Talk:Battle of Manzikert/Archive 1

Comment

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)

Hehe good point. Another thing I realized about these articles about battles Turks fought is, most of the time -nearly all the time- Turks are shown as having numeral supremacy -sometimes these numbers are greatly exaggerated- or the Christian enemy having minimal losses. These are very old European lies to avoid complex, it is quite amusing to see they prevailed even to this date. We know the Byzantine forces definitely numbered more than 100,000. Anyway we edit this article later, it is in my to do list.

I agree. This article was poorly written and needs to be revamped. Romanus most certainly outnumbered the Seljuks. Also, who honestly can write a general number for the Byzantine casualties? I think it is reasonable to say that most of the army escaped due to the fact the commanders and the rear guard did. Nevertheless, the blow this battle caused (regardless of how many Byzantines died) was monumental. I won't go into details because Cretan seems to have put it eloquently enough. But, I will say that even with the motives behind the original writing of this article fervently shown to be misinforming and, hopefully, put aside, this article needs a major makeover. I hope I won't have to do so myself. Unfortunately, I had to with the battles of Tunis, Adys, and Panormus regarding the First Punic War. Thaigear 22:03, 9 August 2006

PS Miskin is obviously a Greek POV pusher himself/herself.--Kagan the Barbarian 13:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting this 'cordial' POV discussion, but i guess u would both be interted in listening to the opposite POV.About the numbers:if u have any reliable source saying that the Byzantine forces were larger and that their loses were too,add them.about the history and the significance of that battle,it would be better to see it from two + two sides: contemporary-modern, greek-turkish.and what exactly do i mean by that: contemporary,the significance of that battle in the time it happened.Byzantine empire had win and lost many battles,and this battle was not the worst of all at that time.also,the crusades that followed reduced the battle's significant at that time. modern: this battle allowed the turks to set foot on Anatolia.if they had lost,maybe they would never be able to create a state in the area.so,from the modern point of view,its significance is rather important. greek: for the greeks this battle is an event in the series of the turkish conquer of Anatolia,an event less important than the fall of Constantinople or Trabzon,and as a historic event,less important than the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders. turkish: (without been sure of what u think of this battle) for the turks is the greatest first achievement in Anatolia,the most humiliating battle they managed to succeed against the greeks.

PS do not use phrases like 'the European ideas...to minimize Christian loses'...They do not make a good impression about your neutrality,since the next thing to be expected is 'the Turksih ideas...to maximize muslim loses'...Regards:)--Hectorian 15:07, 24 March 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)

You claimed to revert both Greek and Turkish POV yet I couldn't find where exactly you did that with the Greek. Before you delete the information Cretanforever provided, you could have at least asked for his/her sources. Deleting information is not fighting vandalism. You are deleting information. I remember reading from an English source Byzantine army numbered more than 100,000, and your logic is superb by the way; larger borders = larger army, fantastic. Anyway, I shall return.

Adding this after your second message. I haven't yet added anything to the article but I will. You find 200,000 ridicilous? I recommend you to see the Siege of Vienna page, someone suggests Turks numbered 350,000. Talk about delusional. You can't dictate what we edit, as long as I have my sources you'll have to play along with me. 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. I promise this won't be the last time you see me. Cheer brother!--Kagan the Barbarian 15:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you even know when the siege of Vienna dates? Miskin 15:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? 200,000 is ludicrous for 11th century and 350,000 is not for 16th?--Kagan the Barbarian 16:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI - Gregory in his book 'History of Byzantium' provides 200,000 for the number of Byzantine soilders (he does not provide the number of their Turkish counterparts).--130.85.194.253 19:35, 19 May 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)

Ah brilliant, compare unconventional warfare to the previous. Anyway this is getting ridicilous, archives decide numbers, not logic. I will make my research later. Oh and Bulgarians kicking Turks out of Europe? I'll remember this to amuse myself.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has taught us anything it is that neither Greeks nor Turks can be trusted :) Luckily there are neutral Western sources, and this treats the subject neutrally, as Miskin said. Adam Bishop 15:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Turks used to be trustworthy... then they met Greeks ;)--Kagan the Barbarian 15:45, 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)

Wow, you are really proving to be a great intellectual. A nonMuslim occupying a high post in Ottoman politics is impossible. Maybe they were used as pawns to keep some Christian regions under control, other than that they have no chance of having a say in Ottoman administration or politics.--Kagan the Barbarian 16:15, 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)

Could we all pls focus to the battle, instead of making ridiculous comments that i really find disgusting?untrustworthy Greeks,untrustworthy Turks and Adam Bishop saying untrustworthy both,of course with a sense of humour...

