4:27 PM The Battle of Manzikert: The Battle of Manzikert: | |
The Battle of Manzikert: The Battle of Manzikert: The Battle of Manzikert:
The Battle of Manzikert: Military Disaster or Political Failure?
By Paul Markham
On the 26th of August 1071, an army under the command of the Byzantine emperor Romanus IV Diogenes (1068-1071AD) was defeated on the borders of Armenia by the army of the Seljuk Turkish Sultan, Alp Arslan (1063-1072AD). Since that time, historians have identified the Battle of Manzikert as the mortal blow that led to the inevitable collapse of the Byzantine Empire. How accurate is this interpretation? Was the loss of Anatolia the result of Romanus IV Diogenes’ failed military campaign against the Seljuk’s or was it a political failure of his predecessors or successors?
This paper examines Romanus’ Manzikert campaign and the significance of his defeat, and assesses whether the Byzantine position in Anatolia was recoverable, and if so, why that recovery failed?
Before Manzikert The Byzantine Empire in the eleventh century <<The mid-eleventh century>> was the high water mark of the Byzantine Empire. The successive reigns of the military emperors of the Macedonian dynasty had pushed the boundaries of the Empire to their furthest geographical extent since Justinian the Great had reconquered Italy and North Africa in the sixth century. The Empire now stretched from Dalmatia in the west, incorporating the whole of the Balkans, to Antioch in Syria in the south, and all of Anatolia to Armenia in the east. The Byzantine recovery had been a long time coming.
The seventh century had seen the drastic dismemberment of the Empire. In the west, the Balkans and most of Greece had been lost to the Slavs; the Byzantines maintaining a toehold only in eastern Thrace, Thessalonica and scattered outposts on the Dalmatian coast. In the east, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Africa had been permanently lost to the Arabs. The loss of these valuable provinces triggered the rampant inflation that caused the virtual collapse of the monetary economy during the reign of Constans II (630- 662AD). [1] This crisis led to two permanent changes within the Empire; the old Roman provinces were restructured into smaller administrative units called thema, under the administration of a military governor (strategos), and the assignment land grants to the soldiery in place of paying wages. The Empire also faced an energetic and expansionist challenger in the Umayyad Caliphate.
Larger and far more prosperous than the rump Byzantine Empire, the Umayyad Caliphate had sufficient resources to envisage the complete conquest of the Empire. The Umayyad’s made two serious attempts to conquer the Empire, laying siege to Constantinople in 674-8AD and again in 717AD. Fortunately for Byzantium, the Umayyad Caliphate was overthrown in 750AD by the Abbasids, who gave up such ambitious plans, opting instead for regular military campaigns that sometimes penetrated right into the heart of Byzantine Anatolia.
These raids culminated in Caliph Mu’tasim’s (833-842AD) destruction of Amorium in central western Anatolia in 838AD. [5]
By the end of the eighth century however, Byzantium’s situation began to improve. With inflation checked and the currency stabilized the Byzantine economy slowly began recover, and after the empress Irene (780- 802AD) secured a longstanding peace with the Abbasid Caliphate in 782AD, trade between the two empires resumed, much to Byzantium’s advantage.[6] Peace in the east allowed Irene to turn her attention to the west. There, the Slavic tribes of the interior had become increasingly integrated with the Byzantine enclaves along the coast and a short military campaign in 784AD was sufficient to recover the land route between Constantinople and Thessalonica, which until that time had been accessible only by sea. By the reign of Michael III (842-867AD) the balance of power between the Byzantines and the Abbasid Caliphate had shifted significantly. The Abbasid economy was in decline and the government paralysed by religious and political factionalism. The Byzantines exploited Abbasid disunity to take the offensive and over the course of two centuries recovered their lost provinces of Illyricum, Greece, Bulgaria, Northern Syria, Cilicia, and Armenia. Byzantine expansionism reached its peak with Constantine IX Monomachus’ annexation of the Armenian city of Ani in 1045AD. Yet, at the same time as Constantine was celebrating Ani’s annexation, a new player in international affairs arrived on the scene - the Seljuk Turks. The Seljuk Turks For centuries, the Caliphate had been a bulwark against the southwesterly migration of the nomadic tribes of Central Asia. Progressive waves of nomads were diverted northwards across the Russian steppes and around the Caspian and Black Seas, before emerging in the Danube basin. Nomadic migrations were monitored and reported by the Byzantine outpost in Cherson in the Crimea, which usually gave Constantinople sufficient notice to bring its powers of diplomacy to bear. As Constantine VII’s De Administrando Imperio makes clear, there was no shortage of tribes around the Black Sea who could be encouraged or bribed to deny passage to the nomads.[8] However, with the Caliphate in disarray there was no effective force to stop the migration of Central Asian nomads. In 1040AD, the first Seljuk horsemen penetrated the Caliphate’s eastern border and, without encountering any effective Abbasid opposition, began plundering their way across Iran and Iraq.
