# Talk:Battle of Manzikert

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

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)
It's not a biased article, most of it is lies.  If Sultan Muhammed Alparslan had not been martyred in the siege of Barzem, perhaps we would now be reading about the Seljuk Conquests in Eastern Europe and Egypt in History Books.  If the Turks had committed massacres in the places they conquered, not even a Greek would be alive in the world today. 88.241.91.12 (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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.
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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401140444/http://www.deremilitari.org:80/news/medievalhistorymagazine.htm to http://www.deremilitari.org/news/medievalhistorymagazine.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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)

"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)

I need to copy JamesBartlett0131 (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Hi! You changed the  TDV İÂ's source in bibliography content (in this edit). It indicates the period of completion of TDV İÂ (starting from 1988 & ending in 2016). Does it not look like author's life period showing (1988-2016)? Plus it doesn't show ISBN & doesn't mention 27th volume for which the article was added on the pages 481 to 483. I don't know on what reason former view of source was not appropriate for you? I think it was better. Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Reverting my corrections reverts a no target error back into the article. Sevım 2003 as a reference will not work with the TDV cite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The conversation:
Alp Arslan: "What would you do if I were brought before you as a prisoner?"
Romanos: "Perhaps I'd kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople."
Alp Arslan: "My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free."
This is sourced from a game supplement, which itself contains no sources. I realise this is Wikipedia, but surely this is not good enough for a source?
Don't get me wrong, I love the quote, but in my attempts to corroborate it, I've turned up empty-handed. If the only verifiable reference is an unsourced game supplement, then I believe it needs to be removed. This is history, not historical fiction, we're aiming for truth, not badass dramatics. Aprogressivist (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to move the conversation to the "Cultural references" section. This seems more appropriate given the reference. - Aprogressivist (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a line from this article.  Think about it. 2601:1C2:4E00:3E90:E5B7:4F80:3C23:50E5 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks. Annwfwn (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

In the source named Norwich 1993, p. 352, it is written that Dukas betrayed and retreated with 30 thousand men, but in English Wikipedia, the number of Byzantine army is 30 thousand. There is a mistake here. The same is in the English page of Romanos Diogenes. Most of the sources say that the Seljuk army was smaller. Byzantium was superior to the Seljuks in terms of soldiers and equipment
Mateos of Edessa and Michael Attaleiates say that the Byzantine army numbered over 100 thousand. Moreover, Michael Attaleiates was a direct eyewitness to the battle. 
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1189/battle-of-manzikert/ Kartal1071 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Muş is in the territory of the Republic of Türkiye. Türkiye has neither a region nor a province called kurdistan. Do not confuse the Republic of Türkiye with Iran. What you are doing is openly interfering with the sovereign rights of the Republic of Türkiye and intervening in its internal affairs. If such a thing happens again, I will not hesitate to complain to the necessary institutions. Kartal1071 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Most sources claim that the Byzantine Army had a strength of 200,000-70,000. Even modern estimates say it was 70,000. The claim that the Great Seljuk Empire had more soldiers here is against the principle of objectivity in historical science. For example, no web address is shown to verify the number of military forces in the Military Forces section. In addition, the sources taken for the number of the Byzantine Army and the sources taken for the number of the Seljuk Army are different. It is essential for both to be taken from the same source for an objective perspective. Kartal1071 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1189/battle-of-manzikert/#:~:text=Romanos%27%20army%20was%20big%2C%20according%20to%20some%20sources%20it%20had%20300%2C000%20men%2C%20although%20modern%20historians%20prefer%20a%20figure%20of%2060%2D70%2C000%2C%20still%20double%20that%20of%20the%20Seljuks Kartal1071 (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
You were told why the numbers are listed as they are. Conflating those and others is willfully misleading readers. Stop trying to sneak it in. Remsense ‥ 论 10:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
One more time, because I do not want an iota of doubt for those reading, me from months ago the last time they (were intermittently socking) trying to sneak this through: Stating it this way is immensely misleading, as it equivocates the 40k who did fight with the 70k including those who fled. those aren't the same number. This is made clear in the additional sources being cited. Remsense ‥ 论 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Your idea that "well then we have to make the Seljuk number smaller" is baffling. I don't know how I'm supposed to work with arguments like that. All I ask is that you refrain from touching the article, which you've already been blocked for socking over, further if all you want to do is push a particular conception of the battle, even if it means conflating or even making up numbers like you suggested prior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
There is nothing clear about the army numbers as you said, but the general view is that the Byzantine army was larger than the Seljuk army. Also, contemporary sources from that period support what I said. The estimated 40,000 figure written in the article is unfounded because even modern estimates are between 60,000-70,000. Kartal1071 (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
You are selectively reading what each cited source says, ignoring the outline of the battle described by each (i.e. the desertions!) to cherrypick which numbers you can use to imply as big a difference as possible between Byzantine and Seljuk manpower during the battle. You have essentially stated this as being your aim, and it's facially dishonest and totally unacceptable. Given your history with this article, I don't see what else I can do if you continue to make POV-pushing edits without consensus save go to ANI about it. Remsense ‥ 论 15:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
In addition, the events that followed the Battle of Manzikert (the decline of Byzantium, the Crusades, etc.) support the claim that the Battle of Manzikert was a very large-scale war. It is incomprehensible that a large empire like the Eastern Roman Empire would fall into decline with the defeat of an army of 40,000 (and it is said that half of them abandoned the battlefield). Kartal1071 (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
These extrapolations are your original research and matter exactly zero in this discussion. I'm not going to argue with them, I'm only going to ask you a final time to stop conflating what are plainly pre- and post-defection numbers for the Byzantines in the article, or I have to find external assistance in preventing damage to the article. Remsense ‥ 论 15:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The result line currently says “Seljuk victory”. Given the historical significance and the clarity needed, I suggest changing it to “Decisive Seljuk victory”, which is more precise and aligns with other Wikipedia battle result descriptions. Hakan.66.23 (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The style guide for the military history project discourages this. Please see MOS:DECISIVE. Favonian (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)