Talk:Battle of Manzikert

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 ]

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

I thought I was the only one to mix the two up, but the first paragraph in the article does too. ~2025-37214-53 (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Kurds were at the Battle of Manzikert. Sources from the period confirm this.

Kürt-Türk İliskilerinde Merkezî İktidar İstisnai, Yerel Yönetimler İse Kuraldır, Ali Fırat. GEÇMİŞTEN GÜNÜMÜZE KÜRT- TÜRK İLİŞKİLERİ, Issue 31, page 7 Xoyba (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Woxic1589: here is another source that clearly confirms the Kurds' participation in the battle;

• Tārīkh Ibn Abī al-Hayjāʾ, by ʿIzz al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Hayjāʾ al-Hadhbānī al-Irbilī (d. ca. 630 AH / 1232 CE), 1st ed., 1413 AH, 1 vol., pp. 118–119.

About the year 1071 “The King of the Romans advanced toward Manzikert and captured it. The Sultan and the King of the Romans confronted each other on Friday at the time of prayer. Ten thousand Kurds had already gathered with the Sultan, while the King had one hundred thousand fighters. When the time of prayer came, the Sultan threw down his bow, took up a mace, and they charged against the Romans and defeated them. Only a few escaped, and the King of the Romans was captured.”

Here are some other articles and studies that indicate Kurdish participation:

• “The Marwanids had provided at least 10,000 volunteers to Sultan Alparslan’s army according to both Yinanc and Osman Turan, another prominent Turkish historian on the history of the Seljuks, indicating the early signs of historic Turkish-Kurdish alliance against the Byzantium Empire and other powers.”
• Mustafa Onur Tetik, “Nomads and Mountaineers: A Historical Survey of Turk/Turkmen–Kurd Interrelations,” Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2020, pp. 118. “Some Kurdish tribal battalions joined Seljuk Turkmen military campaign against the Byzantines in the 1071 Battle of Manzikert. Especially the Kurdish Marwanids helped Sultan Alparslan who led the Turkmens in the war.“ Sulaimanl (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

There are only a few sources, and they are all based on the claim of ‘’10,000 Kurdish irregulars joined the Sultan’s army’’. These are in fact mostly modern claims, unfounded by the historical Byzantine and Seljuk/ME sources. This can also be understood by the fact of lack of detail about their ‘’alleged’’ participation in the battle itself (which position, how did they help, why did they join the Seljuk army, when and how did they join the Seljuks etc). In the same way, Arab and Persian irregulars would als have been involved in the battle, yet no specific details provided by the sources. I’m not saying that it can’t be true. I’m just saying that lots of modern politics are involved in these claims from the 2-3 sources (see Turkey and the ongoing ‘’Kurdish peace process’’). Woxic1589 (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I see your point, but however participation claim is supported by both medieval and modern historians, including Sibt ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn Abī al-Hayjāʾ al-Hadhbānī, Osman Turan, İbrahim Kafesoğlu, and Mustafa Onur Tetik. The presence of multiple independent references meets Wikipedia’s verifiability standard.

The lack of detailed battlefield description is common in medieval sources, especially regarding irregular or auxiliary forces, and does not invalidate their recorded presence. Therefore, the information can be included with neutral attribution and appropriate weight rather than excluded entirely. Sulaimanl (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m still not agreeing with this point as there are sources that claim that the Kurds were not involved at all (definitely not independently), on the Seljuk side. Let alone as ‘’support to the Seljuks’’: In fact, some even claim that they were on the Byzantine side at first, and were forced to join the Seljuk army as Vassals, after which their independence ended: . Some mercenaries being of Kurdish origin wouldn’t really change anything at all, as there would also have been Armenians, Arabs, Persian etc on their side as well. Turkish sources highly dispute the sources you shared here, which are all based on one specific source. No Seljuk era source (neither in Arabic nor Persian) claims anything that the Sultan Alp Arslan asked the Merwanids/Kurds for help or anything like that. Woxic1589 (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You raise valid concerns about the limitations of the sources. However, since the claim appears in medieval sources such as Sibt ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn Abī al-Hayjāʾ al-Hadhbānī (they wrote roughly about a century after the battle), it can still be included in the article with proper attribution, and it can be noted that there is disagreement among historians regarding the issue. Sulaimanl (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, you can leave a ‘’disputed’’ note. Tho you can also ask for a third editor’s opinion on this case. Woxic1589 (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Kurdish forces did not participate at Manzikert. This is almost certainly Kurdish propaganda. ~2026-11955-81 (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

At the strenght of forces it says kurdish forces send 10,000 troops. This is unsourced and unreliable and should be removed. ~2026-11955-81 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)