Battle of Manzikert
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2024
- This video looks at two key primary accounts of the Battle of Manzikert, perhaps the ERE's greatest defeat. They describe the Battles from different perspectives and with different motivations.
Email
easternromanhistory@gmail.com
Discord
/ discord
If you would like to support Eastern Roman History, I have a Patreon:
/ easternromanhistory
Music Credit:
'Riding the Plains', 'Swords Drawn' and 'Valiant Fight' by Bill Brown and Jamie Christopherson from The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth by EA Los Angeles.
'Time' by Ed Lima and Stephen Maitland from Empire Earth by Stainless Steel Studios.
'Honour Melody' by Robert Euvino from Stronghold by Firefly Studios.
'Euro Mobilisation' and 'Euro Battle 1' by Jeff Van Dyke from Medieval Total War by Creative Assembly.
'Ambient' by Jason Graves from Rise and Fall: Civilisations at War by Stainless Steel Studios and Midway Games.
'Eastern Greek Battle Theme' by Nick Wylie from Europa Babarorum: A Modification of Rome Total War.
'March of the Heroes' by Masato Kouda from Monster Hunter by Capcom.
'A Siege of Worlds' by Jason Heyes, Glenn Stafford & Tracy Bush from World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor by Blizzard Entertainment.
'
All images used are for educational purposes, if I have used a piece of art and you would like me to credit you, please contact me and I shall do so.
I like your channel, and I like the fact that you named it Eastern Roman and not Byzantine. I wish you much success in your career, sir.
Actually, correct would be only Roman Empire cause that was they contemporary name. Eastern is modern anachronistic term so we differentiate it from Empire governed from Rome. Without emperor of West there is no emperor of East, only one emperor, that of Romans. People of that time wouldn't know what do you mean by Eastern Roman Empire same as they wouldn't know about land called Byzantium.But I know you already know this :)
@@menofwar1155 how bout what everyone called them? The Romans of the Roman Empire :)
@@menofwar1155 it will be but still this is far better than calling it Byzantine empire
Un popular opinion : from 395 to 717 ad the eastern roman empire
From 717 to 1453 ad the Byzantine empire
Western Barbarians called Romans , Byzantines just because they cannot accept that ortadox christians are the romans and the castolics are the barbarians
Although the Turks treated Roman Diogenes well and released him, it was very painful for him to suffer the wrath of their rivals.
It would not be last of Romanos' pains either
Romanos was better off being a captive of Alp Arsan than being released.
Everyday Im watching the view of the island that he died because of the wounds by his eyes on his exile. It is kinda sad
may his soul rest in peace
Good video. It's always nice to hear first hand accounts of battles, however biased they may be. Romans really loved calling their enemies barbarians, eh?
Indeed, although Attaleiates does have something over most historians in that he was actually at the battle. Whereas Psellos was in the capital at the time. Another good source is Bryennios who is very close to Attaleiates but shows that Attaleiates did have his own aze to grind. To the Romans everyone was a barbarian who was not them.
Such a great channel! The way you read through good sources and give context is welcome and effective.
00:26 the Seljuk flag is pretty badass
It's actually the banner of anatolian seljuks. Great seljuks banner consisted of a bow and an arrow.
After Basil II, the Eastern Roman army was neglected. Instead of relying on native-Greek speaking subjects, the government relied on foreign mercenaries. Yes, the Seljuk Turks had a superior army when it faced the Eastern Roman army at Manzikert. And, the Doukas clan betrayed Emperor Diogenes.
150k vs 50k what superiority you talking about. Oh yeah you should ve been mentioning Tactical superiority.. Sounds like excuses otherwise
@@sinanermis5541 kanka o rakamlar gunumuzde dogrulugunu yitiriyor.o çagda o buyuklukte bir ordu kurmak cok zor.cunku cengizin harezm seferi ki bundan iki yuz yil sonradır,100bin savasci ile gerceklesiyor.Tahmini olarak roma ordusu 50k selcuklu ordusu ise 20-30k civarinda.Bu durumda bile neredeyse iki kat ustunler,bu azimsanacak bir rakam degil.
