The Byzantian casualties are far from being accurate. Not known sign information can be put like the Turkish one.
Nothing is accurate or straight in this article anyway. It sounds like an attempt to win back a war fought one thousand years ago. Yes, it was not a disaster at all, just a few casualties at the fringes of the Empire and loss of the Emperor's baggage train. Except that, four years after the battle (in 1075), Selçuk Turks were all over Anatolia (except bits and parts), had established their capital (for the following 20 years) in İznik (Nicea), a stone's throw from the Byzantine capital, Çaka Bey's separate forces had taken İzmir (Smyrna) in 1081 and held it till his death in 1095 (while attacking the Çanakkale (Dardanelles) Strait). Turkish advance had been checked and temporarily ebbed back to Central Anatolia due to the Crusades. For the 25 years following the battle, the Empire had no control over its Anatolian heartland. I tried to insert these facts into the article, thinking they might have some relevance, but was chided and hushed by a conveniently named Miskin. I was being nationalist. Sorry. :) -- Cretanforever 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have anything to do with the content of this article. I just happen to trust the person who compiled (and sourced) it, hence I've been reverting vandalism attempts back to the neutral version. Miskin 15:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Judging by the size of the Seljuk Empire, I don't see how Greek forces could have been larger. Miskin 15:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed some of the POV in the article, although I think there are still some ridiculously looking sections that remain unsourced. Unless you provide a source for the "famous dialogue" between the Byzantine Emperor and Seljuk sultan, it will be removed. To anyone who has a basic understanding of medieval warfare, an expedition of 200,000 soldiers is a ludicrous number. So please, don't make any more unsourced edits. Keep your "to do" list for the Turkish wikipedia. Miskin 15:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you even know when the siege of Vienna dates? Miskin 15:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's my point. The Bulgarian Army that kicked the Turks out of Europe in the first Balkan war numbered over 500,000 soldiers. That was larger than Napoleon's largest army, which was formed only some 100 years before it. The Polish army which was decimated by the Nazis in the dawn of WW2 numbered over 1,000,000 soldiers. And I'm not even going to mention the Russians. Miskin 16:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That's funny, because I've heard that much of the administration and external politics of the Ottoman Empire were assigned to Phanariot Greeks. Well I suppose things like this are conveniently absent from your "Turkish sources". Miskin 16:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Just as I thought, the Turkish sources you're planning to provide us with appear to be extremely selective. Now have a look at a real source for a change, you know of the kind which provides factual information:
"[The Ottomans] no longer in a position to dictate peace terms to their vanquished enemies, they now had to rely on diplomats skilled in negotiation who might mitigate the consequences of military defeat, and these were drawn from the Phanariot Greeks. Between 1699, when the peace treaty with the Habsburg monarchy was signed at Carlowitz, and 1821, the year of the outbreak of the War of Greek Independence, Phanariote grandees monopolized the post of chief interpreter to the Porte. This was a more important post than it appeared, for its holder bore considerable responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy. Similarly, Phanariotes were invariably interpreters to the kapudan pasha, the admiral of the Ottoman fleet. Again their powers were wider than the title suggests, for these Phanariotes in effect acted as governors of the islands of the Aegean archipelago, whose Greek inhabitants were a principal source of the sailors manning the Ottoman fleet. (Britannica 2006)"
Miskin
16:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You know, call me irrational, but I never thought that this type of edit,
" On the other hand, one can argue that, if an Emperor is lost to captivity and had to be bailed out, and Turkish horsemen had started roaming all over the Anatolian heartland in a few years, if that is not a disaster, what is?"
could ever be provided by a serious editor as first degree encyclopedia material. You keep mentioning of sources, but I haven't seen any yet. Furthermore cretenforever linked the modern Kemalist-promoted and purified Turkish language, which I found anachronistic (at least that's what I thought he did).
Miskin
16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I've already removed that POV Hectorian (and I accidently reverted the category that Adam restored). To remain focused on the topic we need to refrain from making personal attacks. And in my book, he who starts does take the blame. Kagan you should try to release some stress before restarting a discussion. So far you have shown poor editing behaviour, and provocative statements of the type "And actually I should recommend you editing Greek Wikipedia, it still hasn't even reached 10,000 articles, because Greeks are busy winning on Wikipedia the wars they lost on the field." are not very helpful. Miskin 17:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Could we pursue the discussion on combattant numbers (also Phanariot Greeks, Bulgarian army and else...) separately and add a paragraph stating,
I am sorry for the bloke capitals. But these facts are RELEVANT and, they are mentioned in the articles on the
Sultanate of Rum and
İzmir. When I first read it, I couldn't help a laugh. There has been crushing defeats in Turkish military history as well, and exercises in semantics usually produce hilarious results in such cases.
Also, I am in favor of including the
Turkish and
Greek appellations for the Battle in the article. The Turkish appellation was there, but has been removed to conform to the illuminating discovery that "Modern Turkish has no close relation to the Seljuk language" (see article history). What can one do? :) Fall in despair? For whom?
When I read poetry dating from the period of the Selçuks (in the original!!!), it sounds very much like Turkish to me.
May I have a say on that? Should I know?