They soon crossed into Armenian and drove deep into Anatolia, reaching the Byzantine port city of Trebizond on the Black Sea coast in 1054AD. The following year the Abbasids bowed to the inevitable and conceded political and military authority to Tughrul, Beg of the Great Seljuks. Tughrul (1056-1067AD) was granted the title of Sultan and took Baghdad as his capital.[9]
Suddenly the Seljuks were elevated from nomadic raiders to masters of a vast and sophisticated empire. The Byzantine Response The annexation of Armenia was a strategic disaster for the Byzantines. In 1022AD, the emperor Basil II had forced the Armenian king, John Smbat III, to cede Ani to Basil if he died without direct heirs. When he died in 1040AD there were still plenty of claimants to the throne and Armenia quickly degenerated into chaos. John Smbat’s nephew, Gagik II seized the city in 1040AD and held it against all challengers. The Armenian historian, Vardapet Aristakes Lastivertc’i relates with copious tears, "In these days Byzantine armies entered the land of Armenia four times in succession until they had rendered the whole country uninhabited through sword, fire, and captive taking.”[10][10]
In an attempt to destabilise the Armenians, Constantine IX secretly encouraged the Seljuks to attack Ani in 1044AD. Gagik eventually agreed to abdicate and was rewarded with titles, honours and lands in Cappadocia. Unfortunately he would not have long to enjoy them. Although fractious, the Armenian princes provided a secure buffer zone on the Byzantine’s eastern border. Now the Byzantines came into direct contact with the Seljuks, whose fighting style of mobile horse archery they were unfamiliar with. Nor could the Byzantines rely on the Armenians for support. One of Constantine’s first acts after the fall of Ani was to instigate a purge of the Monophysite clergy of Armenian Church. Fleeing war and persecution, a mass exodus began, including the Armenian troops the Byzantines relied on to garrison the border fortresses. Many now sought their fortune elsewhere, "some in Persia, some in Greece, some in Georgia.”[11]
Some Armenian troops joined the Seljuk bands that now began raiding across the Armenian border. Constantine IX made no attempt to stop the Seljuk raids before he died in 1055AD. Constantine’s successor, Michael VI Bringas (1056-1057AD), although portrayed as weak and elderly, attempted to rally the defence. Michael was clearly unhappy with the chaos ensuing on the Armenian frontier and during the Easter Holy Week celebrations when the empire’s leading generals and public servants attended an audience with the Emperor, he berated them, saying "Either go forth in war against the Persians and prevent the land from being ruined, or else I shall pay the Persians your stipends and thus keep the land in peace.”[12]
The two leading generals of the east, Catacalon Kecaumenus and Isaac Comnenus were singled out for particular criticism. Michael’s stinging rebuke did little to resolve the crisis on the Armenian front as within a month the army of the east had risen in rebellion and proclaimed Isaac Comnenus emperor.