@@sinanermis5541 it was 40000vs 30000 and a good junk of the byzantine army switched sides
I was once making a tier list of the origins of the Roman emperors, and coincidentally (or not), the last third of the emperor's were from the "native speaking Greeks", unlike the Illyrian (in Roman words) from 5th to 7th century, and western Anatolia (from 8th to 13th century". Not implying anything btw. Also, the losses of Anatolia hindered the internal aristocracy also, making it difficult to whomever emperor was on the throne. It's interesting the incompetence of the last few centuries of the Byzantine rulership.. such a shame..
@@damjankrstevski22I don't know what your definition of a Greek Roman is but they certainly didn't only live in what is today modern Greece nor only Western Anatolia.
Infact, in Europe, they lived in what is today modern Greece, south Bulgaria, European Turkey, south Albania and south Slavo-Macedonia. Asia Minor was fully Greek, not just the western coast but the entire peninsula to the Euphrates River. The Anatolians had been fully hellenized since the early 6th century.
Judging by that, a good 80% of Eastern Roman Emperors were of Greek descent. The only "non-Greek Emperors" were the Hispanic Theodosian dynasty (intermarried with Greek nobility, see Empress Eudocia), the Thracian Leonid dynasty (Anastasius was possibly Greco-Illyrian) and the Illyrian Justinian dynasty (several intermarriages with Greek noblewomen). The last member of the latter dynasty was undoubtedly a Greek, his name was Maurice. You had 2 hellenized Armenian dynasties that of Leo V and Romanos Lekapenos. Aside from that, you had Greek-descended emperors.
First of all let me say i really like the way u tell historical events, quite enjoyable. As additional information in Turkish history lessons it is told that Alparslan used guerilla (hit and run) tactics on Manzikert, as horse archers had superiority on mobility and it was only chance over bigger forces.
Thank you very much. I myself would not consider Horse archers as Guerillas but rather as skirmishers. Being light and able to attack from a distance. Romanos having arranged his forces into tightly pacted fomrations meant that the Turkish arrows could only inflict very few casualties and would never be able to charge such a dense formation. Often their opportunity for maximum damage came when the enemy routed as in the case of Manzikert or facing poorly led or trained soldiers as they could use the frustration caused by their arrow barrage and faster horses to make the enemy route or make a mistake and then close in for the kill. This is why horse archers could be very effective such as at the Battle of Civetot, where the poorly trained and organised Peasants Crusade was essentially massacred by the Turks on the other hand, Nikepohoros Botaneiates in 1052 was able to retreat from Bulgaria to Adrianople with a small but very well trained and led group of cavalry from Pecheneg horse archers for nearly two weeks under near constant bombardment and harassment from their arrows.
Thanks for your comment and have a nice day.
Lovely, the way that you discussed the Battle of Manzikert with mentioning the references and also highlighting which one is reliable. Is indeed reflects how scholarly you are. please allow me to suggest adding clarified photos for the Eastern Roman army at that time and the Seljuk army, also an accurate map for the site of Manzikert if possible.
My regards.
Thank you very much. In terms of art. I am often at the mercy of what was produced at the time and modern artist impressions so I try and use a good balance. For maps, certainly. I shall do more on manzikert and have far more opportunities to go over the topography.
The bulgarslayer would be só dissapointed
Kaloyan the Roman slayer would be so happy
@@aleksk4151 I like Bulgarians, always got along with them. These days relations are pretty good.
The great Alp Arslan .
