Manzikert-disaster Or Mere Defeat?

[Tobias]

G'day

"In 1068, Emperor Romanus IV led an expedition against the Seljuk Turks. He was able to capture the city of Hierapolis. 1070 A.D, and Romanus led a second expedition towards Manzikert, a Byzantine fortress that had been captured by the Seljuks. He offered a treaty with Kilig Arslan, the leader of the Seljuks,

[PerfectimusPrime]

Manzikert was a disaster, without it, we would have a Byzantine empire today.

[Lacertus]

Looking at this, one has to ask, was Manzikert really so serious for the byzantines? What do you people think?

I think yes It was first link in the chain of misfortunes for Byzantine

[Fafnir]

Manzikert was a disaster, without it, we would have a Byzantine empire today.

 

Certainly the Turks would have eventually conquered the Byzantines, even without the victory. But yes, I believe it did lead to a domino effect of bad events.

[barca]

Looking at this, one has to ask, was Manzikert really so serious for the byzantines? What do you people think?

I myself believe it was bad for the image of the Byzantine's invulnerability. They hadn't been in a bad position of serious decline or defeat like this for a long time, and they generally were seen as too powerful to take on. But, after this happened, Asia Minor was virtually swamped by Turks, the Western church began to believe that the Byzantines were no longer good enough to protect the holy land, and it led to the first crusade. It was all downhill from there.

 

We probably should look at the big picture and consider what was happening in Western Europe at about the same time. A new force was asserting itself--the Normans. we've all heard of William the Conqueror and what he did in 1066. Another Norman, Robert Guiscard (1015-1085) doesen't get the recognition that he deserves. He conquered Southern Italy and Sicily in a series of campaigns, thereby weakening Byzantium's contact with Rome.

[PerfectimusPrime]

Looking at this, one has to ask, was Manzikert really so serious for the byzantines? What do you people think?

I myself believe it was bad for the image of the Byzantine's invulnerability. They hadn't been in a bad position of serious decline or defeat like this for a long time, and they generally were seen as too powerful to take on. But, after this happened, Asia Minor was virtually swamped by Turks, the Western church began to believe that the Byzantines were no longer good enough to protect the holy land, and it led to the first crusade. It was all downhill from there.

 

We probably should look at the big picture and consider what was happening in Western Europe at about the same time. A new force was asserting itself--the Normans. we've all heard of William the Conqueror and what he did in 1066. Another Norman, Robert Guiscard (1015-1085) doesen't get the recognition that he deserves. He conquered Southern Italy and Sicily in a series of campaigns, thereby weakening Byzantium's contact with Rome.

 

Loosing of Italy or Rome doesn't really have anything to do with this, how would it?

[Tobias]

It is part of the wider world. The Byzantine Empire was now pretty much besieged on all sides-The Seljuks to the east and south, the Normans in the West etc. I believe there was a tribe threatening the along the Danube which was attacking as well. All this misfortune would have played it's part in confusing the Byzantines-as well as draining their resources.

[DanM]

Another Norman, Robert Guiscard (1015-1085) doesen't get the recognition that he deserves. He conquered Southern Italy and Sicily in a series of campaigns, thereby weakening Byzantium's contact with Rome.

 

He is one of my favorite historical figures of all time. He's probably about the closest thing to an action movie star in any of the history I have studied.

 

If anyone is interested in the exploits of the de Hauteville family, John Julius Norwich's "The Normans in Sicily" is a great book.

[Tobias]

I'll have to keep an eye open for that, i have a very high opinion of John Julius Norwich

[trajen777]

I'll have to keep an eye open for that, i have a very high opinion of John Julius Norwich

 

 

I think the key factor of defeat was the civil war that lasted really from 1071

[Tobias]

I think the key factor of defeat was the civil war that lasted really from 1071

[Caius Maxentius]

I've just been reading Treadgold's The Byzantine Army 284-1081, and he argues that the outcome after Manzikert reflects about 40 years of neglect of the Byzantine Army. Under Basil II, the army had been well-organized and the theme system was working well, but the government didn't maintain the army at this level in the ensuing reigns.

 

Treadgold describes the events after Manzikert as making no sense in military, demographic and geographic terms -- the Turks somehow penetrated all the way to Nicaea while a number cities in far east of Anatolia didn't fall. He says that the only way this could have happened is if Anatolia was very irregularly and sparsely defended.

 

I guess the point is, Manzikert revealed the decayed state of the Byzantine military at this time. Maybe the battle was the disaster that was already waiting to happen.

[Tobias]

the outcome after Manzikert reflects about 40 years of neglect of the Byzantine Army.

 

That is true. The Macedonian Dynasty Emperors after Basil II weren't particularly inspiring rulers. As well, much intriguing and civil warring between and inside the Comnenid and Doukid Dynasties did not help matters for the Byzantines all that much.

Before Manzikert, A succession of weak rulers ran down the army even while raids and revolts spread across the Empire. The gold coinage was debased (for the first time since Constantine the great) by 25%. In 1053, 50 000 active troops on the eastern border were disbanded, while inactive units closer to Constantinople (and hence more of a threat politically) were maintained. That certainly helps to set the scene for the disasters that would soon unfold.