Matzikert analysis someone can find shuerly alot through the internet or even better in specializied books...
The Articels that I provide are among the best someone can find in Magazines...with alot of details...
Unfortune it is in greek...but i ashure you there is no intension from the writer to make false statments or bad analysis..

Some of the important factors of the lose are pure treason towards the Emperor Romanos...The decatent state of Byzantium, with its buerocrats/Technocrats and traitors...
Money gained the first place of importants in the City of Constantinopel...
Man like Pselos and Dukas...were the bigest traitors which even guided the defeat of the battle...from distance

Another interesting point is..(and maybe the only strategic mistake of Romanos) that he divided hes force by sending hes best troups (around 20 000 man ) to take the fortification in the south of Matzikert to stop Alp Arslan...

3. He didnt expected that Alp Arslan managed to come from Syria back to Maztikert in a few days with 20 000 cavalary...riding the hell out of hes horses and man...


4. finally the main battle...were the sighn of "metalaxon thesis" change position...backwards...was taken as retreat...given the fact that the 20 000 man which Romanos expectet to come also to the battlefield...never came...But left the emperor alone in the battlefield...guided by the hands of the treitors Pselos and Dukas...

I would aprieciete if someone with better english could make a resume of the articel...better than mine...so our Turkish friends could participate with there infos/questions/knowledge because there more details in the articel of great importans...

Thanks in adnvance...

I remember reading stuff about Alp Arslan persuading the Kipchaks(? maybe CDTRF can clarify this btter) to defect to his side in the battle field which worsened the situation for Byzantines.

Few other interesting points,

It is said Alp Arslan released defeted Byzantium Emperor after the battle who was then killed in by burning his eyes and other torture.

Fate of Alp Arslan is also intersting ;

Yes indeed Cardesh...
Though about the first info...I dont know..it mention
That the 20 000 man who were ordered to go to Hliat didnt come ever to the main battle of Matzikert...but were found 150 km south of Matzikert...
This force were under the commant of a frankish Knight and a Byzantine who haid 'orders" to do so directly from Pselos or Dukas...

About the death of Alp Arslan...indeed its interesting how he died...and how he treated the Emperor...

He asked hem how he should treat hem...and Romanos...said like an Emperor...Alp Arslan said Yes...But after Alp Arslan asked hem how he would treated Hem...if he was hes prisoner..Romanos said...he would torture hem...(Not very nice,But spoken the trueth...)

So Alp Arslan reliesed hem...But it would be better for Romanos if he killed hem there instead...

Here the rest of the articel..

One interesting thing i realised. The article is telling a war that was fought basicly between Turks and Greeks (supported by some other Christians) , however it lacks any Turkish publication as a resource. Very interesting imo :)

What do you mean by that...?

I mean it says...Turkish tribes..Alp Arslan was the leader of the Selchuks no ?

Another point is...that in many occasions the Byzantines used/made alliance with Turkoman tribes...
we didnt haid in that time Nation states as we know them today...
This time...Romanos catched the occasion to finish Alp Arslan...who fought the Arabs in Syria...and Persia...
Romanos haid a peace treaty with Alp Arslan...But alot of the turkish tribes in Minor Asia...didnt follow Orders by Alp Arslan...and invaded all time the Byzantine area...
so time given the Byzantine Emperor saw it as a oppurtunity to finish them of...
But didnt count with alot of "other" parameters...

It would be interested to catch more info abouted ...so we can compare some history facts...


Thanks and Regards

If you look at the last page you posted, there is a part which is written like bibliogaphy(?) , the one at the end of the article.. I think that is the resources which they used to publish this article right?

They used many Western and Greek publications about the battle but not even one Turkish book/publication.

I dont mean that the article is biased or something like that. Its just i'd expect them to take a look at what Turks also say about the battle when writing such article.

Ah yes ...now I understood...

Yes you are right...they could..But they critisize enough the Chronographs of Byzatnium and some westerners....so i Think they manage to give us the image very truethfull and un-biased
Thats why i selected also to add this articel in the WCF...
There is much critisizm and details about the emperor and the Byzantin upper class...