Not to forget to mention that the sultan spared the life of the Byzantine emperror and let him return to his capital .
with gifts
too bad the many thousand regular soldiers that fled the battlefield where not as lucky to share royal blood when they were hunted by the Seljuks. Also Romanos was let free after he agreed to cede important Byzantine territories. - > very noble indeed
@@arturleperoke3205 the Byzantine army was around 200.000 soldiers . The Seljuks were 30.000 . Byzantines wanted to erase Anatolia from Turkish people . So the Byzantines got what they deserved . If the byzantines managed to win they would kill all the Turkish people in Anatolia so dont talk about nobility .
@@yahyaabdellah2713 dude there were no "turkish people" at that time.. turkey as a nation was not founded yet... maybe you mean turcic people, which are not a nation but a group of nomadic people such as the seljuks.. "erase the inhabitants of Anatolia"??? First the Seljuks were not inhabitants of Anatolia before that battle.. Second, Anatolia was a viable source of manpower, commerce and shaped by roman society for more than a millennia by that time.. why would they cut their own fellow romans? Your suggestion of "turkish genocide" and your idea of the proportions of both armies are signs of little to no knowledge. In fact that sounds like very weird and confused turkish nationalistic conspiracy stuff..here have a look at the important points of history of Anatolia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Anatolia
@@arturleperoke3205 many civilisations have lived in Anatolia before Romans and Greeks . The romans have conquered many races and took their land like north Africa and Germanic lands in Europe . So dont make them look like victims . The seljuks defended ther existance and defeated the Romans in Manziker . Fact
The battle of Manzikert was lost due to a dark betrayal of that Doukas clan,otherwise this outcome should never come to be,why;what a shame!
Andronikos Doukas, son of Caesar John Doukas betrayed Romanos by pulling the sizable reserves back from the battle when they were most needed. Whether the battle could have been won is hard to know but it would have certainly helped and perhaps prevented Romanos' capture. HOpe you enjoyed the video!
Flavius Athanasius Gogalis otherwise they would they win? lol
No. Turks are better warriors.thats why. You are power measured by against your enemiest power. Turks came from steppes. Their enemy was mongols chineses and persians. They are nothing like europian barbers. They are orginezed disiplined armies. Anatolian Roman s were farmers . Nomads were hunters. Steppe nomads raise their children to be fighter. Romans doesn t want to their plebs to know fighting. Let's get to your argument... If more than half of Roman army retreat. Why they re group and make another war. In 5 year almost all Anatolia conquered by Seljuks. Town by town castle by castle. Where is Doukas army. Where is all mighty viking warriors what happened Varangian Guards. Annihilated by raining arrows.
can turan yes
@@canturan4396 sigh. The Roman army by that time wasn't the unstoppable warmachine of previous ages but it was still formidable force of that period. Ever heard about the Tagmata system? No? In a nutshell, you had a professional army core which was relatively small bc it was expensive to maintain, and then local part-time soldiers. You know... the plebs Romans didin't want to know how to fight.
And about Doukas... well. After he retreated, his family proclaimed a new emperor from their midst. The whole battle was more of a political loss than a military one. The sultan released the Emperor for an astronomic ransom although I'm not sure if it was intended as honor or a clever political move. Because Romanos still considered himself the true emperor and logically didn't like the idea of an impostor upon his throne even less one connected to the betrayer. This sparked civil war and well... it's not actually hard to fight an enemy, who's tearing himself apart, isn't it?
Selçuk had different type of tribe in their army.
You gotta respect the countless generations of Germanic, Persian, Danubian, Arab and Turkish peoples who fought Rome and Constantinople. They all just never gave up
I'll respect who I choose to respect.
And I'll never respect normaltrash.
Those I respect are people with a psychological or a mental disability. Because they try what they can with minds and bodies turned against them by nature.
Great video man👍🏼
And let the biased comments begin! But i would recommend we state actual history and not one-sided opinions. Here are some things i've learned over the years about these two mortal foes:
1. by the time they clash, the Roman Empire was, to put it mildly, both divided and led mostly by incompetent leaders who either did not have the skills to rule(they skipped class or what?) and left their ministers and generals do whatever they wanted, or tried to rule and sucked at it, with obvious consequences.