Only sourced sources will be here, without judging if whether an 11th century army can be langer than one in the 17th.Alexander the Great had a larger army than the 20th century Greeks and the ancient Persians more soldiers than the Crusaders.that's not the point.

lastly,i will always delete POV comments such as 'Romanus should have stayed with the turks', or else i will add my POV in the respective articles such as 'judging from what happened to him (aka exile) , sultan Mehmet VI Vahdettin, should had helped the greeks and convert to christianity'...pfff--Hectorian 17:04, 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)

I know that u have removed it.i just checked the history, to see how far POV edits have gone in this article.And pls noone should make personal attacks.Kagan is not what i would call a 'POV-pusher'...i remember the good job that he did in a specific article.he is just frustrated,but mainly in talk pages,not in the articles.i want to believe that we will all calm down and search a solution in this article too.--Hectorian 17:33, 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,

• that Selçuk Turks had established a virtually immediate control over almost the totality of the empire's heartland of Anatolia (with a map if necessary),
• that they had made İznik (Nikaea) their capital in 1075 (FOUR YEARS AFTER THE BATTLE) and had their seat there till the Crusaders came in 1097 (at which time, by the way, they gave the keys of the city in secret to the Byzantine emperor to avoid its destruction in the hands of the barbarians from the West:),
• that separate Turkish forces had taken İzmir (Smyrna) in 1076 (FIVE YEARS AFTER THE BATTLE) and with a navy built right away, were harrying the Aegean Sea for the next twenty years,
• and as a brief finishing note, that Turkish presence ebbed back to Central Anatolia (for 100-150 years with local gains here and there) and this was a direct consequence of the Crusades.

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)

First of all,the capitals seemed that someone is screaming...no need to scream if u cite facts:)

so,according to what u said:

• if the seljuks established control in central Anatolia,it has to be said,since it is a result of the specific battle.i do not think that a map would be necessary,since we are not talking about the battle itself.on the contrary,if there is available a map showing the positions of the opponents in the battlefield,it would be really interesting.
• the fact that Nicaea was made capital by the seljuks,can also be stated,cause there was no way that they could have done this,if they had not won the battle.but i do not think that saying something like 'Constantinoupolis was a throw stone close' would be good.do not forget that there is sea between them.and one millenium ago, sea served as a barrier.so,it was not that close as Adrianople-Constantinoupolis.they are close on the map,but not close in the 11th century reality.
• i do not think that Smyrni fits in this article.it did not become capital,and its fall to the seljuks maybe was a result of other problems that the byzantine empire had.probably it can be stated in the Seljuks article or the article about Izmir(if it's not already stated there) as a historic fact, and not as a result of the Matzikert battle.
• not only of the crusaders,but of the byzantine greeks also,since we are not talking about the 4th crusade,that ended with the fall of Poli,but about the previous crusades that were targeting the muslims and not the orthodox.and do not present the Crusaders as the reason that the seljuks did not expand to Istanbul earlier,since we all know that if the city had not fallen to the crusaders in 1204,it may had never been lost for us.

for the rest,i've no idea about the modern turkish or seljuk language.the names of the battle can be added in both languages (Μάχη του Ματζικέρτ)-copy paste it if it'll be u who will make the changes-.

i would suggest,not to touch the numbers,since in any case there will be disputes,and it would be a pity to ruin with that edit the good job (that i hope) u will make.--Hectorian 22:03, 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)