About the battle...also are alot of critisism...and of corse alot of explanation...
all in all...i think its a rare article which is very good written dear friend...

Of corse I would like to Hear ...any objection/analysis or anything else...

after someone is making a resume of the articel...(Better than my pittifull english...lol)

Regards

I would very much like to read it as well. Thanks ;)

Alp Arslan (his name means "Lion Hero" or "Courageous Lion"), second sultan of the Seljuq Turks (1063–72), who inherited the Seljuq territories of Khorasan and western Iran and went on to conquer Georgia, Armenia, and much of Asia Minor (won from the Byzantines).

Alp-Arslan was the son of Chaghri Beg (Çağrı Bey), the ruler of Khorasan in Iran, and the nephew of Toghrïl (Tuğrul Bey), the governor of western Iran, the base of Seljuq expansion.

Alparslan respected and behaved warmly to General Romanos in his presence. He consoled him. They talked for a while, and then Alparslan asked:

-If you were the one who took me captive, what would you do? The Byzantian Chief Commander replied:

-Perhaps I would kill you, or I would take you to Istanbul to exhibit in the streets. Victorious commander looked at Romanos with merciful eyes, he said:

-My punishment is even heavier... I will forgive you. You are free.

Malazgirt victory comprised a victory for the future conquests by Seljukian Turkish Beys in Anatolia, and Sultan Alparslan went back to Rey and Hamedan.


In his tomb, there is the following inscription:

-O those who saw the sky-high grandeur of Alparslan, see! He is under this under that black soil now.

brother,I have just seen,sorry not to post my answer on time...

well, you know Kipchanks or Pachenegs or Kumans...they are all same.

It will be long but I must add more resources in one article to understand who they are and what was the importance of them;

Pacheneg-Byzantium friendship started in 915 because of the will of emperor Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos who needed military support against Russians and Danube Bulgarians by mediation of his commander Khersones in southern Crimea. They sent envoys and gifts to Pacheneg leaders from Istanbul frequently Commercial activity between the sides was vivid. They sold vax, glue, precios skin etc. against clothes, spices, paint and ornaments and jewels which Pacheneg women were much fond of. But the Pachenegs were not at ease. Uzes (Oghuzes), who drove them from their country beyond Volga were advancing toward the west and increasing their pressure on Pacheneg eastern front in the vicinity of Oka-Sura where they came from.

At last, some of the Pachenegs went to Hungary and settled down there between 942 and 970, and the main mass began to shift toward west gradually. In the first quarter of 11th century, it was seen that Pachenegs were declining towards Dniester and today's Besarabya. Russians were the ones to avail themselves of this situation which weakened Pacheneg domination very much. Knez Yaroslav, blew a heavy strike on Pachenegs in the war in the vicinity of Kiyef with his army fortified with Normans, Slovens, and Novgorods (1036). Pachenegs were merely ignored, the political relations were ceased.

On the other hand, since Emperor Basileos the 2nd ("Bulgarokton") solved the Bulgarian problem and no more needed foreign assistance, the contacts between the Empire and Pachenegs in "state level" had ended. Such condiiton drew Pacheneg raids on Balkans (1026, 1035, 1036). Bulgaria, Macedonia, Thrace were destroyed. However, for Byzantine historian Kedrenos (11th Century), Pachenegs "who occupied the southern area of Danube from Dnieper river to Pannonia (Western Hungary)", in some time started a conflict between 11 clans of Pachenegs leaded by Turak and other leader Kegen who claimed dominance (10ı8), which resulted in taking refuge of the latter in Byzantium.

Kegen accepted Christianity and Turak was taken captive in the war and became a Christian. After that, although on one hand the struggle between Pachenegs and Byzantium continued, on the other hand, Pacheneg masses were populated in Byzantium borders (Bulgaria) as guardians and many Pachenegs served in Byzantine army and such paid soldiers whose number increased particularly after 1048 were sent to Anatolia against Seljukians. However, 15.000 pacheneg horsemen brought to Uskudar side by order of Konstantinos Monomakhos did not accept such duty according to Byzantine sources (Kedrenos, Zonaras), and since the ships in the bosphorus were intentionally lifted, swam on their horses across the Bosphorus, landed on Rumelia, and turned back to Danube (1050), and then some of the Pacheneg forces in Byzantine army took Seljukian side in Malazgirt battle in 1071.