2. the Turks came at the worst possible time for the romans. Just as the arabs came after romans and persians barely finished a long and costly war, so too the turks came when romans were divided(they betrayed one another like it was their job). I would have liked to see united romans vs these turks. That would have been a good fight, regardless who won.
3. the turks maybe lacked man power(not sure on that one) but they had much more mobility from lighter cavalry. They could harass their opponent to virtually no end. But again, i don't think this was their reason for winning this fight. The romans had experience with this type of enemy as well.
4. Romanos IV Diogenes came from a nobel family with military tradition. So it is implied that he did have, at least to some extent, some knowledge of military tactics. I am not sure why HE was picked to marry the empress and become emperor, but i'd like to think it was because of his skills in the battlefield and loyalty to his people, rather than his devilishly good looks and great personal magnetism(ok this last part is a joke, i have no clue of the man's character nor his looks). In contrast, Alp Arslan was a master tactician with lots of experience in battle, and also he knew his men well. And i really do not hate to say this, but the turks were definitely more than a match because of him in this battle. And Romanos probably knew that, hence he brought such a huge army with him, to even the odds. And half of it took off(face palm).
5. from what i've read, that betrayal was just a political move, nothing more. Doukas did not really think the war against the turks was lost, so as soon as Romanos was deposed, the romans gathered another army(obviously they could not gather so many of their own anymore thus they hired lots of mercenaries, probably half the army was made of them), and marched against the turks again. Only to be betrayed by the mercenaries, who took off after they got paid. If the romans still fought the turks after this is unclear to me, but if they did, they definitely lost big time. Then those mercenaries started to cause trouble for the empire so the romans gathered another army to deal with them now, only to lose. AGAIN! And then they ask help from the turks in exchange for recognizing turk gains in Anatolia and Armenia. It really does not take a genius to marvel at the sheer amount of bad luck coupled with stupidity. I love the romans and their history, particularly the eastern half. But at times i am impressed at how they managed to screw things up at such scales, so much so that i am laughing my butt off. Definitely they did not know how to pick an emperor.
6. in essence, the battle at Manzikert was NOT THE REASON why the romans got wiped out. But it was the beginning, and what came AFTER this battle was what really destroyed the empire. Had the romans managed to pull their heads out of their own asses and pick a true emperor(elections are coming haha) they would have been able to halt the turkish advances into Anatolia.
Still, the turks were truly formidable, and the romans should have responded with full force, not half.
During the battle of manzikert Alp Arslan was on egypt campaign against shia fatimids so Romans the ones who came not the Turks. Alp Arslan was the one who had to respond, he took his 40-50.000 cavalry and marched towards to manzikert with his 50-60.000 infantry left behind at Aleppo where he recieved the news of the approaching Roman army. Also he sent two different envoy group in order to negotiate peace but the answer he get was the Romans will spent the winter at isfahan while their horses in hamedan. I really like to say that "the war was inevitable" lol
@@sinanermis5541 it kind of was. The turks knew the romans had good lands so a war was on the horizon. Romanos quickly secured his western fronts diplomatically to focus on the east. But no proper scouting... about 1/4 of the army was made of mercenaries which decided to live and enjoy the money rather than die... still left Romanos with more soldiers than the turks had at their disposal. But that Doukas douchebag betrayed his emperor. Told the soldiers the emperor was slain, and ordered a retreat. Disgraceful, even Arslan found the act despicable. Romanos returns after making a deal with Arslan, and finds himself vs an usurper. Gets captured and blinded, and most generals in Anatolia march to Constantinople to elect a new emperor...through civil war. Arslan takes Anatolia mostly without a fight. Ffs.
Should've done a military draft.. Anatolia is huge . They could have gotten maybe 500,000 soldiers if needed. But they were to lazy and would rather just pay a couple of mercenaries.