The outcome of this battle is very important and has to be mentioned in detail. At least one paragprah can be spared for this.--Kagan the Barbarian 23:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The outcome of the battle is important,but,i think,it should not be longer than a paragraph.the rest can be mentioned in the Seljuks' article.if we refered in detail about the outcome in every battle's articles,there wouldn't be anything left to add in history ones.here must be just a general idea of what happened after the event.and,pls for NPOV sake,do not touch the numbers yet,unless we have an undisputably neutral source,or we'll be dragged in a new rv-war...--Hectorian 23:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The new additions/changes

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 "Syrian Sea" bit was a direct quote from Anna Comnena (I'm not sure what it says in the Greek, but that is at least what one of the the translations says). Also, the Byzantines did not rule the Holy Land at this time, but they were still considered to be protectors and patrons of the pilgrims; for example the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was under the patronage of the Emperor at this point. Adam Bishop 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the names vary in translations and the we are not using nowadays all the names used 1 millenium ago. so,the term 'syrian seas' is unecessary, since we have the widely accepted term 'Eastern Mediterranean'.

the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was under the protection of the Emperor at that time, before that time, and continued to be after the battle, and remained under the Greek Orthodox Church during the ottoman period, and is still in the hands of the greek orthodox nowadays. so,what's the point in forcing readers to believe that the west suddenly saw the byzantines as uncapable of protecting all the pilgrims? the affairs concerning the Holy Land and byzantine involvement in that, had not changed for centuries and did not change after the battle. --Hectorian 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay but you probably shouldn't change a direct quotation; it sort of underminds the idea of "direct quotation." Anyway, since this battle is extremely pertinent to the crusades which started 20-30 years later, the Holy Sepulchre is also very important - if the Empire could not protect the pilgrims to Jerusalem, then someone else would have to do it, and that is partly the point of the First Crusade. The Holy Sepulchre was under crusader (i.e. Latin or Roman Catholic) control from 1099 to 1187 and the Templars and Hospitallers, rather than the Empire, became responsible for protecting pilgrims. I think that was a very important point and should be kept in the article. Adam Bishop 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It came under crusader control, after exiling the orthodox partiarch (he was exiled by the crusaders,not by the arabs,the seljuks or muslims in general). anyway,this battle was a reason for the First crusade, but not in the sense of byzantine incapability. i won't rv at the moment. --Hectorian 20:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is valid and should be included. Pope Urban cited pilgrims being robbed and persecuted by the Turks in his appeal for a crusade. You might say that the problem as Urban saw it was less Byzantine weakness than Turkish strength. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact,this seems to be the most accurate statement, concerning how Urban might had seen the problem.Thanks!(it could be included here,i guess...) --Hectorian 20:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As a rule, I don't revert before talking about it, but the most recent change ruin the whole fabric of the part of the telling on the battle's outcome (very briefly, the battle itself arguably was not an immediate disaster → it caused the loss of Anatolia for the Empire → one reason for the loss was that it opened a door → the other reason is the interaction of the chain of events it triggered, which have created a vacuum and brought Seljuk Turks to the position of players in Empire's affairs). With the last rv, the same things are repeated and brings back the former expansive style. I will revert. --Cretanforever 02:24, 30 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)

Number of men

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 think we should write 'more than 50,000', since we do not have a clear number and all the estimations start from 50,000 upwards. i do not know if u have found any number about the casualties. i mean both armies' casualties, cause in such a fierceful battle (which i guess was) the casualties must had been heavy. --Hectorian 10:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I read Romanus lost 20% of his army so I wrote "about 10,000" for casualties.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

