Byzantine–Seljuk wars

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Byzantine–Seljuk Wars
)

Byzantine–Seljuk wars
Part of
Syria
Result

Military stalemate

  • Seljuks conquer parts of Anatolia prior to their collapse to the Mongols
Belligerents
Crusader States
Abbasid Caliphate
Strength c. 1071:
Could raise up to 100,000 troops
1140:
25,000 to 50,000 field troops Unknown

The Byzantine–Seljuk wars were a series of conflicts in the

Abbasid Caliphates in the Levant, North Africa and Asia Minor.[1]

The

Byzantine military was of questionable quality before 1071 with regular Turkish incursions overrunning the failing theme system. Even after Manzikert, Byzantine rule over Asia Minor did not end immediately, nor were any heavy concessions levied by the Turks on their opponents – it took another 20 years before the Turks were in control of the entire Anatolian peninsula and not for long either.[3]

During the course of the war, the Seljuk Turks and their allies attacked the

ghazi and the conclusive Byzantine–Ottoman wars.[4]

Origins

origin of the Turks.[5]

The decades after the death of the

Byzantine emperor Basil II (r. 976–1025) saw a long series of crises and a severe weakening of imperial authority and military power. This included a succession crisis and a series of weak Emperors under the increasing influence of bureaucrats in Constantinople. At the same time the efforts to restrain the ambitious provincial aristocrats kept at bay during Basil II reign failed. With the successes of the previous century, the Byzantine state had acquired more land and wealth. The spoils of war saw the enrichment of the military aristocracy. More and more land owned by free peasants came under the control of the dynatoi
class by varying means from purchase to intimidation to outright robbery. One major consequence of this was the reduction in available manpower to serve in the imperial armies. Added to this were the internal rivalry between the bureaucrats and military aristocracy. Bureaucrats sought to reduce the power and likelihood of the aristocrats to launch rebellions by freeing the yeomanry of military duty in place of providing tax revenue. This further put strain on the manpower needed to defend imperial territory. The factions increasingly relied on mercenaries, but these highly ambitious soldiers were unreliable and lawless.

For the twenty years preceding 1070, in almost every year there saw at least one major rebellion, including a large revolt of Armenians. This caused thematic armies to be drawn west or east depending on the rebellion and opened the borders to incursions by raiders whether the Normans of Sicily or Turkic horsemen from Central Asia or indeed the mercenaries roaming within the state. In addition, a combination of competition, rivalry and treachery between pretenders to the imperial throne saw the state paralysed to deal with the many issues facing the state.

By 1070 during the march on Manzikert, the Byzantine state was in a very precarious position largely of its own making, even on the verge of collapse and failed to secure the Empire against external threats. The biggest threat to the Empire since the Arab invasions were the Turks. The Turks were much like the Byzantines former enemies, the Huns. Combining their excellent riding skills with Islamic zeal, the Turks were to become a formidable enemy to a Christian state in decline.

As the Byzantines were making headway against the Arabs in the 10th century, Persia was being ruled by the

Turkic people. The migration of Seljuk Turks into Persia in the 10th century led to the Ghaznavids being overthrown. There they settled and adopted Persian language and customs.[6] The first encounter with the Byzantine Empire was in the Battle of Kapetron in 1048, in which the combined Byzantine-Georgian army won a tactical victory. Nevertheless, the Seljuks established a powerful domain and captured Baghdad in 1055 from the Abbasid Caliphate.[7] The Abbasids were henceforth a mere figurehead in the Islamic world. The Seljuk Turks, spurred on by their previous success, now launched an attack on the Levant and against Fatimid Egypt, which lost Jerusalem in 1071.[8]

When the Seljuk Turks did encounter the Byzantines, they had chosen a good time to attack. Byzantium was faced with weak rule,

Fatimid dynasty.[10]

Initial conflicts: 1048–1071

Topkapi Museum.[11]
A 15th-century French depiction of Manzikert (Paris, BnF ms. fr. 226, fol. 256r - Batul), with no accuracy applied to the weapons, tactics or clothing worn by the combatants. On the right, Alp Arslan steps on Romanus

In 18 September 1048, The

Iconium.[16] A Byzantine counterattack in 1069 drove the Seljuk Turks back from these lands. Further offensives by the Byzantine army drove the Turks back across the Euphrates.[17]