The rebellion of the army of the east against Michael VI is often portrayed as a conflict between the military and civil factions within the Byzantine government. In fact it reveals a deeper, east versus west division within the Empire. The army of the west remained loyal to Michael and fought hard in his defence outside Nicea on 20 August 1057AD.[13][13] Contemporary historians claim the slaughter was considerable and although Michael’s army was forced to withdraw, Isaac could not claim victory with certainty. Michael however, was overthrown in a palace coup and abdicated in favour of Isaac Comnenus. Although Michael’s reign is portrayed as little more than a by-line in Byzantine history, understanding why the western armies remained loyal to him is important to explaining what happened after Manzikert. Irene’s reconquest of Hellas and Thrace in 784AD had been a simple affair largely because the bubonic plague and the Slavic invasion of the seventh century had left the provinces largely depopulated.
Nicephorus I (802-808AD), attempted to solidify the Byzantine hold on these territories by offering subsidies and tax incentives to encourage their resettlement.[16][16]
The military aristocracy’s financial interests were centred on Anatolia and showed little interest in Rumelia.[17][17]
The newly ascendant civil bureaucracy, however, were largely excluded from investing in Anatolia, and began buying up estates in the west, effectively splitting the Empire into an ‘old money’, Anatolian party and a ‘new money’, western bureaucratic party. As a career civil servant it is likely that Michael Bringas was amongst the many courtly investors who established estates in the west, which may explain both the reason the courtier faction selected Michael as their candidate, and for the support he seems to have enjoyed in the west. The unravelling of the Byzantine’s eastern policy The Byzantine civil war was a disaster. "[As] soon as the [Seljuks] realized that [the Byzantine nobles] were fighting and opposing one another, they boldly arose and came against us, ceaselessly raiding, destructively ravaging.”[18]
Although an energetic general, Isaac Comnenus proved equally unable to stop the Seljuk raiders who, in 1075AD, destroyed city of Melitene on the Mesopotamian frontier. Isaac realised that a complete overhaul of both the army and the administration was required, but he had few allies in Constantinople and his attempts at reform came to nothing.[19][19] When Isaac died in 1059AD, the courtier faction secured the election of their candidate, Constantine X Ducas. Although a member of the Anatolian military aristocracy, Constantine dedicated his reign to internal legal reform while neglecting the defence of the Empire. As the Byzantine economy began to flounder, Constantine cut costs by cashiering thousands of native troops, which only accelerated the Byzantine collapse in the east. In 1064AD the Seljuk’s captured and sacked Ani. Byzantine Defensive Strategy Ani was critical to the Byzantine’s eastern defence strategy. Byzantine defensive strategy was based on the possession of key fortified positions, which, in the event of invasion were expected to hold out until relieved, or the enemy withdrew. It was a strategy of calculated risk; sometimes with disastrous results. After the Arab victory at the Battle of Yarmuk in 636AD, the emperor Heraclius ordered what remained of the Byzantine forces in Syria to withdraw to fortified positions and hold until relieved. The promised relief never eventuated however, and the isolated garrisons were progressively forced to surrender. The Byzantines defence of Syria and Egypt had been hamstrung by overextended lines of supply and communication and a lack of defensible fallback positions. Within the Anatolian plateau however, the situation was quite different as the Byzantines had a network of carefully prepared defensive positions, and because the cold, windswept steppes of the plateau were largely unsuitable for settled agriculture it was very difficult for an invading army, which relied on plunder for its supply, to sustain itself in the field.[20][20] Nevertheless, while static defence may have been effective against the Abbasid field armies of the eighth century, it was ineffectual against mobile Turkish raiders who, finding Anatolia’s steppe almost indistinguishable from their Central Asian homeland, were able to rove at will and live off the meagre resources of the land.