maybe more than 10,000, but we have to stick to the sources...Any number for Seljuk casualties? --Hectorian 11:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not seen any. I think it was insignificant, no source mentions anything about it. From what I read, Turks used the basic "hit and run" tactic to harass Romanus' army, taking advantage of their light horse archers against Romanus' heavily armoured cavalary.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, let it be the way it is until some source will be found. but, it cannot had been insignificant, since we are talking about a huge 'crash'(even compared to today's population figures). btw, the 'hit and run tactic' can be used by guerilla or partizan forces(maybe u call such groups 'tsetes'...'tcetes', or something in turkish), not in the battlefield where two organised armies of states met... --Hectorian 11:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Steppe warriors often used that tactic, in main battles as well, whenever it gave them advantage. Romanus apperantly acted pretty foolishly in the Battle of Manzikert. Ever heard of stupid puma syndrome? He lost more chasing his enemy than he would gain if he captured it. That's called the stupid puma syndrome. He launched an offensive with heavy cavalary against light horse archers and eventually was captured. Anyway if you find any sources for Turkish losses let me know.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not know why,how or if these tactics may had been used, but it seems like an organised armies' battle of two states. the fact that Romanus acted foolishly is shown by the result. i'll let u know. --Hectorian 11:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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:

• The Seljuk army was significantly larger (by a factor of 1.3-1.5) than the Byzantine.
• Contemporary accounts give exaggerated numbers, it's very unlikely that the largest army was over 100,000.
• Great part (maybe over 50%) of the Byzantine army were non-Greek Armenian or European missionaries.
• Both armies were exceptionally large for the standards of the time. Miskin

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:

• Steven Runciman, A history of the crusades
• Hans Delbruck, Medieval Warfare
• State Univ of NY Press, Continuity and change in medieval Persia.

Miskin

I find it hard to believe the Turks outnumbered the Byzantines. If the Turks present were horseman, how could they outnumber Romanus' army of 30,000 to 40,000 men (many of you fail to mention Romanus was leading only half of his men during the battle, the other half no where near the site and whose whereabouts were uncertain at the outset of the battle). There have been few battles in history that saw that many horseman on both sides! The Turks were previously nomads and therefore probably as a whole did not range in very high numbers. 100,000 is an absurd number, and even 30,000 is a stretch. The true number seems to be lost, but my estimate is around 20,000. Thaigear August 9, 2006 22:26

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

Numbers

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)

My numbers, whatever they were, were from Haldon. Adam Bishop 17:57, 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

As you can see there's already been an extensive research on those figures, and a single editor's POV is not enough reason to make us reconsider. Miskin 10:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

This seems imply something contradictory to what the majority of the sources state, but I don't think it does. As you can see your first citation speaks about the "main" Seljuk army, not the whole of it. Secondly I really doubt that the loss of 60,000 men means deaths of soldiers. Romanus' army was composed primarily of missionaries, who after the loss of the battle went about their business. Miskin 23:52, 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)

The majority of medieval muslim sources I've come across give greater number for the Seljuk army than the Byzantines, yet their estimates are almost imaginary (see discussion and citations above where later historians wound find medieval accounts ridiculous). Generally they tend to be the less reliable sources as they either give the most exaggerated and contradictory and biased figures (some give Seljuks 600,000 and others 15,000). The numbers in the article are based on modern estimates. Please read all relevant sections in this Talk page. Miskin 22:44, 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)

Since you're refusing to read above I will quote myself:

"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)

I did previously have the figure at Oman's 60,000 vs 100,000 but a Turkish anon started edit-warring, claiming that his source is at 40,000-70,000. What more can I possibly do in order to satisfy Turkish editors here? I think unless the article states 5,000 turks versus 1 billion Greeks, there will be Turkish people complaining on a weekly basis. Miskin 10:14, 3 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)

You are questioning the accuracy of the numbers in the article, implying that the Seljuks were vastly outnumbered. You haven't cited a single modern source to support this claim so I don't know how you're under the impression that all you've been doing was to cite 'western sources'. You only cited some medieval, unreliable Islamic sources, and two modern ones which supports 60,000. Of course, the 60,000 figure is taken from Oman, who places the Seljuks at 100,000. If we use Oman's figures, then we use it for both sides, not just the Byzantine. Furthermore you can't be expecting us to select out of different sources the highest figures found for the Byzantines and the lowest for the Seljuks, which is pretty much what your investigation implies. I don't have a problem in using Osman's figures, it was a Turkish anon who edit-warred and insisted on his own source of 40,000-70,000. So if we change it back, then someone else will come along sooner or later to complain about something, and I'm tired of playing the referee. Miskin 15:17, 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)