To conclude, I suggest we put Battle of Manzikert (called Malazgirt Savaşı in Turkish, and the Greek name in Greek) and also insert the above facts (in plain language). Being what we are, Turks and Greeks, I am sure the discussion on numbers will be pursued eternally. I will add these points in a few days if no objections. --
Cretanforever
18:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the point cretanforever is trying to make. Nobody ever denied that the defeat in Manzikert signalled the Turkic settments in Anatolia. The only thing I'm questioning is the numbers of the two armies during the battle. I don't see where the aftermath fits. Secondly, I don't see the need to cite the battle in any language other than English. Really, what's the point? Miskin 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the article needs to be focused on the battle, not on the Seljuk exploits in Asia Minor. Miskin 22:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the sentences 'Alas for Romanus, his own countrymen were far less kind than his enemy, making the mercy of Alp Arslan a curse' and 'finally killed after great torture and torment', as POV, cause it appears to be an edit to underline the 'good will' of the Seljuks and the 'brutality' of the Byzantines.Romanus was blinded and exiled. he died in exile, cause of the infection of the blinding, but he was not 'tortured to death'. i changed the phrase 'Syrian Seas' to 'Eastern Mediterranean', cause that's the term used (maybe the Turks call it Syrian sea, i do not know,but we have to use the english term).i also have doubts about 'Egyptian Sea', but i have not thought of a better term to describe southeastern mediterranean sea...Lasty, i removed 'or Christian prilgrims to the Holy Places in the Middle East', cause the Byzantines had lost these territories long ago, during the byzantine-arab wars, so they were not the protectors of the christian pilgrims at that time. -- Hectorian 19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The rule is "don't edit before talking about it". Miskin 14:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I will add these points in a few days if no objections. --Cretanforever 18:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC) -- Cretanforever 15:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
According to internet sources:
"Romanus set off from Constantinople with a force of about 100,000 men, of whom less than 50% were members of the Empire." [1]
"Romanus organized a huge army and moved to Nicaea. There he gathered more soldiers and procedded to Malagia and Dorylaeon (Eski Sechir). In May 1071, entered the capital of Kappadokia, Kaesareia (his homeland) where had a meeting with his generals, Iosif Traxaneiotis, Nikiforos Bruenios, Michael Psellos and others. They decided to move fast and try retake Manzikert and Chliat, cities in the east frontiers of the empire (near lake Van). The army of about 100000 men, moved from Kaesareia and passed Sevasteia, Koloneia, Theodosioupolis (Arje-Rum), where he recruited more men." [2]
And Britannica says:
"Spurred by Seljuq raids and incursions into Byzantine-ruled Anatolia, Romanus assembled a large army to reestablish the security of the Byzantine Empire's eastern frontier there." [3]
Lowest estimate I saw for Romanus' army was around 50,000.
I made a brief research on this. Basically it's almost impossible to get a precise figure on neither side's numbers because of extremely varying records. However, I did manage to reach the following conclusions:
Contemporary accounts vary extremely and are not considered reliable by later historians. According to Ibn al-Qalanisi, Alp-Arslan's total army numbered 400,000. Other sources mention 200,000 only on horse (exaggerated figures). Later historians such as Oman in his History of the Art of War, gives 60,000 for the Greeks and 100,000 for the Turks. Then again, other historians such as Delbruck and Lot mock at Oman for accepting the enormous numbers given in the eastern chroniclers, regarding figures as high as 100,000 to be exaggerated (it seems I'm not the only who would laugh at the figure of 200,000). Oman's figures can be regarded as the maximum for both armies. I still don't have specific figures on the sources, but it's almost certain that the greater part of Romanus' personal army (only a small proportion of the total) was annihilated. Romanus himself fought bravely but got betrayed by Ducas. My sources on these are:
By the way Kagan, you see that as long as cretanlover's edits have a source and are well-written, nobody removes them. We didn't even question the importance of it in the article as you do in other articles all the time. So if I catch you again talking about "Miskin's superficial attitude in Manzikert - Greece's disgraceful battle" or something along those lines, I will take it as a personal attack and report you for it. As you have already a warning for excessive personal attacks (no wonder why), you wouldn't like this to happen. So be a good boy for once and play by the rules. Miskin 02:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
you all need to seriously read some books on Byzantium as well as the passages that discuss Manzikert. Some helpful selections are :
Romilly Jenkins George Ostrogorsky warren treadgold timothy gregory john norwich
The Encyclopedia of Islam (s.v. Malâzgird) gives the figures of 60,000 for the Byzantines (citing Cheynet) and 15,000 for Alp Arslan (citing "Muslim sources"). For what it's worth. -- Macrakis 16:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Macrakis;
Regarding Miskin's previous paragraph. If the sources say Seljuks were 1.3 or 1.5 greater in number let's do a little mathematics: If Byzantines were 40,000 with 1.5 ratio Seljuks should be 60,000, if Byzantines were 60,000 then that makes the Seljuk army 90,000 with once again the highest possible ratio 1.5. If 1.3 then the Seljukid numbers should be even lesser. Now my questions:
1. How did Miskin come up with the number 40,000, I haven't come across a single source that gives such number? 2. If Byzantine army is 40,000-60,000 then shouldn't the same logic apply to Seljuks with max numbers of 60,000-90,000 according to the ratios given.-- 213.243.30.8 16:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I am simply bringing one additional secondary source to the discussion. The Encyclopedia of Islam article does say that "Romanus refused any terms, feeling that he had numerical superiority... the Emperor must, despite defections, have had superiority in numbers; Cheynet estimates his army at probably 60,000, with much baggage and impediment. Its morale however was not high, and its composition very heterogeneous...". I don't know where the figures of 1.3x and 1.5x come from. -- Macrakis 16:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Macrakis either hasn't read my analysis on the ridiculous figures provided by some biased contemporary sources (rejected by all others), or he's just trolling around. The '40,000' was the initial figure that was added by someone else, I think Adam. My sources simply said that 60,000 was too much, hence I ranged between the two. :I have no objections against the "<50,000" figure, frankly I don't see the diffence. Maybe you just want to cause trouble. Your constant denial of registering an ID (eventhough you change an IP address frequently) makes me suspect that you're the suckpuppet of certain someone. Miskin 16:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The EI quotes Cheynet as estimating 60,000, which is not that far from Miskin's sources' figure. I hope we all agree that the contemporary numbers of 200,000 are ridiculous, as Miskin stated earlier. I don't know where Miskin's 1.3-1.5x multiple comes from -- could we have specific source citations (page numbers and/or quotations)? Especially since EI says that Romanus "had superiority in numbers". -- Macrakis 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
An Encyclopedia of Battles, by David Eggenberger, (ISBN 0486249131) says 40,000 Byzantines and 70,000 Turks. Tom Harrison Talk 02:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but the numbers suggested here do not make sense because of two facts. 1) Romanus refused the peace terms, because he trusted his numbers. 2) Romans (or Byzantines) were attacking and Turks were using defensive hit-and-run strategy. Anyone, who is slightly knowledgable in military science knows that attacking side needs either much greater number, or great logistic advantage, or both. In short, Byzantine army was much larger than the Turkish army. Given that the battle was in open field suggests that the Byzantine army is not necessarily more than an order of magnitude larger than the Turkish army. In short, Byzantine warfare proved to be a failure against highly versatile Turkish tactics and well trained Turkish cavalary. A single Turkish cavalary was capable of shooting around 100 arrows per minute in any direction while riding the horse at full speed. Multiply that by a few thousands cavalaryman. That is what the Byzantine soldiers faced that day.
