waves and direction (IMHO, it almost certainly had to do with the destruction of the Khazar Empire by the Rus which blew up the previous status quo on the Steppes. ), while the Seljuqs were establishing control over the greater Persian area, other groups were passing through the Caucasus and into Geogia / Armenia / Anatolia anyway. while other groups coming past the Danube River into Bulgaria would also be a significant problem for the Empire until John II .

[RollingWave]

And remember, the First Crusade played a role in helping Byzantium achieve success in Anatolia.
Certainly, though it was kind of a double cross on the Byznatium's part, seeing that they were actually on friendly terms with Kilij Arslan at that point, (Alexios got into power partly because his backers traded lands for Kilij's father's support ), Kilj Arslan felt comfortable enough of this alliance that he was out in Eastern Anatolia fighting other Turks when the First Crusade showed up.

Of course, Alexios played the Crusader too, seeing that he snuck envoys into the city and got them to surrender to him, and then as a gesture to Kilij Arslan on their "friendship" he send his familes back to him in tact (they were in Nicaea )

[Mister D]

though they were also part of the trouble post Manzekert, as the mess and chaotic situation left many of them unpaid, so they obviously took to themself to getting paid ;)

Certainly the Doukas family betrayal was part of the problem that lead to the defeat, though it was debatable that if they would have won even if that didn't happen, seeing that most source seem to indicate that the Byzantiums didn't anticipate Alp Arslan showing up around the city at all, as their intelligence had informed them that he was fighting in Syria (he was, but he also got news of the Byzantium attack into Armenia so he was able to come back quickly, the Turks had a considerable mobility advantage on the Byzantiums for obvious reasons. )

Also, Turks had been coming into Anatolia before the battle anyway. the Turkish migration came in many waves and direction (IMHO, it almost certainly had to do with the destruction of the Khazar Empire by the Rus which blew up the previous status quo on the Steppes. ), while the Seljuqs were establishing control over the greater Persian area, other groups were passing through the Caucasus and into Geogia / Armenia / Anatolia anyway. while other groups coming past the Danube River into Bulgaria would also be a significant problem for the Empire until John II .

Good points. Byzantine intelligence was found lacking in this instance. It's also worth remembering that the Frankish segment of the army left the field at Manzikert without fighting. Indeed, almost half the army was never engaged! :laugh:

[Mister D]

Certainly, though it was kind of a double cross on the Byznatium's part, seeing that they were actually on friendly terms with Kilij Arslan at that point, (Alexios got into power partly because his backers traded lands for Kilij's father's support ), Kilj Arslan felt comfortable enough of this alliance that he was out in Eastern Anatolia fighting other Turks when the First Crusade showed up.

Of course, Alexios played the Crusader too, seeing that he snuck envoys into the city and got them to surrender to him, and then as a gesture to Kilij Arslan on their "friendship" he send his familes back to him in tact (they were in Nicaea )

The double cross was what they did best. IMO, their skill in statecraft was in large measure the cause of their successes.
Yeah, the Frankish crusaders quickly learned not to trust the Byzantines. They kept their conquests in Palestine for themselves and who can blame them? Besides the Muslims, that is. :wink:

[RollingWave]

Alp Arslan also had some of the most noteworthy quotes of the medieval era during this battle .

Aside from his most famous "My punishment is much heavier, I'll set you free" quote. he also said during the battle as his men warned "sultante! the enemy is approaching!" he said "good! then we are also approaching them!" :P

The battle though, also shows some fundamental difference in the mindset of warfare, as the Byzantiums had one point taken the Turkish camp, but the Turks fought on anyway. this was obviously a part of their nomadic heritage, where their camp was not nearly as important a factor to their army's operation as it would be vice versa.

[RollingWave]

The double cross was what they did best. IMO, their skill in statecraft was in large measure the cause of their successes.
Yeah, the Frankish crusaders quickly learned not to trust the Byzantines. They kept their conquests in Palestine for themselves and who can blame them? Besides the Muslims, that is. :wink:
Well, it's not like the Crusaders were all of the most savory character either, while certainly some were really moved by religious zeal, guys like Baldwin and Bohemund was probably not so much ;)

[Mister D]

Well, it's not like the Crusaders were all of the most savory character either, while certainly some were really moved by religious zeal, guys like Baldwin and Bohemund was probably not so much ;)

I agree. I'm just saying that Alexios was duplicitous from the start. It's no surprise that the Crusade's leaders didn't feel the least obligated to hold up their part of the deal. That said, Bohemund and his son Tancred had very mixed motives. You are certainly right about that.

[Mister D]

Alp Arslan also had some of the most noteworthy quotes of the medieval era during this battle .

Aside from his most famous "My punishment is much heavier, I'll set you free" quote. he also said during the battle as his men warned "sultante! the enemy is approaching!" he said "good! then we are also approaching them!" :P

The battle though, also shows some fundamental difference in the mindset of warfare, as the Byzantiums had one point taken the Turkish camp, but the Turks fought on anyway. this was obviously a part of their nomadic heritage, where their camp was not nearly as important a factor to their army's operation as it would be vice versa.

Good point.

[RollingWave]

Tancerd was Boehmund's nephew, Bohemund only got a son late in his life after the Crusade (he lured a French Princess to him while on his tour through Europe recruiting more men back to Antioch :P)