10

Major Conquests 1000-1500 A.D.
• Norman
• Turkish
• Aztec
• Inca
• Mongol
Norman Invasion of England; 1066
• READING ASSIGNMENT
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conqu
est_of_England
• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Williams_dominions_1087.jpg
William the Conqueror
• Descendant of Rollo—Viking; Norsemen
• Norman clan…subject to French King
• Potential heir to English throne
• Invades England Sept. 1066; Battle of Hastings,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm
ons/3/3c/England_1066.png
• Transition from Anglo/Saxon to Norman Culture
• Land to Norman owners in exchange for military
duty and oaths of loyalty (Feudalism)
• Doomsday Book-record of land ownership taxes
owed…1086
• Norman language (French/Norse); Latin officially
• Retained basic English law structures (Common
Law)
• Church less in Nobles’ control; King and Pope
• Longer term consequences:
Crusades—loyal to Pope and French King
Friction between French and English—next 800
years—major conflicts in Western Europe
Tied British to Europe…same history…with variations
Strong Papal influence in Britain for next 400 years
Turkish Invasion
• READING ASSIGNMENT:
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%
80%93Seljuq_wars
• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/11_13th_century_Asia_Minor_Turkish_Invasions.
png
Turkish Invasion
• North Central Asian warriors enter Middle East
around 900 A.D. Become Muslim; Early
leader Seljuk (Seljuq)--
• Overthrow Persia, establish kingdom by 1063
included all of Mesopotamia and Palestine
• Expand north into Asia Minor: Constant
conflict with Byzantium; 1071 Battle of
Manzikert;
• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/com
mons/4/44/Malazkirt_Manzikert_battle_camp
aign_map_1071.png
ons/4/44/Malazkirt_Manzikert_battle_campai
gn_map_1071.png
Early Turkish Importance
• Reign lasted until early 1200’s; overcome by
Mongols
• Although basically religiously tolerant, threat
that led Byzantium to ask for Western’s
Europe’s help—Crusades ensued
• Turned Asia Minor into “Turkey”, with
language, Islam, culture
Ottoman Empire
• READING ASSIGNMENT: First two sections:
Rise of the Ottoman Empire (1299-1452) and
Classical Age (1453-1550) found at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_
Ottoman_Empire
Turkish rule in Asia Minor interrupted
by Mongols for 100 years, but after
1300 back in hands of Turks
• At first mostly about fighting against
Byzantium and raiding into Europe
• By 1400, control of most of Asia Minor and
Balkans, victories against Venetians/Crusaders
at Battles of Kosovo( 1389) and Nicopolis
(1396). Following time of decline, return to
conquest and expansion into Europe as far as
Hungary in 1430s-1450s;
Constantinople to Istanbul
• 1453, Ottoman finally took control of
Constantinople; renamed Istanbul, effective end
of Byzantine Empire.
• Next 100 years great expansion, especially with
navel power in Mediterranean.
• Religious tolerance; welcomed especially Jewish
refugees from Spain; taxes and soldiers.
• 16th Cent allied with France, etc. against Holy
Roman Empire
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e
/ed/Ottoman_Empire_16-17th_century.jpg
Implications for 1300-1500
• Control of trade routes, both silk road and spice
routes (land and sea), between India, S.E. Asia,
China and Europe; need for European
exploration—DeGama, Columbus, Magellan
• Spread of Islam into Balkans and eastern Europe
• Imperial rival of Holy Roman Empire and Italian
City States
• Instilled fear into Europe--Reformation
Aztec Empire
• Beginning around 1200, northern migratory
tribes enter grand basin around today’s
Mexico City. Last group, the Mexica, entered
around 1250
• Next few generations gained control of major
city-states in basin: Mexico-
Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan.
Tenochtitlan dominates.
• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/com
mons/thumb/0/04/Aztecexpansion.png/450p
x-Aztecexpansion.png
ons/thumb/0/04/Aztecexpansion.png/450px-
Aztecexpansion.png
Aztec Expansion
• By 1450 secured most of Mexcio Basin and
control economy and religion.