Despite this, the Seljuk Turks continued their incursions into Asia Minor, capturing Manzikert. The Byzantine Emperor

Romanus Diogenes led an army in an attempt to score a decisive blow against the Seljuks and add some military justification to his rule (which had seen the Norman conquest of southern Italy). During the march, Alp Arslan, the leader of the Seljuk Turks withdrew from Manzikert. His tactical withdrawal allowed his army to ambush the Byzantines, winning the decisive Battle of Manzikert on 26 August 1071.[18] The victory itself led to few gains at the time for the Seljuk Turks, but the civil chaos that resulted in the Byzantine Empire allowed the Seljuks and various other Turkic allies to swarm into Asia Minor.[19]

Turkic conquests: 1071–1096

Byzantine Empire 1081. By now, the Empire was in financial crisis at a time when increased taxes needed to be levied on a smaller population to raise revenue for increased defenses.

After Manzikert, the Seljuk Turks concentrated on their eastern territorial gains which were threatened by the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt although Alp Arslan encouraged other allied Turks and vassals to establish Beyliks in Asia Minor.[3] Many Byzantines at the time did not see the victory as a total disaster and when the Turks began occupying the countryside in Anatolia they began to garrison the Byzantine cities as well, not as foreign conquerors but as mercenaries requested by various Byzantine factions – one Byzantine Emperor even gave the city of Nicaea's defense to the invading Turks in 1078.[20]

The result of the civil war meant that pretenders to the Byzantine throne sought Turkic aid by conceding Byzantine territory. The loss of these cities such as Nicaea and another defeat in Anatolia led to a prolongation of the war. The civil conflict finally ended when

Marmara Sea
in 1094.

In 1094, Alexius Comnenus sent a message to Pope Urban II asking for weapons, supplies and skilled troops. At the Council of Clermont in 1095, the Pope preached a Crusade to be undertaken in order to capture Jerusalem and, in the process, assist the Byzantine Empire which could no longer guard Christendom in the East from Islamic aggression.[21] Though the Crusades would assist the Byzantine Empire in reconquering many vital Anatolian towns, it also led to the dissolution of the Empire in 1204 during which time the Byzantines struggled to hold on to their territories.

Byzantium survives: 1096–1118

A 15th century depiction of the siege of Antioch, with soldiers anachronistically shown wearing plate as opposed to mail armour.

The first Crusaders arrived in 1096 following Alexius' appeal to the West.[22] The agreement between the Byzantines and the Crusaders was that any Byzantine cities re-captured from the Turks would be handed over to the Empire.[23]

This was beneficial for the Crusaders as it meant that they did not have to garrison captured towns and lose troop strength whilst maintaining their supply lines. The Byzantines, in return, would supply the Crusaders with food in a hostile territory and Alexius' troops would act as a reserve to reinforce them in any dangerous situations. The Crusaders first set about attacking

Antioch in Pisidia, Heraclea and Caesarea all fell to the Crusaders and they reached as far as Cilicia where they allied with Cilician Armenia.[25]

Unfortunately for Alexius Comnenus, the Byzantines were unable to fully capitalize on these conquests with Caesarea returning to the Seljuks as a part of the Sultanate of Rum along with several other cities such as Iconium, the future capital of the Seljuk Turks. However, in a campaign in 1097 John Doukas, the megas doux (Alexios' brother-in-law), led both land and sea forces which re-established firm Byzantine control of the Aegean coastline and many inland districts of western Anatolia, taking the cities of Smyrna, Ephesus, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea and Choma from the demoralised Turks.[26]

Following their victories, the Crusaders went on to

Byzantine Emperor
was forced to turn back.

As a result of this apparent desertion of Alexius I, the Crusaders refused to hand back Antioch when they managed to defeat Kerbogah's scattered army.[28] With this resentment, the Crusaders largely abandoned assisting the Byzantines against the Seljuks and their allies. The follow-on Crusade of 1101 ended in total defeat[29] and the consolidation of Seljuk power in Asia Minor with Iconium (modern day Konya) being established as the capital of the Sultanate of Rûm.

Byzantine counter-attack: 1118–1180

father

The death of Alexius I brought

Danishmends. John Comnenus was able to use this to his advantage as he undertook a series of campaigns in Anatolia and Syria. John successfully captured the southern coast of Anatolia as far as Antioch, defeated an attempt by the Gabras family to form a breakaway state in Trebizond, and recaptured the ancestral home of the Comnenus family at Kastamonu. Despite this, Turkish resistance was strong and John did not capture the Seljuk capital at Iconium
, nor were all of his conquests held – the city of Gangra, captured by John in the 1130s, was lost again as the emperor had left it with a garrison of just 2,000 men.