The reason of the civil war among Pachenegs was their failure to resist Uzes who constantly drove them out but whom themselves had to cross Danube in 1048 because of Kipchaks. This nation which was called directly "tork" (=Turk. And in other forms Torky, Toruky etc. rarely Torkmen= Turkmen. There is no "ü" letter in Russian) and as "Uz" in Byzantine sources are a part of Oghuzes and occupied the place where Pachenegs lived beyond Volga by driving them out of there (860-870) and then shifted toward the west. Although Russian historians recorded that some "Tork" people took part in the expedition by Knez Vladimir against Itil Bulgarians in 9985 (probably because of alliance of Kiyef Knez country and Oghuz Yabgu state), their immigration to Kiyef Knez country bourder should have occurred after Pachenegs disappearance in Russia being defeated in 1036. This is because in Russian chronicles contain such qualification of Torks in 1054.

1048 movement shows that true Uz mass was spread to Dnieper region as far as southern Kiyef Russia. However, Russian Knezes managed to drive Uzes away from their region. Crowded Uzes who withdrew to West being defeated on the sudden attack in 1060 (600 thousand people as to Byzantine historian Attaleiates) crossed Danube by breaking Byzantium and Bulgarian resistance in 1065 and looted Thrace and Macedonia after Pachenegs, and advanced to Salonika and even Paleponezos. Such unexpected event made Western world curious and afraid. However, this rapid invasion could not turn to be an occupation. The attacks of Pachenegs, who wanted to take revenge as well as contagious diseases Uzes caught resulted in perishing of Uzes. The remaining people attempted to raid on Hungary (1068), but could not succeed. Uz remnants, not comprising a force any more, were partially admitted to Byzantine army and partially were distributed to various regions. Those who turned back to Southern Russia were settled down around Kiyef.

We see that Pachenegs, who passed to Balkans because of Uz pressure, and fought violent and successful wars against Byzantium between 1050 and 1051, recovered themselves. As a matter of fact, their violent conflicts against Byzantium also continued in emperor Aleksios 1 Kommenos period (1081-1091) and such wars, as attracted attention of some investigators, facilitated conquest of Anatolia by Seljukians.

Pacheneg leader Çelgil'nuti, after advancing as far as Luleburgaz together with Hungarian King St. Laszlö and his forces, got injured and died (1086) upon which Pachenegs routed under leadership of Tatus and with their armies fortified with Kipchaks the Byzantine army under command of Emperor Aleksios in 1087 in Derster Silistre).

In the wars between 1088 and 1090, Byzantine forces under Emperor's command were defeated again and again and they dominated on Thrace as far as Edirne and Kesan., and approached Cekmece in late 1090's. Byzantine Empire lived one of the most worst moments of its history. This was because Pachenegs were in cooperation with people of their tribe in Anatolia. Izmir Bey Çakan, who dominated Aegean Sea by having conquered some of the islands with his strong navy for a period of nearly 10 years and who was from Cavuldur clan of Oghuzes could manage to contact with Pacheneg leaders to conquer Istanbul. The condition of Byzantium between Pachenegs in Edirne, Cakan's navy in Aegean Sea, and Seljukians on Marmara coasts in 1091 spring resembled the very days before conquest of Istanbul by Fatih.

The Emperor had started applying European Christian world which moved them as soon as possible. Although Aleksios could not get necessary help from the West on time, he could manage to save himself from the situation endangering his empire at Turkish hands. He agreed with the leaders of Kipchaks called Tııgorkan (or Tugor Khan) or Bonek (Bonyak) who followed Uzes as far as Balkans and made him attack on Pacheneg forces headquartered on the coast of Meric river in Lebunium (Omurbey position) waiting for Cakan's approaching the coasts. Pachenegs were totally overwhelmed on raid of 40 thousand Kuman spahids (29 April 1091). The remaining Pachenegs were seperated and thus arrived at the end of their political histor.