tvoldemor
MANZIKERT, BATTLE Of "...Romanus was surprised by the arrival of main Seljuk army, but as he had superior numbers he rejected a peace offer and prepared for battle." Mathew Bennett, Dictionary of Ancient & Medieval Warfare (Page 203).
"Emperor Romanus IV lost his entire army of 60,000 men to the Seljuk Turks at the battle of Manzikert in Armenia." Richard A. Gabriel, The Great Armies of Antiquity (Page 289). Lysandros 23:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not contradictory to majority of the sources, if you consider eastern/Muslim sources as well: ibn'ül-Cevzi 20,000; ibn'ül-Adim 20,000; ibn'ül-Esir 15,000; imad'üd-din 14,000; ibnü Munkiz 13,000... (Numbers for the Seljuk army according to Muslim chroniclers).
First citation simply says Romanus had still the superiority after the arrival of the main Seljuk army (not difficult to understand).
Sure, the loss of 60,000 men doesn't only mean dead soldiers (Dead, wounded, prisoners, deserters...) Lysandros 05:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I can give you the list of all the medieval Muslim sources if you want, and the majority give greater numbers for Byzantines (From the book 'İslam Kaynaklarına Göre Malazgirt savaşı' / 'The battle of Manzikert according to muslim sources' 149 pages 1971). See also - you probably know - "The bulk of the army consisted now of foreign mercenaries, the Norsemen of the Varangian guard, Normans and Franks from western Europe, Slavs from the north, and Turks from the steppes southern Russia, Petcheneg, Couman and Ghuzz. Out of these elements Romanus collected a force of nearly a hundred thousand men, of wich perhaps half were Byzantine born." (Runciman p 62) for the Byzantine army. Lysandros 00:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"According to Ibn al-Qalanisi, Alp-Arslan's total army numbered 400,000. Other sources mention 200,000 only on horse (exaggerated figures). Later historians such as Oman in his History of the Art of War, gives 60,000 for the Greeks and 100,000 for the Turks. Then again, other historians such as Delbruck and Lot mock at Oman for accepting the enormous numbers given in the eastern chroniclers, regarding figures as high as 100,000 to be exaggerated"
If you have any non-biased modern sources which make estimations very different to the figures provided in the article, then feel free to contribute. However, medieval sources cannot be taken into account for the reasons I have repeatedly mentioned.
Miskin
17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not refusing to read, i have readed the talk page. I only wrote this because you were saying "The majority of medieval muslim sources I've come across give greater numbers for the Seljuk army than for Byzantines...". What about Sir Steven Runciman's numbers? And this: "The action took place far to the east at Manzikert near lake Van. Romanus had concentrated all avaible mounted troops in a single great field army of over sixty thousand." Hoffman Nickerson, Warfare (page 90)? Lysandros 18:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The only thing that i have done is citing sources (in majority western) for a little contribution. I personnaly don't ask for exaggerations and don't see this discussion as a Greek-Turkish POV. Lysandros 14:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
First, i never said or implied that the Seljuks were 'vastly' outnumbered or even outnumbered. I only cited the medieval Muslim sources not because i find them more reliable, but because you were saying "...contradictory to the majority of the sources..." and i got the impression you were speaking of 'all' of them, including medieval eastern/western sources. We can ignore them, not problem. Secondly, i didn't cite two modern sources but four; Steven Runciman (nearly 100,000), Richard A. Gabriel (60,000), Hoffman Nickerson (60,000), and Mathew Bennet (...as he had superior numbers...). I never suggested to put highest numbers for Byzantines and lowest numbers for Seljuks sincerely. I can understand that you are tired - and thanks for answering - but you don't have any obligation to play the referee. Lysandros 17:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The following article is an extremely professional and academic article on this war and they have the number for Byzantine army as 100.000 and the Selcuk army half the size of it. Please read the article before you vandalize or revert any changes. http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/markham.htm -- 75.178.190.244 13:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Some passages from Paul Markham's article;
"All contemporary historians commented on the size of the army; Matthew of Edessa absurdly claims the Byzantine army exceeded one million men,[31] while Vadarpet describes a “countless host.” The army itself consisted of the eastern and western tagmatas, mercenary units, Armenian conscripts and the private levies of the Anatolian landholders, along with the siege engines, sappers, engineers and Romanus would need to recover the Armenian fortresses recently lost to the Turks. All told, the army probably amounted to about forty thousand effective fighting men; however, with the presence of the thousands of non-combatants, servants, baggage handlers and camp followers that always traveled with medieval armies the army would undoubtedly have appeared larger.[32]"
"When the Byzantine army reached Theodosiopoulis in July, Romanus received reports that the news of his campaign had led the Sultan to abandon the siege of Aleppo and was withdrawing in some disorder towards the Euphrates. It appeared many of the Sultan’s troops had deserted and he was now commanding a much-reduced army of between ten and fifteen thousand men."
"The Sultan immediately recognised the danger, raised the siege and hurried towards Armenia. Because Aleppo was a wealthy city offering attractive opportunities for plunder the Sultan had been able to raise a large army, but a campaign against the Byzantine army in Armenia offered no such incentive, and as he advanced towards Armenia his army began to melt away. By the time he reached the Euphrates River he was left with only about ten thousand men. By forced marches, Arslan reached Armenia in late August. He had managed to recruit additional troops on the way but his army was probably only half the size of Romanus’."