[21][21] Romanus IV and the legacy of Basil II Constantine X died in 1067AD leaving the administration in the hands of his wife Eudocia as regent for their son, Michael Ducas. Eudocia Makrembolitissa was a strong and intelligent woman and in stark contrast to her husband, she recognised the loss of Ani a massive gap had opened up in the chain of fortifications running from Kars to Edessa[22][22] through which Seljuk raiders could penetrate right into the heart of Anatolia. Decisive military action was required. Eudocia’s ability to direct government policy however, was severely restricted by the influence of the powerful Ducas clan, dominated by Constantine’s brother, John Ducas. Discretely, Eudocia cast about for an ally to counterbalance the Ducas and eventually settled on Romanus Diogenes. Romanus was in his mid thirties, a member of a Cappadocian military family, and currently under sentence of death for his part in a rebellion against Constantine X. His lack of connections in Constantinople was probably a factor in Eudocia choice, for it ensured that Romanus had no independent constituency to threaten Eudocia’s interests.[23][23] Romanus for his part swore to be her servant in all things and uphold the rights of the legitimate heir, Michael Ducas. To the horror of the Ducas faction, Eudocia and Romanus were married and Romanus immediately set about revitalizing an army largely neglected since the death of Basil II in 1025AD. Romanus’ immediate predecessors cannot be held entirely to blame for the mediocre state of the Byzantine army in the mid-eleventh century; the policies of the military emperors of the tenth century were also a contributing factor in Byzantium’s military decline. Historically, Byzantium had relied on defence in depth, rather than stationing large garrisons of troops along Byzantium’s borders. Three professional armies, called tagmata, were stationed in western Anatolia, Constantinople and Thrace where they could be quickly mobilised in response to an invasion.[24][25] Every city in the Empire also had a garrison of local troops for defence and policing actions. These thematic troops were not full time soldiers, but were farmer-soldiers who received a grant of land in return for periodic service. In order to meet the needs of Byzantium’s aggressive foreign policy, Nicephorus II, John Tzimisces and Basil II changed the tagmata from a rapid response, primarily defensive, citizen army into a professional, campaigning army, increasingly manned by mercenaries. Mercenaries however, were expensive and as the threat of invasion receded in the tenth century, so did the need for maintaining large garrisons and expensive fortifications. In order save money to finance his Syrian campaigns, Nicephorus II Phocas (963-969AD) cashiered many thousands of garrison troops and allowed the fortifications of many Anatolian cities to fall into disrepair.[25][26] All Nicephorus’ successors, up to Constantine X continued this policy. Basil II’s spent most of his 50-year reign on campaign and conquered a massive amount of territory, and although he left a burgeoning treasury upon his death, he did so at the expense of neglecting domestic affairs and ignoring the cost of incorporating his conquests into the Byzantine eokoimene.[26][27] He also failed to plan for his succession and left the Empire to his worthless brother and co-emperor, Constantine VIII. None of Basil’s immediate successors had any particular military or political talent and the governing of the Empire increasingly fell into the hands of the civil service. Their efforts to spend the Byzantine economy back into prosperity only resulted in burgeoning inflation and a debased gold coinage.[27][28] In an effort to balance the increasingly unstable budget, Basil’s large standing army was seen as both an unnecessary expense and a political threat, as under employed troops became the focus of sedition. Native troops were cashiered and replaced by foreign mercenaries on specific contract. The Manzikert Campaign Romanus did not immediately confront the Turks in Armenia, choosing instead to personally lead the army on a campaign in Syria in 1068AD. The next year he led a campaign into Armenia, but the Turkish forces were simply too illusive to be drawn into a pitched battle. The historian and courtier, Michael Psellus, whose plotting on behalf of the Ducas clan led to his being forced to join the campaign, unfairly slanders Romanus by accusing him of "not knowing where he was marching nor what he was going to do.” Nevertheless this campaign provided a valuable opportunity to improve the operational efficiency of the army. [28][29] Romanus’ failure to crush the Turks led to open plotting by the Ducas faction and by 1070AD Romanus’ position in Constantinople was so precarious that he was unable to leave the capital. Romanus entrusted that year’s campaign to Manuel Comnenus, elder brother of the future emperor, Alexius Comnenus. Unfortunately, the campaign ended in a debacle when Manuel was defeated and captured by a band of Turks. Surprisingly, Manuel convinced his captors to release him and defect to the Byzantines. Romanus rewarded the Turks with honours and titles and enlisted into his army. [29][30] Manuel’s coup allowed Romanus to regain some political capital, but it wasn’t enough. Romanus needed a decisive victory not only to protect Armenia but also his throne. In the summer of 1071AD, Romanus decided to gamble everything on a massive eastern campaign that would draw the Seljuk’s into a general engagement with the Byzantine army. All contemporary historians commented on the size of the army; Matthew of Edessa absurdly claims the Byzantine army exceeded one million men,[30][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 travelled with medieval armies the army would undoubtedly have appeared larger.