• Warfare constant, with captured people
regularly sacrificed to gods of war.
• Trade with other cultures central to life—from
Southwest North America to Costa Rica—
linked Meso America pre-Spanish Conquest in
1519; Mexica as name for land
“The Aztecs left rulers of
conquered cities in power so long
as they agreed to pay semi-
annual tribute to the Alliance, as
well as supply military forces when
needed for the Aztec war efforts. In
return, the imperial authority
offered protection and political
stability, and facilitated an
integrated economic network of
diverse lands and peoples who had
significant local autonomy.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azte
c_Empire
Inca Empire
• Reading assignment: Mark Cartwright article
in Inca Civilization found at
https://www.ancient.eu/Inca_Civilization/
Inca Empire
• Around 1438, tribal group speaking the
Quechua language expand control over others.
Next 120 years, largest empire in Americas;
spanning over 3800 miles north to south—
lasted until 1530s—Spanish and smallpox
overcame
• Inca—ruling class—capital in Cusco;
• Around 1450 royal estate/religious center in
Machu Picchu.
Inca Empire
ons/3/34/Inca-expansion.png
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2196/2217911855
_72003f2b27_b.jpg
Inca Empire
• Consolidation of west coast of South America;
Spanish came, one empire to conquer.
• Consolidation of wealth in hands of nobility
Mongol Conquest
• Reading Assignment: Mongol Invasion and
Conquests at
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire
Norman conquest of England - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England
Norman conquest of England

The Norman Conquest of England
(in Britain, often called the Norman
Conquest or the Conquest) was the
11th-century invasion and occupation of
England by an army of Norman, Breton,
Flemish, and French soldiers led by the
Duke of Normandy, later styled William
the Conqueror.
William's claim to the English throne

derived from his familial relationship
with the childless Anglo-Saxon king
Edward the Confessor, who may have
encouraged William's hopes for the
throne. Edward died in January 1066 and
was succeeded by his brother-in-law
Harold Godwinson. The Norwegian king
Harald Hardrada invaded northern
England in September 1066 and was
victorious at the Battle of Fulford, but Location of major events during the Norman conquest of England in
Godwinson's army defeated and killed 1066
Hardrada at the Battle of Stamford
Bridge on 25 September. Within days,
William landed in southern England. Harold marched south to oppose him, leaving a significant portion of his army in
the north. Harold's army confronted William's invaders on 14 October at the Battle of Hastings; William's force
defeated Harold, who was killed in the engagement.
Although William's main rivals were gone, he still faced rebellions over the following years and was not secure on his
throne until after 1072. The lands of the resisting English elite were confiscated; some of the elite fled into exile. To
control his new kingdom, William granted lands to his followers and built castles commanding military strongpoints
throughout the land. Other effects of the conquest included the court and government, the introduction of the Norman
language as the language of the elites, and changes in the composition of the upper classes, as William enfeoffed lands
to be held directly from the king. More gradual changes affected the agricultural classes and village life: the main
change appears to have been the formal elimination of slavery, which may or may not have been linked to the invasion.
There was little alteration in the structure of government, as the new Norman administrators took over many of the
forms of Anglo-Saxon government.