@@sinanermis5541 yes, but Arslan raided Anatolia a bunch of times before and aggravated the romans prior to that little peace they had. The romans had to react, because as soon as the fatimids would had been dealt with, the romans were next as a target. It's just that all this was done at the worst possible moment.
@@jesusmagana2458 hmm... 500k soldiers? The romans lost egypt centuries ago. It took them centuries to reorganize their farming lands to feed their population, not to mention soldiers. From what i understood, it was during Constantine X, the previous emperor, that the once professional and well trained army was mostly disbanded or poorly maintained in order "to save money". Since, after Basil II and Constantine VIII, the treasury was depleted by the incompetent morons that came after.so it was opted to rely on mercenaries for the bulk of the army, while only keeping a core of roman troops. And even they were probably poorly equipped. Also probably some levies were in there, which were poorly trained at best. So the empire's war capabilities were very low, and Romanos knew this, yet he had no choice. That was the deal: i release you, we marry, you beat back the turks, or stay in prison and rot. Or smth along these lines. The romans that fought at Manzikert were no longer the romans that defeated the arabs in 718, nor the romans that reconquered Crete, Cyprus, Antioch during Nikephoros II and John Tzimiskes. Not to mention politically divided, being betrayed in mid battle. Archer cavalry were smth persians used against romans as well, same as skythians. The romans of the east knew how to counter them, they had military manuals on the subject. Makes one wonder if these roman generals later on knew how to read
Thanks.
No problem hope you enjoyed
Nice video. Now I need to play Crusader Kings 3
Did the Emperor receive military training? I know he lead the Army, must have been taught strategy and tactics, etc, but is there historical evidence about their particular skills in combat? I know these sources elude to that, but I feel like they were written as superlatives to highlight heroism in the face of such disaster.
In the case of Romanos IV, he was one of the dynatoi, the military aristocratic class. He is known to have served during the campaign of Isaac Komnenos against the Hungarians and so did have military experience. In fact that was one of the reasons why Eudokia chose to marry him thus making him emperor. In terms of official training, I am afraid I do not know, although they certainly had the means to educate themselves. Emperors that were born in the purple were tutored and part of their education likely included military since and training, such as reading the Tactika of Leo VI's but also practical experience. Manuel Komnenos is know to have accompanied his father John on a number of his campaigns as well as his other brothers so they likely learned from experience.
Hope that answers your question.
@@EasternRomanHistory Yes, very much so. Thank you! Id forgotten that many Emperors had come from the military. Who was the soldier/wrestler, Basil I? Im sure he knew how to wield a sword quite well!
@@SkunkyBrewThinking about it very few usurpers that actually became emperor were from outside of the military. Anastasius II, Theodosius III, Nikephoros I, Phokas, off the top of my head. There are not many of them.
Dan, do you think Romanos IV was a bad ruler? I mean do you think he was a bad militarry leader and that the lost of Manzikert was his fault? How would you rank Romanos IV actually?
As an emperor I consider him a decent ruler. He was primarily put in charge to deal with the dire military situation which is what he did. He also tried to replace the Doukas with his own clan and spent most of his time fighting. He lost Bari and ultimately failed at Manzikert but much of his brief time as emperor before that shows both promise and a spirited attempt to meet his challenges head on. He certainly made mistakes, such as not using scouts during his campaign in 1071 and failing to properly meet and destroy the Turks in 1069. For the actual battle itself, since he had basically won the day and it is only after he decided to withdraw that things went wrong it is difficult to say that he blundered. True he should have kept the wings of his army together better but had Andronikos Doukas actually done his job and use the reserves to bolster any part of the line that was threatened, the day may have been salvaged. I personally find him to be a decent emperor, not esopecially great but not terrible either. Its ashame his predocessor and successor were not themselves better as had they been good rulers.