[31][32] Despite the failure of Manuel Comnenus’ 1069AD campaign, the Sultan of the Great Seljuks Alp Arslan had been quick to seek a peace treaty with the Byzantines. Alp Arslan had inherited the Abbasid’s wary respect for Byzantium’s military power and at any rate regarded the Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt as his main enemy; he had no desire to engage the Byzantines in unnecessary hostilities. Under the terms of the treaty, Alp Arslan had committed to preventing Seljuk raiding on Byzantine territory. Unfortunately, despite his grand title, Alp Arslan was in no position to control the Seljuk raiders. Most of the Seljuk clans still lived according to their Central Asian nomadic traditions and tended to acknowledge the Sultan’s authority only when they were forced to, or it suited their interests. Their raiding and constant feuding made them as much a nuisance to the Great Seljuks as to their neighbours, so to preserve order the most unruly Turcoman clans were pushed to the borders of the Sultanate where they could be encouraged to raid and plunder infidel territory.[32][33] Consequently Seljuk raiding into Anatolia continued unabated. In February 1071AD, Romanus sent an embassy to Alp Arslan to renew the treaty of 1069AD. Romanus’ envoys reached the Sultan outside Edessa, which he was besieging.[33][34] Keen to secure his northern flank against Byzantine attack, Alp Arslan happily agreed to the terms, abandoned the siege and immediately led his army south to attack Aleppo in Fatimid Syria. The offer to renew the peace treaty was a key element of Romanus plan, distracting the Sultan long enough to allow Romanus to lead an army into Armenia and recover the lost fortresses before the Seljuks had time to respond. Then, with his eastern border secure and his rear protected, Romanus would be in a perfect position to either attack the Seljuk army if it attempted enter Anatolia through the Taurus Mountains to intercept him, or strike deep into the heartland of the Sultanate down the Euphrates river valley, as the emperor Heraclius had done in the seventh century.[34][35] Either way, Romanus would hold the tactical advantage while Alp Arslan would be out of position and vulnerable. By our standards, Romanus’ offer to renew the treaty while at the same time preparing for a war was deceptive, but the use of deception in warfare was a skill the Byzantines prized very highly. Byzantine tactical manuals regularly recommended using ploys, deception and negotiation and to either avoid battle or gain advantage.[35][36] Romanus’ envoys would undoubtedly have been charged to assess the strength of the Sultan’s army, the mood of the camp and the Sultan’s enthusiasm for war. Satisfied that his ploy was successful, Romanus mustered his army outside Constantinople in March 1071. Romanus’ army included contingents of Normans, Cumans, Turks, Bulgarians, Germans, Pechenegs, Byzantines, Armenians, Syrians, Varangians, Uz, and Russians. There was nothing unusual in the heterogenous composition of the army. The Byzantine army was a prestige service and drew professional soldiers from all around the medieval world.[36][37] As the army marched east it continued to gather recruits, bands of Turks who were happy enough to contract their services to the Byzantines. Unfortunately, it was not with the soldiery that the problems within Romanus’ army lay. The loyalty of many of Romanus’ officers was highly questionable, especially as there were members of the Ducas clan and their allies occupying key positions within the army.[37][38] There appear to have been incidences of sabotage during the march, such as the destruction of his personal baggage train, which led Romanus to camp separately from the main army. By the time the army reached Armenia, tensions were running high. The Battle of Manzikert 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. Romanus rejected the advice of some his generals to await the Seljuks at Theodosiopoulis and ordered the army to advance on Manzikert in Seljuk held territory. Romanus expected the Seljuks would advance from the south, so when he reached Lake Van in late August, Romanus split his army, sending the tagmata under general Joseph Tarchaneiotes to secure the southern road to Khilat and protect against a Seljuk attack, while he headed east to besiege Manzikert. At the sight of the Byzantine army, Manzikert’s Turkish garrison immediately surrendered and the Romanus settled down to await news from Tarchaneiotes. Romanus’ intelligence about Arslan’s flight from Aleppo had been correct. The Sultan had learned of Romanus’ campaign from Romanus’ own envoys and the news had its desired effect.[39][40]