Those who went to Hungary were inhabited near Peste and Ferto provinces. Some of them mingled with Oghuzes and Kipchaks. The ones staying in Balkans were mostly inhabited along Vardar riiver. It is said that Meglino-Ulahs in Macedonia and Sop-Bulgars around Sofia are of Pacheneg origin. Some local names and folk myths enliven the memories of Pachenegs in Anatolia, Serbia, Russia, Hungary and Caucasus.

Pachenegs are the first Turkish tribe of the last great immigration wave from Middle Asia to west (9th 11th centuries). B) They were one of the masses included in Gok-Turk country. Probably they lived near Isik lake-Balkas to constitute some of On-oks (Turgishes) and after dissolution of Gok-Turk country (in mid-7th century) maybe because of strengthening of Karluk state, had to withdraw to Western Siberia because of Oghuz movement toward Seyhun river (2nd half of 8th century). Kasgarli Mahmud's indicating Pachenegs as an Oghuz tribe shows Oghuz-Pacheneg conflicts and neighborhood. For Byzantium emperor K. Porphyrogennetos, a squadron of Pachenegs, who had to withdraw to west due to Oghuz pressure stayed with Oghuzes (Oghuz Pachenegs), who are supposed to be the "Pachenegs" in the Oghuz lists of Kasgarli.




regards,
CDTRF

I was quite sure of their involvement in Malazgirt battle and , their aid to Alp Arslan and threachery to Romanos. They changed sides because of the kinship oh Kipchaks and Oguz Turks .. At least thats what the books i read about it says.. I am not quite sure tho.. My memory is so fvcked up.. So i might be hallucinating :hammer:

Very good addition Clearday...Thank you

actually the articel refferes to Alp Arslan also as the Lion of the stepes...

Now about the treachery you mention above...Emperor Romanos haid no Turkoman allias in this particular Battle ...
(maybe he better should...no ?...lol)

Thanks for the effort again

Regards

Excellent article. One important point to note is that the Turks did not pursue the defeated army (which had considerable strength left, but its morale broken) immidiatly after the battle. After the capture of Romanos, civil war broke out, which allowed Turkish groups to cross the frontier and settle down.

Well actually the the area was already ready for Turkish settlements due to the raging wars between Arabs and Byzantium for almost a century. The battle and the civil war after it just accelarated the rate Turks advanced into Western Anatolia.

It is true that east Asia Minor area was ravaged in the 2 centuries following the Arabic conquests of Cilicia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt, mainly due to the choice of Byzantine strategy. This strategy was to allow raiding parties to enter Byzantine territory, allow them to pillage the countryside, while the thematic armies trailed and picked off lone pillaging parties with the aim of exhausting the raiders and finally ambush them on their way home when they were laden with booty. Civilians were to stay in walled cities, mountains and caves. This strategy of avoiding decisive and possible catastrophic battles paid dividends in the longterm. By the mid 800s the Byzantines had recovered enough to stop raiding and be able to raid Arabic territories themselves. Charismatic leaders wrote excellent tactical and operational manuals which when applied had devastating effect on the battlefield. From that point on the Asia Minor countryside was improving with the result of many local aristocrats to be rich enough to field small private armies, which were used many times against the emperor.

This is a very, very condensated version of the Byzantine history between Heraclius and Basil II and I would be more than happy to discuss on the subject.

@Koursaros
Kool.. I didnt know about this details, its always interesting to hear history from the adversary. Our history books dont focus too much on Byzantium history. The basic fact we know is when Turks came to settle, Byzantium had its own problems and the wars against Arabs earlier hadnt helped them much. Unfortunately i am not very knowledgable about this period of history but i'd gladly read more detils concerning the article above and the said periods.

here is a map of asia minor 30 years after Matzikert,byzantium was still entrenched in asia minor,ofcourse that would eventually change

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1100.htm