@@EasternRomanHistory Thanks for your answer Dan it really help me, i ask because i am wondering myself if he was that good or not that great i think he was decent but lot of ppl blame him too hard on manzikert by just saying like "ho manzikier was the beginng of the end because romanis IV lost" and i do confess that i did think same when i was reading briefly about byzantine history that ppl said mostly all was fine untill manzikert and romanis messed up badly" while actually its not even true its more the aftermath that did pose problmes and porblmes were here mostly because of constantine X and then Michael VII its like if Romanis IV was actually saving the day and the doukas just messed up am i wrong?
But then i would ask if you would rank ALL emperors (it think it would be a cool idea actually to take a time on stream maybe to do a complete ranking of all emperor like another UA-camr did here : ua-cam.com/video/XHXclmIHrnI/v-deo.html ) so if you had a ranking to do of romanos like for exemple S = Best A = excellent B = efficient C = adequate D = mediocre E = uncompetent F = awefull and non rankable like for exemple constantine III or Leo II
@@AdriatheBwitch Thanks for the comment Zalendra. I do agree that certainly Romanos gets a bad rap for something his immediate predecessor and successor had a hand in too. He is certainly a controversial emperor and had his faults but the failure at Manzikert alone was not responsible for the loss of Asia Minor.
That is a great idea and certainly something I have considered doing. My main challenge has been logistics. With so many emperors one video is likely to be too long to be must interest to people. What I might do is break it up into a number of videos and then have a summary video at the end. What do you think of doing it that way?
@@EasternRomanHistory It is true it would take a while to mention every single emperors and explain why yougive them this rank and also explain how your ranking process work, yeah i think you will have to do it in more than one video but then the quesiton will be how to keep track of the generale ranking (with a board with all the names/pics of them?) and also how would you sort them? Start chronoligcally or by ranks? like a video for all rank S one for all A etc the main concern i thin would be to keep clear track of the older ranking (like keep fresh mind on the previous episode when you make the following one to not lose your serious and your ranking method because doing a long video at once even if oyu split it can be a verry fastidious process and oyu might find it "boring" after a itme and lose focus) the main goal is too keep focus on how you decide to rank and the method and keep the record for ppl who watch the serie yes a summarru video can be interessting to do at the end with maybe a board with all names/ranks
Maybe you could even do ikeyour serie about Augustus like put the serie and then make a video with all the episodes into one video
The video/stream i linked if you watch it you iwll notice it does have flaws like the fact at the end of the day you have so many coins that you dont really know who is who (even the guy doing it have troubles knowing actually) and that he do lose his focus at some point
@@AdriatheBwitch Thanks for the feedback, i believe I have worked out how I shall do it, and thanks for the Augustus reference that will be a good idea too.
God bless alp arslan
İn 1000 the anatolian people not happy about the kingdom.Because of constantly change of throne.
Ameen
Rest in hell arslen
@@kanaankanaan5522 you will be the one in hell alongside with all your kind .
@Aq qoyunlu mapper screw you all you dumb
Kindly add english subtitles because alot of cant understand ur accent. By doing this more people would be able to watch ur videos.
Turkish mercenaries fighting on the Byzantine side betrayed and changed sides, the pechenegs and the Cumans thus put the Byzantines in even more trouble
Great, even the 2nd time
There were multiple issues regarding the Eastern Roman Army on this day which would have any victory unlikely. That sucks because it guaranteed the loss of Anatolia and all the long-term consequences were disastrous for the Empire. The desertions and the betrayal of Andronikos Dukas( not loyal) were omens. This was the end of the thematic Army, the Anatolian heartland was lost and the Empire would rely on mercenaries for the rest of it's life. Even at Manzikert, the quality of the thematic troops was quite bad.