"While Romanus was busy besieging Manzikert, Tarchaneiotes’ army encountered a strong Seljuk force advancing from the south. Without advising Romanus, Tarchaneiotes chose not to engage and withdrew his forces to the west. His troops took no part in the subsequent battle and returned to Constantinople. Unaware of the desertion of half his army, Romanus encountered the main Seljuk army on 24 August 1071 and immediately joined battle."
Lysandros 03:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a Janissary song sying
Malazgirt'te 54 ellidörtbin er,ellidörtbin er........ Means 54 000 soldiers at Manzikert And again according to many other sources numbers of Byzantine Empire(which includes armies of other kingdoms inside(Georgians,Armenians...) were around 100 000
We should pick one spelling and use it consistently throughout the article. I'm going to update all references to read " Andronikos Doukas" and "Doukas", as all of the references on his bio page use either "Doukas" or "Dukas" (which I'm more familiar with, but that's the CK in me talking). Caknuck 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In the "Preparations" section is a mention of Frankish mercenaries that had to be dismissed, and then there is a mention of, "Romanus ordered his general John Tarchaneiotes to take some of the Byzantine troops and Varangians and accompany the Pechenegs and French to Khliat..."
What French? First of all, the way the article is currently written, the reader would think that the Franks (a natural substitute for "French" to the modern reader) had been sent home by now. So if not the Franks, who are these "French"? The Normans? If so, then why not just call them that? French is an anachronistic term in the era under discussion.
Can anyone clarify just who was being sent to Khliat?
Mmccalpin 13:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Frank (Frenk in old Turkish) is used to refer all Western Europeons. This is mentioned at Age of Empires III Campaign too. And thsi war is mentioned as "Gates of Anatolia (Anadolu) have openned to Turks" at Turkey. -- 88.241.244.43 23:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted the sentence about sacking Armenian cities and farmlands.This was never happened.Armenians were thanking to Turks that time because Turks rescued them from Byzantines.
Historian Donald M. Nicol presents the events quite differently and emphasizes on treason. Q43 09:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This is an academic article without any bias and therefore can be taken as a reference. Read it carefully before making changes http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/markham.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.178.190.244 ( talk) 13:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
How on earth could the Byzantines numbered 100,000? Heraclius, the emperor whom had all of Egypt, Levant and Anatolia could not have secured so many men. There were approximately 20 Themata in the Byzantine empire at this stage. Even if they were each to strip themselves naked of any troops, each providing 9,600 men as agreed (see Theme and the Theme system) that makes 192,000 soldiers. So its probably at maximum, half that number, 96,000 troops, if one considers that half the themes were very far from Armenia. And considering that the Byzantines again fought the Turks prior to Nicaea falling, and were able to fight for Nicaea in 1077-1078, it must mean that the Byzantines held a substantial amount of men in reserve. Alexius Comnenus was able to campaign after Manzikert in Greece and Italy, so we must again half that number to about 50,000 men. According to Battle by R.G. Grant, the Byzantines had 50,000 and Seljuks 40,000 Tourskin 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The image at the info box is very misleading - it shows the soldiers wearing heavy european armor engaged in melee combat. As if. Perhaps a comment could be inserted? I shall be bold and do so. Oh yes, please see Byzantine-Seljuk Wars and lend us your arms and armor in improving the article!!! Tourskin 22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Im no great expert on Manzikert, but know a bit about the Byzantine Empire, and this has probably been covered to some dgree already, but just wanted to makea fresh point. This battle is largely credited with the fall of the Byzantine EMpire by western sources today and at the time, however perhaps the much more devastating and real reason for the fall of Byzantium was the sacking of Constantinople by the crusaders. Something about this article seems to hint that the crusaders tried their best to protect the empire and only went on the crusaders to protect the pilgrims. Although the officail reason for the calling of the First Crusade was to protect the Byzantines from the Seljuks, and may have been the Pope's reason for calling it, in actual fact the kind of monarchs and generals who joined it probably cared very little about orthodox Christianity, as can be seen by the fact they sacked Constantinople. Anoher perhaps more important reason for the calling of the crusade was because at the time the ruler of Jerusalem decided to block Christian pilmagrages there. All I am trying to get rid of is the idea of Byzantium and the Crusaders acting together as a noble force of Christinaity (and yes I am a Western Christian and no POV pusher) that seems to infest articles about Byzantium, when in fact their relations were often very poor, especially since the Pope did not formally accept the Orthodox church until several centuaries later and the great Svhism had not happened very long ago at that point. The real truth behind the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the crusade was that, after Manzikert (which personally I believe to be over-hyped historically as a reason for Byzantium's fall, as it would have been possible theorectically to recover without additional external factors I am just coming on to) the Byzantine Empire saw a real threat in the Seljuks and called for its last resort (the western Christian Kingdoms) to help it reclaim its territory which was falling into the hand of the Seljuks. In fact what the Byzantines did not realise that in inviting the crusaders to their lands they had effecitvely dug the nail in their own coffin, as the crusaders had no true loyatly to helping the Orthodox church and pillaged Byzantium's capital city without even having to fight to get into it. The crusades were probably more relaistically what really damaged Byzantium badly, as basically all Byzantium had was its wealth, as there was no loyatly to the Emperor or neccessarily to religion there, and after constantinople was raided it lost a vast amount of its treasuary. Therefore perhaps the reason Manzikert gets such a historical backing as 'the beginning of the fall of the Byzantine Empire' osi because western historians at the time did not want to accept that it was in fact western Chrsitians that really did the damage. 172.207.221.188 11:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about spelling and punctuation if there are any issues, feel free to edit my spelling/grammar if it makes you feel better, I am bad at proof reading and also dyslexic, they should put spellcheck on wikipeidia!
172.207.221.188
11:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I have given this article lots of references, more information and another image (a map) showing Byzantine-Seljuk operations. Perhaps this is good enough for it to be...a GOOD ARTICLE...? Tourskin ( talk) 05:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well done! Nengscoz416 ( talk) 05:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The Byzantian casualties are far from being accurate. Not known sign information can be put like the Turkish one.