John spent considerable time and effort on a series of campaigns in Syria, which emphasised his dominance over the local Crusader kingdoms, especially Edessa and Antioch, but resulted in no long-term territorial gains for the Byzantine Empire. The emperor did strengthen the Byzantine army by recruiting new divisions and establishing new castles, fortifications and training camps in Byzantine territory. However, the scale of resources poured into his campaigns in Syria was far greater than in Anatolia, suggesting that John viewed prestige as more important than long-term conquest. In 1143, a fatal hunting accident to the emperor John robbed the Byzantines of the opportunity to achieve further progress.[30]

John II died in 1143, leaving the Byzantine Empire a strong army, significant reserves of cash, and improved prestige. However, the new emperor,

Manuel Comnenus, directed much of his attention to Hungary, Italy, Serbia and the Crusader states rather than Anatolia. While Manuel was largely successful in defeating attacks on the empire and holding the Balkans, his policy in Italy was a failure and the lavish expenditure of his rule has been criticised, most notably by the Byzantine historian Choniates. During this period, the Seljuk Turks were able to subdue their enemies, the Danishmends, under Kilij Arslan II.[4] This resulted in a powerful centralised Turkish state based at Iconium
, leaving the Byzantines arguably in a worse position than they had been under John II.

For the time being, Manuel's policy was not without merit as the emperor established peaceful co-existence with the Sultan and initiated measures such as allowing Turkmen to pay for pasture on Byzantine land, which were clearly meant to deter raiding. The establishment of the theme of Neokastra on the northern part of the Aegean coast near Pergamon was also praised by Choniates. However, when Kilij Arslan refused to hand over the city of Sebastea, which he was bound to do under an earlier agreement with Manuel, the emperor declared war in 1176 and led a very large army estimated at around 30,000 men into Seljuk territory with the intent of taking its capital Iconium. However, the Byzantine force was ambushed in a mountain pass with consequent heavy losses to both sides. This battle, the Battle of Myriokephalon, resulted in the Byzantine campaign of conquest being abandoned.[31]

Byzantine territory in red, and the Sultanate of Iconium and Four Emirates in 1180 A.D. Due to the nature of the war and terrain, boundaries were constantly violated by raiding parties on both sides.

The battle was tactically indecisive with both leaders keen to seek peace. Following this Manuel's army continued to skirmish with the Turks in Anatolia, defeating them in a smaller but indecisive battle in the Meander Valley. Regardless of this small respite, Myriokephalon had far more decisive implications than the casualties would suggest – there was no more Byzantine reconquest in Asia Minor after 1176, leaving the process begun by Alexios incomplete at best. For the Seljuks, the acquisition of Danishmend territory gave them a victory though once again the Seljuks had to contend with neighbouring disputes leading to the peace treaty as requested by both leaders. By the terms of the treaty, Manuel was obliged to remove the armies and fortifications posted at Dorylaeum and Sublaeum.

However, Manuel Comnenus refused and when Kilij Arslan tried to enforce this treaty, a Turkish army invaded Byzantine territory and sacked a string of Byzantine cities as far as the Aegean coast, damaging the heartland of Byzantine control in the region. Nevertheless,

Claudiopolis in Bithynia was besieged by the Turks in 1179, forcing Manuel to lead a small cavalry force to save the city and then, even as late as 1180, the Byzantines succeeded in scoring a victory over the Turks.[34]

However, the continuous warfare did have a serious effect upon Manuel's vitality; he declined in health and in 1180 succumbed to a slow fever. Furthermore, like Manzikert, the balance between the two powers began to gradually shift – after Manuel's death, they began to move further and further west, deeper into Byzantine territory.

Seljuk Empire collapse: 1194–1260

In 1194, Togrul of the Seljuk empire was defeated by Takash (In Batul), the Shah of Khwarezmid Empire, and the Seljuk Empire finally collapsed. Of the former Seljuk Empire, only the Sultanate of Rûm in Anatolia remained. As the dynasty declined in the middle of the thirteenth century, the Mongols invaded Anatolia in the 1260s and divided it into smaller principalities called the Anatolian beyliks.