And the funny thing is that the relations between the eastern roman empire and the Göktürk khanate were good and they were allies together they defeated the persians history is very strange
No, these were traitors. When the Persians came with a larger army, they withdrew from the war
Fun fact both romanos 4th and ap arslan died on 1072 ad yes win or loser
May we get a F in a chat
F
F
F
F
😢
Discord and Internal conflicts...Nemesis of Greeks till today and forever
I partialy sympathized with doukas' betrayal. Imagine you were to be the next emperor as a child when your father died. But then your mother married this romanos diogenes thus becoming your stepfather and stealing the crown from you. At the battle you see him being surrounded by turks, of course you will leave him to be killed. It would surely bring back the crown to the doukas clan.
Only if you are a petty fucking idiot!
0:56 - "he was loathed to... ad... advance". Could have done a retake on that reading there
This world untill this day in Greece mean disaster the beggining of the End!
the second author attaleiates quotes from gospel/the former psellos does not
It was the greatest victory against the Byzantines! It's famous, not infamous!
You forget Yarmuk 638 AD my friend 😊
BFME music eh? You play the game much?
Indeed, I did.
I wonder if history had been different had the Byzantines won this battle.
But they lost 😤
@@taifhassan7936---But "What if" they hadn't. I will not stop wondering that.
@Aq qoyunlu mapper---I think that is quite possible. Thanks for replying.
they really shouldn't have lost this battle.
I like your name. Not byztanium
Only if there weren’t any desertions the Byzantines could have won the Battle of Manzikert.
Certainly possible. Though would it have delivered the decisive blow that Romanos sought, who knows.
You know nothing about Seljuk Turks. They were the angle of death for Rome.
byzentine army was not properly equipped to counter hard hitting(composite bow) lighly armoured mobile forces.It was a matter of time byzentine loose its power in the region
The little after defeat of diyojen."civilizate romans" bring new king.and they blinded theire own kings and he died because of his wounds. That is roman empire you loved. Thats a great difference honor between turks and romans.
The blinding thing, was an Eastern Tradition dating back to Persians. That the Romans Adopted much later after the West fell. And then Europe in General
The blinding thing, was an Eastern Tradition dating back to Persians. That the Romans Adopted much later after the West fell. And then Europe in General
Can, shut the hell up you making yourself fool
A person with any kind of disability can not sit the Roman throne thats why he got blinded. It is still less brutal than the fratricide which is popular among the Turks
Scythians!!!??? Existed in that time?
I am afraid not. Byzantine historians would refer to people in what is called a 'Classicising' style so that their history was like those of Herodotus and Thucydides. So Turks, Pechenegs, the Huns become Scythians. The Caliphate becomes the Persians. The Normans become the celts and so on.
@@EasternRomanHistory East Romans knew Arabs were Arabs and there were province called Arabia located what is now Jordan see Roman province of Arabia. The Rashidun and the Ummayad Caliphate were culturally 100% Arab but during the Abbasid Caliphate there was Arab dynasty but culturally Persian secondly Turks coverted to Islam through Persians not Arabs because all Islamic scholars were Persian when the Turks converted to Islam and today they use the word Namaz instead instead the Arabic word Salah for prayer therefore Abbasid Caliphate could be called Persian.
@@EasternRomanHistory Scythians and Huns be organized central asian nomad tribes confederation.This confederations have Turks,Mongols,and other nomad factions.they usually have same civilizations,battle strategies,army formations.So they look like one nation for west factions.
@@EasternRomanHistory Scythian is İskit/Saka in Turkish. Look up Alp Er Tunga, the great Turk leader of İskit, his name is 100% Turkish, translates to "dedicated(spiritual) warrior puma". Also Tömiris is his granddaughter, her name means "made of iron/iron lady".
Greek historians simply had no idea who Scythians were, who Simers/Sümers (Cimmerians/Sumerians) were, also deliberately omitted the shared origins of Trojans and Etruscans (look up Turukku, Tur).
Everybody goes "are you nuts?!" ignorantly but Sumerian language has lots of Turkish in it.
Anyone else here for school
111th!
Yep, that's three 1st's at once. It's ok to admit you're jealous.