Nothing is accurate or straight in this article anyway. It sounds like an attempt to win back a war fought one thousand years ago. Yes, it was not a disaster at all, just a few casualties at the fringes of the Empire and loss of the Emperor's baggage train. Except that, four years after the battle (in 1075), Selçuk Turks were all over Anatolia (except bits and parts), had established their capital (for the following 20 years) in İznik (Nicea), a stone's throw from the Byzantine capital, Çaka Bey's separate forces had taken İzmir (Smyrna) in 1081 and held it till his death in 1095 (while attacking the Çanakkale (Dardanelles) Strait). Turkish advance had been checked and temporarily ebbed back to Central Anatolia due to the Crusades. For the 25 years following the battle, the Empire had no control over its Anatolian heartland. I tried to insert these facts into the article, thinking they might have some relevance, but was chided and hushed by a conveniently named Miskin. I was being nationalist. Sorry. :) -- Cretanforever 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have anything to do with the content of this article. I just happen to trust the person who compiled (and sourced) it, hence I've been reverting vandalism attempts back to the neutral version. Miskin 15:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Judging by the size of the Seljuk Empire, I don't see how Greek forces could have been larger. Miskin 15:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed some of the POV in the article, although I think there are still some ridiculously looking sections that remain unsourced. Unless you provide a source for the "famous dialogue" between the Byzantine Emperor and Seljuk sultan, it will be removed. To anyone who has a basic understanding of medieval warfare, an expedition of 200,000 soldiers is a ludicrous number. So please, don't make any more unsourced edits. Keep your "to do" list for the Turkish wikipedia. Miskin 15:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you even know when the siege of Vienna dates? Miskin 15:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's my point. The Bulgarian Army that kicked the Turks out of Europe in the first Balkan war numbered over 500,000 soldiers. That was larger than Napoleon's largest army, which was formed only some 100 years before it. The Polish army which was decimated by the Nazis in the dawn of WW2 numbered over 1,000,000 soldiers. And I'm not even going to mention the Russians. Miskin 16:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That's funny, because I've heard that much of the administration and external politics of the Ottoman Empire were assigned to Phanariot Greeks. Well I suppose things like this are conveniently absent from your "Turkish sources". Miskin 16:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Just as I thought, the Turkish sources you're planning to provide us with appear to be extremely selective. Now have a look at a real source for a change, you know of the kind which provides factual information:
"[The Ottomans] no longer in a position to dictate peace terms to their vanquished enemies, they now had to rely on diplomats skilled in negotiation who might mitigate the consequences of military defeat, and these were drawn from the Phanariot Greeks. Between 1699, when the peace treaty with the Habsburg monarchy was signed at Carlowitz, and 1821, the year of the outbreak of the War of Greek Independence, Phanariote grandees monopolized the post of chief interpreter to the Porte. This was a more important post than it appeared, for its holder bore considerable responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy. Similarly, Phanariotes were invariably interpreters to the kapudan pasha, the admiral of the Ottoman fleet. Again their powers were wider than the title suggests, for these Phanariotes in effect acted as governors of the islands of the Aegean archipelago, whose Greek inhabitants were a principal source of the sailors manning the Ottoman fleet. (Britannica 2006)"
Miskin
16:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You know, call me irrational, but I never thought that this type of edit,
" On the other hand, one can argue that, if an Emperor is lost to captivity and had to be bailed out, and Turkish horsemen had started roaming all over the Anatolian heartland in a few years, if that is not a disaster, what is?"
could ever be provided by a serious editor as first degree encyclopedia material. You keep mentioning of sources, but I haven't seen any yet. Furthermore cretenforever linked the modern Kemalist-promoted and purified Turkish language, which I found anachronistic (at least that's what I thought he did).
Miskin
16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I've already removed that POV Hectorian (and I accidently reverted the category that Adam restored). To remain focused on the topic we need to refrain from making personal attacks. And in my book, he who starts does take the blame. Kagan you should try to release some stress before restarting a discussion. So far you have shown poor editing behaviour, and provocative statements of the type "And actually I should recommend you editing Greek Wikipedia, it still hasn't even reached 10,000 articles, because Greeks are busy winning on Wikipedia the wars they lost on the field." are not very helpful. Miskin 17:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Could we pursue the discussion on combattant numbers (also Phanariot Greeks, Bulgarian army and else...) separately and add a paragraph stating,
I am sorry for the bloke capitals. But these facts are RELEVANT and, they are mentioned in the articles on the
Sultanate of Rum and
İzmir. When I first read it, I couldn't help a laugh. There has been crushing defeats in Turkish military history as well, and exercises in semantics usually produce hilarious results in such cases.
Also, I am in favor of including the
Turkish and
Greek appellations for the Battle in the article. The Turkish appellation was there, but has been removed to conform to the illuminating discovery that "Modern Turkish has no close relation to the Seljuk language" (see article history). What can one do? :) Fall in despair? For whom?
When I read poetry dating from the period of the Selçuks (in the original!!!), it sounds very much like Turkish to me.
May I have a say on that? Should I know?
