Open main menu
Battle of Manzikert has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
January 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed

powersEdit

a random turkish man on the street just can know 4 of the turksih wars from history. Menzigert, conquer of Istanbul, Gallipoli and independence wars. For about the menzigert; every Turk knows we won with 50 000, against 200 000 at there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.85.242 (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm also a Turk, and the numbers I knew were 5 million Byzantines against Alp Arslan, his horse, and 3 of his friends. Unfortunately, 2 of Alp Arslan's friends fell in the battle, so Turkish casualties were 40%. That should have hurt.--Eleman (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm Turkish as well, you're talking non-sense. We were not hugely outnumbered in Malazgirt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.38.6.85 (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The pictures in this topic is fake. any muslim & any turk can recognise Alp Arslan from these fake pictures we know what happened I hope that wikipedia admin. understand that these shameful pictures gave a false impresive. while Alp Arslan was on the chair humillating Romanos IV that pictures show the opposite.2.91.117.67 (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)abdullatif mag 31/12/2010

This is a one sided articleEdit

It doesn't matter if Alp Arslan earned the title "drinker of blood" or a conspiracy at the time. He was given that name after the Battle of Manzikert. Either way the belief at the time was he killed or enslaved his prisoners this created a rallying cry for the first crusades. This is important information and can not be omitted.

--OxAO (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source for this claim? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A few corrections or explanations needed.Edit

In the body of this site, it was written; "500 Frankish and Norman mercenaries under Roussel de Bailleul", later it is found that certain Frankish and Norman mercenaries were dismissed for raiding the country side ("the Roman population also suffered some plundering by Romanos' Frankish mercenaries, whom he was forced to dismiss." So, back then just how did they determine or distinguish the Franks from the Normans? Were the Normans really English? And just how many of the 500 were dismissed, and just where would this group of 200 or 300, etc., go? Even later they are mentioned as being involved in the events, thus "Romanos ordered his general Joseph Tarchaneiotes to take some of the Roman troops and Varangians and accompany the Pechenegs and Franks to Khliat." Note above that the Normans are not mentioned but the dismissed Franks, are mentioned. Just what are the facts?96.19.156.227 (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Just whom was Bryennios, who commanded the left wing?Edit

In the article it is written; "The next day some foraging parties under Bryennios discovered the Seljuk army and were forced to retreat back to Manzikert. The Armenian general Basilakes was sent out with some cavalry, as Romanos did not believe this was Arslan's full army; the cavalry was destroyed and Basilakes taken prisoner. Romanos drew up his troops into formation and sent the left wing out under Bryennios, who was almost surrounded by the quickly approaching Turks and was forced to retreat once more. The Seljuk forces hid among the nearby hills for the night, making it nearly impossible for Romanos to send a counterattack.[6][17" It is even said that Bryennios survived the battle and later fought for the Romans. But, does not his Roman name betray him?Within Wikipedia your hyperlink takes us to his site, which says; "Bryennios or Bryennius (Greek: Βρυέννιος), feminine form Bryennissa (Βρυέννισσα), was the name of a noble Byzantine family which rose to prominence in the 11th and 12th centuries, mostly as military commanders. The etymology of the name is uncertain. The first members of the family appear in the 9th century. None are known for the 10th, but they reappear in the latter half of the 11th century, when they rose to high military commands and became associated with the Komnenian dynasty. Members of the family retained high positions through the 12th century, and are documented up to the 15th century." Considering the later day adventures of the "Brienne" family in both Western and Eastern Europe, perhaps the name "Bryennios" in Greek or Eastern Latin, could just as easily be spelled "Brienne?" Certainly Walter, or Jean de "Brienne", should raise some questions? See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Brienne And just how could I leave out this information also found within Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roussel_de_Bailleul It seems he actually tried to carve out a place for him and his troops within Anatolia? Was he with those troops who ravaged the countryside and were dismissed? Some reasonable explanation is needed? 96.19.156.227 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

There is no apparent connection between the French Briennes and the Bryennioi. Jean de Brienne was from a noble family based in Brienne near Troyes, France. A place name Brienne is attested as early as 858 ("Ludwig der Deutsche, 858 nov. 10, ad Breonam villam";[1] identified with Brienne-la-Vieille, adjacent to Brienne-le-Château[2]), and the region does not seem to have become a county in its own right before the middle of the 10th century;[3] so in France, to all appearances, the toponym predated the noble name. Given that both the Greek Bryennioi and the French toponym are already mentioned in the 9th century, before the fief itself came into being, it is higly unlikely that there is any connection between the two. Apart from this, neither "Breona/Briona" nor "Brienne" contains the y-sound of "Bryennios", which was still pronounced in Medieval Greek until the 10th or 11th century. Iblardi (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources for the size of the Seljuk armyEdit

Medieval Islamic sources.