Summary

Though Anatolia had been under Roman rule for almost 1000 years, the Seljuks rapidly consolidated their holdings.[35] This allowed them to hold on to their lands and made it all the more difficult for the Byzantines during the Komnenian restoration to re-conquer. The result was that even when the Byzantine empire was not riddled with civil disputes, it could not defeat the Seljuk Turks, who rarely allowed the Byzantines to engage them, hence the slow campaigning of John Komnenus.

Aftermath of Manzikert.

The old Roman state was in a constant state of war due to the numerous enemies on its borders; Muslims to the South and East, Slavs to the North and Franks to the West. The Byzantine Empire had to face Normans, Pechenegs and Turks within a few decades of each other at a time when the army was torn in civil conflict.

The Middle East had been dominated for centuries by the power of the Fatimid Caliphate and the Byzantine Empire; by the end of the 13th century, neither of the two were in a position to project power; the Fatimids having been toppled by the Kurdish-influenced

Mamluks by the 14th century and then back to the Turks in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Never again would a Christian Kingdom wield so much military and political power in the Middle East. As the Turks steadily gained ground in Anatolia, the local population converted to Islam through Sufi activities,[36] further reducing any chances of a successful reconquest.[37]

Settlements and regions affected during the first wave of Turkish invasions in Asia Minor (11th–13th century)

The war also gave Western Christendom the opportunity to launch expeditions/pilgrimages to visit/liberate the Holy Land from Muslim Rule. In time, these Crusaders would establish their own fiefs in the Holy Land, ruling with interests coinciding, but more often in conflict with, the Byzantine Empire, ultimately leading to a weakening of both the Crusader states and the Byzantine Empire.[38]