To conclude, I suggest we put Battle of Manzikert (called Malazgirt Savaşı in Turkish, and the Greek name in Greek) and also insert the above facts (in plain language). Being what we are, Turks and Greeks, I am sure the discussion on numbers will be pursued eternally. I will add these points in a few days if no objections. --
Cretanforever
18:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the point cretanforever is trying to make. Nobody ever denied that the defeat in Manzikert signalled the Turkic settments in Anatolia. The only thing I'm questioning is the numbers of the two armies during the battle. I don't see where the aftermath fits. Secondly, I don't see the need to cite the battle in any language other than English. Really, what's the point? Miskin 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the article needs to be focused on the battle, not on the Seljuk exploits in Asia Minor. Miskin 22:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the sentences 'Alas for Romanus, his own countrymen were far less kind than his enemy, making the mercy of Alp Arslan a curse' and 'finally killed after great torture and torment', as POV, cause it appears to be an edit to underline the 'good will' of the Seljuks and the 'brutality' of the Byzantines.Romanus was blinded and exiled. he died in exile, cause of the infection of the blinding, but he was not 'tortured to death'. i changed the phrase 'Syrian Seas' to 'Eastern Mediterranean', cause that's the term used (maybe the Turks call it Syrian sea, i do not know,but we have to use the english term).i also have doubts about 'Egyptian Sea', but i have not thought of a better term to describe southeastern mediterranean sea...Lasty, i removed 'or Christian prilgrims to the Holy Places in the Middle East', cause the Byzantines had lost these territories long ago, during the byzantine-arab wars, so they were not the protectors of the christian pilgrims at that time. -- Hectorian 19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The rule is "don't edit before talking about it". Miskin 14:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I will add these points in a few days if no objections. --Cretanforever 18:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC) -- Cretanforever 15:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
According to internet sources:
"Romanus set off from Constantinople with a force of about 100,000 men, of whom less than 50% were members of the Empire." [1]
"Romanus organized a huge army and moved to Nicaea. There he gathered more soldiers and procedded to Malagia and Dorylaeon (Eski Sechir). In May 1071, entered the capital of Kappadokia, Kaesareia (his homeland) where had a meeting with his generals, Iosif Traxaneiotis, Nikiforos Bruenios, Michael Psellos and others. They decided to move fast and try retake Manzikert and Chliat, cities in the east frontiers of the empire (near lake Van). The army of about 100000 men, moved from Kaesareia and passed Sevasteia, Koloneia, Theodosioupolis (Arje-Rum), where he recruited more men." [2]
And Britannica says:
"Spurred by Seljuq raids and incursions into Byzantine-ruled Anatolia, Romanus assembled a large army to reestablish the security of the Byzantine Empire's eastern frontier there." [3]
Lowest estimate I saw for Romanus' army was around 50,000.
I made a brief research on this. Basically it's almost impossible to get a precise figure on neither side's numbers because of extremely varying records. However, I did manage to reach the following conclusions:
Contemporary accounts vary extremely and are not considered reliable by later historians. According to Ibn al-Qalanisi, Alp-Arslan's total army numbered 400,000. Other sources mention 200,000 only on horse (exaggerated figures). Later historians such as Oman in his History of the Art of War, gives 60,000 for the Greeks and 100,000 for the Turks. Then again, other historians such as Delbruck and Lot mock at Oman for accepting the enormous numbers given in the eastern chroniclers, regarding figures as high as 100,000 to be exaggerated (it seems I'm not the only who would laugh at the figure of 200,000). Oman's figures can be regarded as the maximum for both armies. I still don't have specific figures on the sources, but it's almost certain that the greater part of Romanus' personal army (only a small proportion of the total) was annihilated. Romanus himself fought bravely but got betrayed by Ducas. My sources on these are:
By the way Kagan, you see that as long as cretanlover's edits have a source and are well-written, nobody removes them. We didn't even question the importance of it in the article as you do in other articles all the time. So if I catch you again talking about "Miskin's superficial attitude in Manzikert - Greece's disgraceful battle" or something along those lines, I will take it as a personal attack and report you for it. As you have already a warning for excessive personal attacks (no wonder why), you wouldn't like this to happen. So be a good boy for once and play by the rules. Miskin 02:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
you all need to seriously read some books on Byzantium as well as the passages that discuss Manzikert. Some helpful selections are :
Romilly Jenkins George Ostrogorsky warren treadgold timothy gregory john norwich
The Encyclopedia of Islam (s.v. Malâzgird) gives the figures of 60,000 for the Byzantines (citing Cheynet) and 15,000 for Alp Arslan (citing "Muslim sources"). For what it's worth. -- Macrakis 16:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Macrakis;
Regarding Miskin's previous paragraph. If the sources say Seljuks were 1.3 or 1.5 greater in number let's do a little mathematics: If Byzantines were 40,000 with 1.5 ratio Seljuks should be 60,000, if Byzantines were 60,000 then that makes the Seljuk army 90,000 with once again the highest possible ratio 1.5. If 1.3 then the Seljukid numbers should be even lesser. Now my questions:
1. How did Miskin come up with the number 40,000, I haven't come across a single source that gives such number? 2. If Byzantine army is 40,000-60,000 then shouldn't the same logic apply to Seljuks with max numbers of 60,000-90,000 according to the ratios given.-- 213.243.30.8 16:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I am simply bringing one additional secondary source to the discussion. The Encyclopedia of Islam article does say that "Romanus refused any terms, feeling that he had numerical superiority... the Emperor must, despite defections, have had superiority in numbers; Cheynet estimates his army at probably 60,000, with much baggage and impediment. Its morale however was not high, and its composition very heterogeneous...". I don't know where the figures of 1.3x and 1.5x come from. -- Macrakis 16:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Macrakis either hasn't read my analysis on the ridiculous figures provided by some biased contemporary sources (rejected by all others), or he's just trolling around. The '40,000' was the initial figure that was added by someone else, I think Adam. My sources simply said that 60,000 was too much, hence I ranged between the two. :I have no objections against the "<50,000" figure, frankly I don't see the diffence. Maybe you just want to cause trouble. Your constant denial of registering an ID (eventhough you change an IP address frequently) makes me suspect that you're the suckpuppet of certain someone. Miskin 16:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The EI quotes Cheynet as estimating 60,000, which is not that far from Miskin's sources' figure. I hope we all agree that the contemporary numbers of 200,000 are ridiculous, as Miskin stated earlier. I don't know where Miskin's 1.3-1.5x multiple comes from -- could we have specific source citations (page numbers and/or quotations)? Especially since EI says that Romanus "had superiority in numbers". -- Macrakis 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
An Encyclopedia of Battles, by David Eggenberger, (ISBN 0486249131) says 40,000 Byzantines and 70,000 Turks. Tom Harrison Talk 02:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but the numbers suggested here do not make sense because of two facts. 1) Romanus refused the peace terms, because he trusted his numbers. 2) Romans (or Byzantines) were attacking and Turks were using defensive hit-and-run strategy. Anyone, who is slightly knowledgable in military science knows that attacking side needs either much greater number, or great logistic advantage, or both. In short, Byzantine army was much larger than the Turkish army. Given that the battle was in open field suggests that the Byzantine army is not necessarily more than an order of magnitude larger than the Turkish army. In short, Byzantine warfare proved to be a failure against highly versatile Turkish tactics and well trained Turkish cavalary. A single Turkish cavalary was capable of shooting around 100 arrows per minute in any direction while riding the horse at full speed. Multiply that by a few thousands cavalaryman. That is what the Byzantine soldiers faced that day.