Zahir al-Din Nishapuri (died c.1185) (lived in Persia) states 15,000 cavalry and 5,000 infantry.

Al-Bundari (13th century) (lived in Persia) puts number at 15,000.

ibn al-Qalanisi (c. 1070 – March 18, 1160) (lived in Damascus) puts total army of Alparslan at Manzikert, 400,000.

Source: Continuity and Change in Medieval Persia:, Ann K. S. Lambton, 1988, page 8 Online DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Armenians and Turkish auxiliaries in the Byzantine armyEdit

The original sentence was : The Byzantine right wing was almost immediatly routed, they thought they were betrayed by either the Armenians or the army's Turkish auxiliaries; in fact the Armenians were the first to flee and they all managed to get away, while by contrast the Turkish auxiliaries remained loyal to the end.[1]

I added this sentence in the first place based on the source (Byzantine Armies, 886-1118, Ian Heath,Angus McBride, 1979, p.27), see here [4]]

But some people keep changing the sentence. They change Armenian with Turkish.

Above is what the original sentence says. So please stop changing what is really written in the source.

I'm changing it back to the original version.

  1. ^ Byzantine armies, 886-1118, Ian Heath,Angus McBride, 1979, p.27
Ian Heath - isn't professional historian. All academic source is talking about Turkish tribes whose defected from the Byzantine army. If you won't show a scientific academic source, I'll delete your information and to add information from a scientific articles and books, which to published in an academic publishing house--95.153.201.86 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
both authors are military historians, their series of books are highly respected in historical circles, and this book is in every respect a Reliable Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.47.12 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

CriticismEdit

I'm a little surprised that this article was considered GA quality. (I looked for the discussion that promoted this article, but it wasn't linked to this page.) While it is well-written, & I believe it explains its subject for the most part accurately, its sources are problematic. First, it appears to rely on the work of J.J. Norwich, although a decent historian, is more of a popularizer than standard references like Ostrogorsky & Vasiliev -- although mentioning Runciman helps. Another thing this article needs is a discussion of the primary sources: looking at the account in Vryonis' The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor: and the process of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century (another standard reference), primary sources for this battle include Niketas Choniates, & Michael the Syrian, & a letter by Manuel to the English king Henry II written shortly after the battle; except for a passing quotation from Anna Komnenos, the existence of these sources are completely ignored -- which hampers any reader who wants to go beyond the secondary sources. Lastly, although I wouldn't use this even as a reason to deny this article FA status, it would be very nice if Turkish sources were used in this article; I believe Turkish academics have written an article or more on this event, & may express some opinions or conclusions that would surprise even citizens of that country. Just some thoughts that might prove useful in improving this article. -- llywrch (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs a section on the primary sources. Deipnosophista (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

ImagesEdit

There's something wrong with the image layout, at least in Firefox/Monobook. There is a lot of empty space underneath the External Links section and five images are down there all by themselves. howcheng {chat} 06:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the infoboxes are disrupting the formatting. Those boxes are only tangentially related to the topic, so I am removing them. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

AftermathEdit

whether the actual losses where high or not the crusaders believed they where massacres. Without mentioning that distorts history.
--OxAO (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Manzikert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

IncomprehensibleEdit

"About 1053 Constantine IX disbanded what the historian John Skylitzes calls the "Iberian Army", which consisted of 50,000 men and it was turned as a contemporary Droungarios of the Watch. two other knowledgeable contemporaries, the former officials Michael Attaleiates and Kekaumenos, agree with Skylitzes that..." - something has gone seriously wrong here. Deipnosophista (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Battle of Manzikert" page.