For the Turks, it was the beginning of a new era of power. Despite further invasions and attacks by Crusaders from the west and the Mongols and Turkic tribes from the east, the Turks slowly emerged as a superpower under the Ottomans.[39] The rise of the Ottomans was parallel to the fall of the Sultanate of Rum and the carving up of the Byzantine Empire. The power vacuum left in Anatolia was easily exploited by one of the sultanate's nobles, Osman I. Matters were made worse for the Byzantine Empire due to the Latin presence in the Peloponnese and the rising power of the Bulgarians who continued to press hard against the borders of Byzantium. In time, the Byzantines would be forced to call on the aid of the Ottomans to head to the European mainland and fight the Bulgarians, giving the Ottoman Turks a firm grip on Europe. The close proximity of Osman's Beylik ensured that confrontation between the Byzantines and the Ottomans would be inevitable. The Byzantines were a match for the Ottomans but events west of Constantinople coupled with civil war and incompetent leadership in the Byzantine-Ottoman Wars led to the fall of Constantinople in 1453.[40]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Charanis, Peter (1969). "Chapter VI. The Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century." In Setton, Kenneth M.; Baldwin, Marshall W. (eds.). A History of the Crusades Vol. I: The First Hundred Years. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 99-132.
  2. ^ Findley 2005, p. 71.
  3. ^ a b Kaldellis, Anthony, Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade. (Onassis Series in Hellenic Culture), Oxford University Press, 2017
  4. ^ a b Houtsma, Martin Theodoor (1911). "Seljūks" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 24 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 608–611.
  5. ISBN 978-0-7566-1861-2
    . This map varies from other maps which are slightly different in scope, especially along the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
  6. ^ C. Edmund Bosworth, "Ghaznavids". Encyclopædia Iranica, Vol. X, Fasc. 6, pp. 578-583.
  7. ^ Christie, Niall (2006). "Abbāsids". In The Crusades - An Encyclopedia. pp. 1-3.
  8. ^ Cahen, Claude (1969). "Chapter V. The Turkish Invasion: The Selchükids." In Setton, Kenneth M.; Baldwin, Marshall W. (eds.). A History of the Crusades Vol. I: The First Hundred Years. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 99-132.
  9. ^ Edmund Curtis (1911). "Robert Guiscard". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. 23. (11th ed.), Cambridge University Press. pp. 400-401.
  10. ^ Gibb, Hamilton H. A. (1969). "Chapter III. The Caliphate and the Arab States". In Setton, Kenneth M.; Baldwin, Marshall W. (eds.). A History of the Crusades: Volume One. The First Hundred Years. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 81-98.
  11. ^ Yıldız, Osman Fikret (1 January 2019). Büyük Selçuklular Ve Nizamül-Mülk, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Isparta 2019,(Great Seljuks and Nizamal-Mulk). p. 93 Fig.4. Miniature from Reşîdüddîn, Câmiu't-Tevârîh, TSMK, Hazine, nr. 1654, vr. 202
  12. ^ "1048 Hasankale (Pasinler) War and Its Results" (in Turkish). Kocaeli Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi. 2022. p. 4.
  13. ^ a b Sullivan 2021, p. 317.
  14. ^ Brett, Michael (2006). "Saljūqs". In The Crusades - An Encyclopedia. pp. 1064-1068.
  15. ^ C. Edmund Bosworth, "Abbasic Caliphate". Encyclopædia Iranica, Vol. I, Fasc. 1, pp. 89-95.
  16. ^ Sherrard 1966, p. 164.
  17. ^ El-Azhari, T. Kamal (1997). The Saljūqs of Syria: during the Crusades, 463-549 A.H./1070-1154 A.D. Berlin: K. Schwarz.
  18. ^ Morris, Rosemary (2006). "[Mantzikert, Battle of (1071)". In The Crusades - An Encyclopedia. pp. 795-796.
  19. ^ Orient et Occident à la fin du XI siècle. In Cahen, C. La Syrie du nord à l'époque des croisades et la principauté franque d'Antioche (1940). Paris: P. Geuthner.
  20. ^ Markham, Paul. "The Battle of Manzikert: Military Disaster or Political Failure?". Archived from the original on 13 May 2007. Retrieved 19 May 2007.
  21. ^ Munro, Dana Carleton. (1906). The speech of Pope Urban II. at Clermont, 1095. [New York.
  22. ^ Madden 2005, p. 35.
  23. ^ a b c d Madden 2005, p. 40.
  24. ^ France, John (2006). "Dorylaion, Battle of (1097)". In The Crusades - An Encyclopedia. pp. 363-364.
  25. ^ Runciman, Steven (1969). "Chapter IX. The First Crusade: Constantinople to Antioch". In Setton, Kenneth M.; Baldwin, Marshall W. (eds.). A History of the Crusades Vol. I: The First Hundred Years. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 280-307.
  26. ^ Angold, Michael (1984). The Byzantine Empire 1025–1204. Longman, Harlow Essex. p.150
  27. ^ a b Madden 2005, pp. 42–43.
  28. ^ France, John (2006). "Antioch, Sieges of (1097-1098)". In The Crusades - An Encyclopedia. pp. 79-81.
  29. ^ Mulinder, Alec (2006). "Ramla, Second Battle of (1102)". In The Crusades - An Encyclopedia. p. 1006.
  30. ^ Morris, Rosemary (2006). "John II Komnenos (1087-1143)". In The Crusades - An Encyclopedia. pp. 687-688.
  31. ^ Baldwin, Marshall W. (1969). "Chapter XIX. The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem, 1174-1189". In Setton, Kenneth M.; Baldwin, Marshall W. (eds.). A History of the Crusades: Volume One. The First Hundred Years. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. p. 594.
  32. ISBN 90-04-11710-5
    .
  33. ISBN 0-8047-2421-0
    .
  34. ^ a b Stone, Andrew (2004). De Imperatoribus Romanis. "Manuel I Comnenus (A.D. 1143-1180)". Archived from the original on 5 October 2003.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  35. ^ Andrew Peacock, "Saljuqs of Rum". Encyclopædia Iranica. Online only. Updated 2010.
  36. ISSN 0972-0073
    .
  37. ^ Bentley & Ziegler 2006, p. 465.
  38. ^ Bréhier, Louis René. (1912). "Turkish Empire". In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
  39. ^ İnalcık, Halil (1989). "Chapter VII. The Ottoman Turks and the Crusades, 1329-1451". In Zacour, N. P., and Hazard, H. W. (ed.). A History of the Crusades: Volume VI. The Impact of the Crusades on Europe. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. pp.175-221.
  40. ^ İnalcık, Halil (1989). "Chapter VII. The Ottoman Turks and the Crusades, 1451-1522". In Zacour, N. P., and Hazard, H. W. (ed.). A History of the Crusades: Volume VI. The Impact of the Crusades on Europe. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 311-353.

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byzantine–Seljuk_wars&oldid=1220134082"