tvoldemor
MANZIKERT, BATTLE Of "...Romanus was surprised by the arrival of main Seljuk army, but as he had superior numbers he rejected a peace offer and prepared for battle." Mathew Bennett, Dictionary of Ancient & Medieval Warfare (Page 203).
"Emperor Romanus IV lost his entire army of 60,000 men to the Seljuk Turks at the battle of Manzikert in Armenia." Richard A. Gabriel, The Great Armies of Antiquity (Page 289). Lysandros 23:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not contradictory to majority of the sources, if you consider eastern/Muslim sources as well: ibn'ül-Cevzi 20,000; ibn'ül-Adim 20,000; ibn'ül-Esir 15,000; imad'üd-din 14,000; ibnü Munkiz 13,000... (Numbers for the Seljuk army according to Muslim chroniclers).
First citation simply says Romanus had still the superiority after the arrival of the main Seljuk army (not difficult to understand).
Sure, the loss of 60,000 men doesn't only mean dead soldiers (Dead, wounded, prisoners, deserters...) Lysandros 05:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I can give you the list of all the medieval Muslim sources if you want, and the majority give greater numbers for Byzantines (From the book 'İslam Kaynaklarına Göre Malazgirt savaşı' / 'The battle of Manzikert according to muslim sources' 149 pages 1971). See also - you probably know - "The bulk of the army consisted now of foreign mercenaries, the Norsemen of the Varangian guard, Normans and Franks from western Europe, Slavs from the north, and Turks from the steppes southern Russia, Petcheneg, Couman and Ghuzz. Out of these elements Romanus collected a force of nearly a hundred thousand men, of wich perhaps half were Byzantine born." (Runciman p 62) for the Byzantine army. Lysandros 00:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"According to Ibn al-Qalanisi, Alp-Arslan's total army numbered 400,000. Other sources mention 200,000 only on horse (exaggerated figures). Later historians such as Oman in his History of the Art of War, gives 60,000 for the Greeks and 100,000 for the Turks. Then again, other historians such as Delbruck and Lot mock at Oman for accepting the enormous numbers given in the eastern chroniclers, regarding figures as high as 100,000 to be exaggerated"
If you have any non-biased modern sources which make estimations very different to the figures provided in the article, then feel free to contribute. However, medieval sources cannot be taken into account for the reasons I have repeatedly mentioned.
Miskin
17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not refusing to read, i have readed the talk page. I only wrote this because you were saying "The majority of medieval muslim sources I've come across give greater numbers for the Seljuk army than for Byzantines...". What about Sir Steven Runciman's numbers? And this: "The action took place far to the east at Manzikert near lake Van. Romanus had concentrated all avaible mounted troops in a single great field army of over sixty thousand." Hoffman Nickerson, Warfare (page 90)? Lysandros 18:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The only thing that i have done is citing sources (in majority western) for a little contribution. I personnaly don't ask for exaggerations and don't see this discussion as a Greek-Turkish POV. Lysandros 14:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
First, i never said or implied that the Seljuks were 'vastly' outnumbered or even outnumbered. I only cited the medieval Muslim sources not because i find them more reliable, but because you were saying "...contradictory to the majority of the sources..." and i got the impression you were speaking of 'all' of them, including medieval eastern/western sources. We can ignore them, not problem. Secondly, i didn't cite two modern sources but four; Steven Runciman (nearly 100,000), Richard A. Gabriel (60,000), Hoffman Nickerson (60,000), and Mathew Bennet (...as he had superior numbers...). I never suggested to put highest numbers for Byzantines and lowest numbers for Seljuks sincerely. I can understand that you are tired - and thanks for answering - but you don't have any obligation to play the referee. Lysandros 17:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The following article is an extremely professional and academic article on this war and they have the number for Byzantine army as 100.000 and the Selcuk army half the size of it. Please read the article before you vandalize or revert any changes. http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/markham.htm -- 75.178.190.244 13:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Some passages from Paul Markham's article;
"All contemporary historians commented on the size of the army; Matthew of Edessa absurdly claims the Byzantine army exceeded one million men,[31] while Vadarpet describes a “countless host.” The army itself consisted of the eastern and western tagmatas, mercenary units, Armenian conscripts and the private levies of the Anatolian landholders, along with the siege engines, sappers, engineers and Romanus would need to recover the Armenian fortresses recently lost to the Turks. All told, the army probably amounted to about forty thousand effective fighting men; however, with the presence of the thousands of non-combatants, servants, baggage handlers and camp followers that always traveled with medieval armies the army would undoubtedly have appeared larger.[32]"
"When the Byzantine army reached Theodosiopoulis in July, Romanus received reports that the news of his campaign had led the Sultan to abandon the siege of Aleppo and was withdrawing in some disorder towards the Euphrates. It appeared many of the Sultan’s troops had deserted and he was now commanding a much-reduced army of between ten and fifteen thousand men."
"The Sultan immediately recognised the danger, raised the siege and hurried towards Armenia. Because Aleppo was a wealthy city offering attractive opportunities for plunder the Sultan had been able to raise a large army, but a campaign against the Byzantine army in Armenia offered no such incentive, and as he advanced towards Armenia his army began to melt away. By the time he reached the Euphrates River he was left with only about ten thousand men. By forced marches, Arslan reached Armenia in late August. He had managed to recruit additional troops on the way but his army was probably only half the size of Romanus’."