I am jealous. I was viewer zero.
@@EasternRomanHistory I'm sure you'll do better next time. I have faith in you. :P
The hole thing was mistake since day one the Byzantine could have avoided this disaster how ?
1 Constantine the 9 invasion of Armenia was mistake he should have left it as vassal rather than a provenance
2 Anatolia was more secure in 730s then the 1040s thema back then worked well the military was neglected for years and there is over relayings on mercenaries
3 thema was separated to few provenance in 730s but in 1040s it was separated to many small provenance this will lead to corruption in the small provenance depend. On the governor
4 even if armina was lost it doesn't matter it happened too many time I lost count infact Anatolia was far more important the Byzantine could have stayed on the defensive rather then offensive this is reason they survived for so long
5 the turks could have repelled easily its not the first time the Byzantine fought hans barbarians with horse archery with fainted retreat tactics the Byzantine could have solved this by :
1 defensive strategy not rush the enemy rather wait for right time
2 Byzantine using horse archery them self like they do when they recruited the hans
3 they could have solved the problem by building huge was walls covering the torris mountains to cover Anatolia from any attack just like china
4 clever solutions they could use traps for horses in case for Turkish raid small nails hidden in grounds and the rest is history ancient rome used it why the Byzantine can't ?
6 they could have make peace with alp arsanl all of this is better ways to win jezz
I blame Michael VII doukas for his failures on dealing with the Seljuk turks
İf quality combine with battle warfare strategy was defeat 3 times larger army.
Turks learn different type of strategy from battle of mongols pers and chinese.
Turks learn tactic and strategy from chinese.
Yeah thats why they built the wall lol.
And their own wariors.Tarkans. 10 tarkan quickly crash at least 70 bryzantine troops.
Romans cant even stop vikings and aeric.And then they divided. They only know use shield.
shields were the best defence back in the day. they lost vs cannons. the Ottomans lost vs better technologies and poor administration as well. not to mention that they had civil wars upon civil wars as well. which all led to the fall of the once mighty Ottoman Empire, just as the once mighty Roman Empire before it. so i kinda fail to see where you are trying to get with all these one-line comments.
@@ragael1024 lol ottoman was fighting with the world last 100 200 years
Exactly they can be defeated for sure.
That sultans was handle with arabs,russians,british,french,italians,slavics,greeks,kurdish,armenians,greeks and with austrialians .
So if this easy, go apply than if you want to be a king.
The people in Ottoman Empire was in peace, but the french and british leaders provoke to defeat the empire.
This is the reason for fall for Ottoman Empire.
@@holdmineraki5490 "go apply that if you want to be king"? What kind of expression is that? Do you use google translate to write comments here? Besides, the Romans had encountered Vikings, and rus, and defeated them. Vikings were good 1v1, but as a standing army, the vikings did not really fair very well against a roman army that was more than a mob. I mean, you cannot call an army a bunch of peasants with poor training. The roman army was that war machine that conquered most of Europe at one point. And it fought basically everyone. If you would know a bit more about the Eastern Romans, and not just de superficial "they lost battle after battle because the arabs and Ottomans were just better", you would see that the romans could have won, if they were united. The Ottomans were fighting as one unit. While the romans were more or less in a constant civil war that drained the treasury and man power. And still survived for 1000years. The Ottomans were at "peace" because they could not go on anymore. The empire was too large to maintain, and modern warfare made it impossible to protect. They were the strongest fighting force during their first centuries, but others managed to get even better at war. The Ottomans could not compete anymore, so it would have been stupid to wage war against better enemies. Besides, nobody liked them.
@@ragael1024
Lets not forget the ottomans couldnt administrate worth crap, even when half the size of the actual Romans before them
Turk learn mounted light armor archer from mongols.
What kind of ignorant piece of shit you are? Turks were superior on horseback even thousand year before Mongol advance. You are nothing but a shame stop spreading false info you stup.d clown