Was there betrayal in Matzikert?

[Kyriakos]

The battle of Matzikert, in 1071, was a very crucial battle between the Byzantine Empire and the Seljuks, resulting in a disastrous defeat of the empire, and the capture of Emperor Romanos Diogenes.

I have only read one book about it, but from it i gathered that it is argued (at least by this author) that Diogenes was betrayed by his court, and mostly by the noble Psellos, who is said to have orchestrated the loss of that battle with the end of expelling Diogenes from power.

I want to ask our resident Byzantine scholars how supported and mainstream (or not) this view is, that a most byzantine plot was behind that defeat.

For those who aren't familiar with this, i should also note that after the battle of Matzikert the empire lost (forever) a huge part of Cappadokia, and all of the armenian lands, making its position a lot more difficult to defend, and eventually leading to the first crusade, thus opening the road for the horrible fourth crusade.

 

[Dachs]

It's generally accepted in most modern reconstructions of the campaign of Manzikert that the Byzantines lost the engagement because of some form or other of treachery. Some authors disagree on whether that treachery actually changed anything - Michael Angold, for instance, argues that Romanos IV's operational and strategic plans were foolish and doomed to failure because he was attempting to resurrect and use an obsolete arm of service, the thematic troops, while Warren Treadgold tends to give him credit for actually trying to solve the Turkish raiding problem and concentrates blame on men like Tarchaneiotes and Andronikos Doukas whose betrayal led to the emperor's capture.

The jury's honestly out as to whether there was a conspiracy at court before the battle, or merely a general feeling of opposition to his rule that turned into conspiracy on the news of the defeat. I doubt it'll ever be definitively solved. However, of all the people that could conceivably have been at fault for the whole thing, Psellos probably isn't one. His conspiracy days and bureaucratic maneuvering were pretty much over since the deposition of Isaakios I Komnenos. It would make more sense to focus on the Doukades.

 

[bombshoo]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but wasn't there some general who went missing just before the battle? Is that the conspiracy?

 

[Dachs]

That's referring to Tarchaneiotes. It might have been conspiracy, might have been incompetence, might have been a failure of concentration (military concentration, that is). We don't know, because the sources don't tell us what the hell happened to him. The "treachery" explanation is currently fairly popular.

During the engagement itself - if the "battle" can be called that, since there was barely any fighting - one of the Byzantine generals, Andronikos Doukas, sounded a general retreat at a poor time, causing the Emperor to be left out nearly alone with only his personal guard, which is why he was captured. It's unknown whether Doukas was involved in a conspiracy or not, but combined with the Tarchaneiotes units' disappearance, some scholars have deemed it likely. It might have been a miscommunication, though. We're honestly not sure.

 

[r16]

standart Turkish primary school history says there were Peçenek and Kıpçak mercenaries in Byzantian service , who could not resist the call to the wild . Modern day Turkish politics has seen a couple of people deserve respect today only because they betrayed the Bizans back then , so the constitution has to be amended on their behalf , because there would be no Turkey if their ancestors had not stabbed the Rum in the back . ı also fancy new found Greekness of that time was not that good for Armenians .