I know but somebody has to do it. Don't get me wrong, you're very well mannered, unlike some others who have previously debated on the same topic. I was talking about the majority of modern sources, and the majority of medieval sources I have come across. Some of them give figures of 600,000 and other 15,000 so we're obliged to ignore all of them and trust modern researchers. Are those the numbers of the Seljuks or of the Byzantines? We cannot take into consideration a source which provides estimations only for one of the combatants. As I said before, it was a Turkish editor who came up with the 40-70 figure and insisted on keeping in the article. Prior to that I had settled within a range of Oman's account. Miskin 18:22, 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)

Professional? Please see below my logical arguement for why the Byzantines could not field more than 60,000 men at the most in the battle. Its not the Roman style anyways. Heraclius was the last Roman emperor to enjoy a large army of conscripts. Also, the Seljuk Turks may have been nomads or steppe peoples, but like the Mongolians after them, they employed foreigners to fight for them. The Seljuk empire at this stage was massive, consisting of Iran, Iraq and most of the Levant. So man power was not a problem for the Seljuks. In any case, I have an excellent source, Battle, R.G. Grant that suggests 50,000 Byzantines versus 40,000 Seljuk Turks. The 50,000 number includes soldiers lost when the army was split in half. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.123.43 (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

That article does not say there were 100 000 men at the battle, it says the Empire had 100 000 men in total throughout the Empire. If you add up the numbers given right above that, it's less than 40 000. Adam Bishop 16:33, 5 January 2007 (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

"Doukas" or "Ducas"?

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)

French?

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)

Both "Franks" and "French" are anachronistic there. There were other people in France beside the Normans though (and not all Normans were in France). Possibly by "Frank" the Byzantines meant "any Western European". So, short answer, I don't know. Adam Bishop 16:16, 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)

Edition

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.

I'm afraid you are terriably wrong. After Manzikert, the Byzantines became great allies of the Armenians. The Kingdom of Cilicia was setup by Armenians in exile as a result of the Turkish invasion. It is impossible for the Turks not to have raided the Armenian farm lands because all armies that conquered, plundered and raped and pillaged. You cannot stop the evils of war.

Treason

Historian Donald M. Nicol presents the events quite differently and emphasizes on treason. Q43 09:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is likely that the Byzantine army, which was a conscripted army relying on peasants of the themata system, abandoned their leader. So desertion, rather than treason was a decisive factor. However, throughout the Byzantine empire, there were numerous rival claimants, and constant uprisings, leading to several short-lived dynasties. The Macedonian and Komnenian dynasty rose from killing the emperor. It is unlikely that treason did not take a toll in the Battle. The commanders may have ordered the conscripted Byzantine army to flee. Tourskin

Read This Article Before you make any more Edits

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).

YOU MAKE ME LAUGH!

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)

Sorry tourskin but this has been discussed in detail, read the discussion further up. The vast majority of both medieval and contemporary sources give much greater numbers for the Seljuks. Some medieval Islamic sources give exaggerated figures of 300-500,000 Seljuks, and it is certain that they were more numerous, especially in cavalry. PS, the battle takes place some 450 after the reign of Heraclius and the loss of the Holy land and northern Africa to the Arabs. The Seljuk Empire is much greater in size at the time, so it all makes sens. The "Byzantine" army consisted of non-Greek-speaking missionaries, such as Latin, Germanic and Armenian troops. According to some sources this may have also affected the army's communication and inefficiency. Byzantium was at war on a double front, in Southern Italy against the Normans and in Anatolia against the Seljuks, plus the Imperial resources had been already damaged by Basil II's exhaustive war against the Bulgars. So it may have not been as easy to assemble a large and efficient army. Miskin 14:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is me who should apologise for the title. Well someone changed it to 15,000 Turks. What about that little book Battle? Not that I am trying to get personal here.Tourskin 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

French depiction of Manzikert

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)

Importance of battle

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)

GA?

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)

wooow!!!!Tourskin (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)