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’. The Seljuks did have one advantage over the Byzantines though – they had good intelligence. Roving Seljuk horsemen fed the Sultan a constant stream of reports of the Byzantine army’s progress. Unlike Romanus, Arslan knew exactly where his enemy was and he planned his response accordingly. 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. The battle was to last two days. The first day involved a hard fought battle between Seljuk forces and a column of the western tagmata under Nicephorus Bryennius. Bryennius managed to extricate his forces and withdraw in order, but a relief column under the Doux of Theodosiopoulis, Nicephorus Basilakes was ambushed and Basilakes was captured. Determined to draw the Seljuk’s into a general engagement, Romanus drew up all his forces for battle on the second day. Romanus followed textbook strategic planning; he commanded the centre with the Varangian guard and a large body of mercenaries. Bryennius commanded the left wing; Theodore Alyates commanded the right wing. Turkish and Uz auxiliaries provided a light cavalry screened on each wing. A reserve force under Andronicus Ducas followed a discrete distance behind the main column. The Seljuk army formed a broad crescent in front of the Byzantine position. Alp Arlsan commanded from a nearby hilltop where he could survey the field of battle. Romanus initiated the battle by beginning a slow advance. The Seljuks poured arrows into the Byzantine ranks and retired as they advanced. Skirmishing occurred between the wings of both armies but neither side gained any advantage. Towards dusk, Romanus called a halt to the advance and began an orderly withdrawal back to the camp. As the Byzantines began to reverse direction the Seljuks launched a fierce attack against the wings. The Byzantine right wing, which had been particularly hard pressed during the advance, broke in confusion. At this point the reserve force, under Andronicus Ducas, should have come to the aid of the emperor but instead turned and withdrew from the field, sparking a general rout. The left wing under Nicephorus Bryennius fought its way clear, but the centre, including Romanus was overwhelmed and captured. Byzantine troop losses Later historians, such as Alfred Friendly, Edward Foord, and John Norwich have left us with the impression that the Byzantine army was annihilated at Manzikert.
Although it was a momentous battle, contemporary Byzantine and Armenian narratives indicate that most of the army was either not present, deserted, or withdrew before the final collapse. It is notoriously difficult to assess casualties from medieval sources, who tend to use exaggerated death tolls as a moral device; nevertheless, we are able to make a general assessment of Byzantine losses at Manzikert based on historical troop sizes and what we know of the fate of the various participants.
1. Tarchaneiotes’ army of approximately 20,000 troops, including the most of the tagmata did not engage the Turks at all and had withdrawn towards Constantinople before the battle;
2. Roussel de Bailliou’s 500 strong Norman contingent, which were scouting the road to Khilat, escaped virtually intact ahead of the main battle;
3. A contingent of approximately one thousand Turkish Uz mercenaries defected on 25 August 1071, before the final battle;
4. Andronicus Ducas’ reserve force of approximately 5,000, including most of the Anatolian levies, deserted the battle ahead of the collapse;
5. The 5,000 troops of the left wing under Nicephorus Bryennius’ managed to fight their way clear of the battle after the collapse. It would be reasonable to assume approximately one thousand casualties, including losses from the first day’s battle.
6. Romanus Diogenes’ and the Varangian Guard were defeated and captured. We must assume that most of the Varangians were killed as Alp Arslan provided Romanus with a new escort of troops (although such a gesture was customary). Even so, no more than 500 Varangians can have present at Manzikert as there was still a Varangian contingent at Constantinople to acclaim Michael VIII Ducas.
7. A contingent of 2 – 3,000 Turkish mercenaries in the centre remained loyal to Romanus and was virtually annihilated.
8. The right wing, which mainly consisted of Armenian troops, was hard-pressed throughout the battle and was the first to break so we must assume they bore most of losses. We also know a contingent of Armenia troops on the wing deserted during the battle. After casualties and desertions probably only a thousand troops escape to Manzikert.