"While Romanus was busy besieging Manzikert, Tarchaneiotes’ army encountered a strong Seljuk force advancing from the south. Without advising Romanus, Tarchaneiotes chose not to engage and withdrew his forces to the west. His troops took no part in the subsequent battle and returned to Constantinople. Unaware of the desertion of half his army, Romanus encountered the main Seljuk army on 24 August 1071 and immediately joined battle."
Lysandros 03:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a Janissary song sying
Malazgirt'te 54 ellidörtbin er,ellidörtbin er........ Means 54 000 soldiers at Manzikert And again according to many other sources numbers of Byzantine Empire(which includes armies of other kingdoms inside(Georgians,Armenians...) were around 100 000
We should pick one spelling and use it consistently throughout the article. I'm going to update all references to read " Andronikos Doukas" and "Doukas", as all of the references on his bio page use either "Doukas" or "Dukas" (which I'm more familiar with, but that's the CK in me talking). Caknuck 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In the "Preparations" section is a mention of Frankish mercenaries that had to be dismissed, and then there is a mention of, "Romanus ordered his general John Tarchaneiotes to take some of the Byzantine troops and Varangians and accompany the Pechenegs and French to Khliat..."
What French? First of all, the way the article is currently written, the reader would think that the Franks (a natural substitute for "French" to the modern reader) had been sent home by now. So if not the Franks, who are these "French"? The Normans? If so, then why not just call them that? French is an anachronistic term in the era under discussion.
Can anyone clarify just who was being sent to Khliat?
Mmccalpin 13:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Frank (Frenk in old Turkish) is used to refer all Western Europeons. This is mentioned at Age of Empires III Campaign too. And thsi war is mentioned as "Gates of Anatolia (Anadolu) have openned to Turks" at Turkey. -- 88.241.244.43 23:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted the sentence about sacking Armenian cities and farmlands.This was never happened.Armenians were thanking to Turks that time because Turks rescued them from Byzantines.
Historian Donald M. Nicol presents the events quite differently and emphasizes on treason. Q43 09:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This is an academic article without any bias and therefore can be taken as a reference. Read it carefully before making changes http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/markham.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.178.190.244 ( talk) 13:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
How on earth could the Byzantines numbered 100,000? Heraclius, the emperor whom had all of Egypt, Levant and Anatolia could not have secured so many men. There were approximately 20 Themata in the Byzantine empire at this stage. Even if they were each to strip themselves naked of any troops, each providing 9,600 men as agreed (see Theme and the Theme system) that makes 192,000 soldiers. So its probably at maximum, half that number, 96,000 troops, if one considers that half the themes were very far from Armenia. And considering that the Byzantines again fought the Turks prior to Nicaea falling, and were able to fight for Nicaea in 1077-1078, it must mean that the Byzantines held a substantial amount of men in reserve. Alexius Comnenus was able to campaign after Manzikert in Greece and Italy, so we must again half that number to about 50,000 men. According to Battle by R.G. Grant, the Byzantines had 50,000 and Seljuks 40,000 Tourskin 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The image at the info box is very misleading - it shows the soldiers wearing heavy european armor engaged in melee combat. As if. Perhaps a comment could be inserted? I shall be bold and do so. Oh yes, please see Byzantine-Seljuk Wars and lend us your arms and armor in improving the article!!! Tourskin 22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Im no great expert on Manzikert, but know a bit about the Byzantine Empire, and this has probably been covered to some dgree already, but just wanted to makea fresh point. This battle is largely credited with the fall of the Byzantine EMpire by western sources today and at the time, however perhaps the much more devastating and real reason for the fall of Byzantium was the sacking of Constantinople by the crusaders. Something about this article seems to hint that the crusaders tried their best to protect the empire and only went on the crusaders to protect the pilgrims. Although the officail reason for the calling of the First Crusade was to protect the Byzantines from the Seljuks, and may have been the Pope's reason for calling it, in actual fact the kind of monarchs and generals who joined it probably cared very little about orthodox Christianity, as can be seen by the fact they sacked Constantinople. Anoher perhaps more important reason for the calling of the crusade was because at the time the ruler of Jerusalem decided to block Christian pilmagrages there. All I am trying to get rid of is the idea of Byzantium and the Crusaders acting together as a noble force of Christinaity (and yes I am a Western Christian and no POV pusher) that seems to infest articles about Byzantium, when in fact their relations were often very poor, especially since the Pope did not formally accept the Orthodox church until several centuaries later and the great Svhism had not happened very long ago at that point. The real truth behind the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the crusade was that, after Manzikert (which personally I believe to be over-hyped historically as a reason for Byzantium's fall, as it would have been possible theorectically to recover without additional external factors I am just coming on to) the Byzantine Empire saw a real threat in the Seljuks and called for its last resort (the western Christian Kingdoms) to help it reclaim its territory which was falling into the hand of the Seljuks. In fact what the Byzantines did not realise that in inviting the crusaders to their lands they had effecitvely dug the nail in their own coffin, as the crusaders had no true loyatly to helping the Orthodox church and pillaged Byzantium's capital city without even having to fight to get into it. The crusades were probably more relaistically what really damaged Byzantium badly, as basically all Byzantium had was its wealth, as there was no loyatly to the Emperor or neccessarily to religion there, and after constantinople was raided it lost a vast amount of its treasuary. Therefore perhaps the reason Manzikert gets such a historical backing as 'the beginning of the fall of the Byzantine Empire' osi because western historians at the time did not want to accept that it was in fact western Chrsitians that really did the damage. 172.207.221.188 11:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about spelling and punctuation if there are any issues, feel free to edit my spelling/grammar if it makes you feel better, I am bad at proof reading and also dyslexic, they should put spellcheck on wikipeidia!
172.207.221.188
11:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I have given this article lots of references, more information and another image (a map) showing Byzantine-Seljuk operations. Perhaps this is good enough for it to be...a GOOD ARTICLE...? Tourskin ( talk) 05:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well done! Nengscoz416 ( talk) 05:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)