9. Romanus had left the camp, the baggage and the non-combatants with only a token guarded. We know from Michael Attaleiates, who was a secretary on Romanus’ staff, that survivors from both the right wing and the reserve warned the camp of Romanus’ defeat, which was immediately abandoned to the enemy. Because the battle was fought in the late afternoon it was dusk by the time the Turks reached the camp, allowing the survivors to escape under the cover of darkness to the safety of nearby Manzikert. The Byzantines probably suffered no more than about 8,000 casualties at Manzikert. If we factor in the permanent desertion of the Armenian and Uz auxiliaries, approximately 30,000 troops survived the battle. Based on the assumption that the Byzantine army had a total military strength of some 100,000 men in 1071AD and that approximately 50,000 garrison and thematic troops remained at their stations around the Empire, then Manzikert cost the Byzantines about 20% of their total military strength. This was not a significant loss and would quickly be made up by the recruitment of native soldiers from the military estates, while service with the Byzantine army would continue to draw professional recruits from around the medieval world. The defeat at Manzikert however, cut off the Byzantines from their supply of Armenian manpower, a critical source of recruitment for the army. Initially it would be the Turks themselves how would make up this loss, but this had its own complications.
After Manzikert
Although Manzikert was a serious blow to Byzantine prestige, Romanus’ position was in no way irrecoverable. Alp Arslan treated Romanus with the respect due to his position and imposed no harsh terms on the Byzantines. Although he had long campaigned on the Byzantine periphery, he had no intention of embarking on a full-scale invasion of the Empire. He also recognised that his victory at Manzikert had been a narrow run thing; if Andronicus Ducas’ reserve force had not deserted the battle would very likely have had a different result. In a fictional speech written by a later Arab historian, Romanus underlines the threat Alp Arslan faced,
"Tell the sultan to return me to the capital of my kingdom before the Rum agree on another emperor and he openly declares battle and war…” If Arslan was to fulfil his ambition of conquering Fatimid Egypt he could not afford the risk of a war with Byzantium, so it served his interests to have a grateful and subdued Romanus restored to the throne and his Byzantine border secure. Romanus and Arslan negotiated a new peace treaty in which both sides agreed to a return to the status quo ante; in exchange for a ransom of one million solidii and marriage alliance between Arslan’s son and Romanus’ daughter, Armenia would be restored to the Byzantines and, after the exchange of several disputed border fortresses, Arslan would endeavour to prevent further Seljuk incursions into Byzantine territory. Romanus remained at Arslan’s his camp for a week and was entertained as an honoured guest. The Sultan released his prisoners and provided Romanus was gifts suitable to his rank, supplies, and an armed escort. News of his defeat would undoubtedly have reached the capital so it was imperative Romanus take steps to calm the situation. He hurriedly sent a report of his engagement to the Senate and, gathering what troops he encountered on the way, rushed back to Constantinople. In Constantinople however, the Ducas faction used news of Romanus’ defeat to stage a coup in favour of Michael Ducas. Although Michael was now 20 years old he showed no capacity for governing and left affairs of state in the hands of his mother, who continued to act as regent on his behalf. The Empress Eudocia, however, remained aligned with Romanus. While the court debated what action to take, John Ducas rushed to Constantinople from exile in Bithynia and ordered the immediate arrest of the Empress. Romanus was declared deposed and Michael VII Ducas (1071- 1078AD) proclaimed sole emperor. John reinforced his own position by claiming the title Caesar and effectively became the power behind the throne. After learning of his deposition Romanus gathered his forces and marched on Constantinople. In late September or October, Romanus was defeated outside Amasia by an army under the command of Caesar John’s youngest son, Constantine Ducas, forcing him to withdraw towards his native Cappadocia, where he hoped to winter and regroup his forces. But the following spring his new army was engaged and defeated by troops under his erstwhile reserve commander, Andronicus Ducas. Realising that his position was hopeless, Romanus agreed to surrender in return for a promise of safe conduct into exile. John, however, had him savagely blinded and he died shortly afterwards.
| |
|
| |
| Total comments: 0 | |