Contents
1 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
Origins
Tostig's raids and the Norwegian invasion
Norman invasion
Norman preparations and forces
Landing and Harold's march south
Hastings
Aftermath of Hastings
English resistance
First rebellions
Revolts of 1069
Danish troubles
Last resistance
Control of England
Consequences
Elite replacement
English emigration
Governmental systems
Language
Immigration and intermarriage
Society
Historiography
Notes
Citations
References
External links
Origins
In 911 the Carolingian French ruler Charles the Simple allowed a group of Vikings under their leader Rollo to settle in
Normandy as part of the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for the land, the Norsemen under Rollo were
expected to provide protection along the coast against further Viking invaders.[1] Their settlement proved successful,
and the Vikings in the region became known as the "Northmen" from which "Normandy" and "Normans" are
derived.[2] The Normans quickly adopted the indigenous culture as they became assimilated by the French, renouncing
paganism and converting to Christianity.[3] They adopted the langue d'oïl of their new home and added features from
their own Norse language, transforming it into the Norman language. They intermarried with the local population[4]
and used the territory granted to them as a base to extend the frontiers of the duchy westward, annexing territory
including the Bessin, the Cotentin Peninsula and Avranches.[5]
In 1002 English king Æthelred the Unready married Emma of Normandy, the sister of Richard II, Duke of
Normandy.[6] Their son Edward the Confessor, who spent many years in exile in Normandy, succeeded to the English
throne in 1042.[7] This led to the establishment of a powerful Norman interest in English politics, as Edward drew
heavily on his former hosts for support, bringing in Norman courtiers, soldiers, and clerics and appointing them to
positions of power, particularly in the Church. Childless and embroiled in conflict with the formidable Godwin, Earl of
Wessex and his sons, Edward may also have encouraged Duke William of Normandy's ambitions for the English
2 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
throne.[8]
When King Edward died at the beginning of 1066, the lack of a clear heir led to a
disputed succession in which several contenders laid claim to the throne of
England.[9] Edward's immediate successor was the Earl of Wessex, Harold
Godwinson, the richest and most powerful of the English aristocrats. Harold was
elected king by the Witenagemot of England and crowned by the Archbishop of
York, Ealdred, although Norman propaganda claimed the ceremony was performed
by Stigand, the uncanonically elected Archbishop of Canterbury.[9][10] Harold was
immediately challenged by two powerful neighbouring rulers. Duke William
claimed that he had been promised the throne by King Edward and that Harold had
sworn agreement to this;[11] King Harald III of Norway, commonly known as Harald
Hardrada, also contested the succession. His claim to the throne was based on an
agreement between his predecessor, Magnus the Good, and the earlier English king,
Harthacnut, whereby if either died without heir, the other would inherit both
England and Norway.[12][a] William and Harald at once set about assembling troops
and ships to invade England.[16][b]
Tostig's raids and the Norwegian

invasion
In early 1066, Harold's exiled brother, Tostig Godwinson, raided southeastern
13th-century depiction of
England with a fleet he had recruited in Flanders, later joined by other ships from
Rollo (top) and his
Orkney.[c] Threatened by Harold's fleet, Tostig moved north and raided in East descendants William I
Anglia and Lincolnshire, but he was driven back to his ships by the brothers Edwin, Longsword and Richard I of
Earl of Mercia, and Morcar, Earl of Northumbria. Deserted by most of his followers, Normandy
Tostig withdrew to Scotland, where he spent the summer recruiting fresh forces.
[23][d] King Harold spent the summer on the south coast with a large army and fleet
waiting for William to invade, but the bulk of his forces were militia who needed to harvest their crops, so on 8
September Harold dismissed them.[24]
King Harald Hardrada invaded northern England in early September, leading a fleet of more than 300 ships carrying
perhaps 15,000 men. Harald's army was further augmented by the forces of Tostig, who threw his support behind the
Norwegian king's bid for the throne. Advancing on York, the Norwegians defeated a northern English army under
Edwin and Morcar on 20 September at the Battle of Fulford.[25] The two earls had rushed to engage the Norwegian
forces before King Harold could arrive from the south. Although Harold Godwinson had married Edwin and Morcar's
sister Ealdgyth, the two earls may have distrusted Harold and feared that the king would replace Morcar with Tostig.
The end result was that their forces were devastated and unable to participate in the rest of the campaigns of 1066,
although the two earls survived the battle.[26]
Hardrada moved on to York, which surrendered to him. After taking hostages from the leading men of the city, on 24
September the Norwegians moved east to the tiny village of Stamford Bridge.[27] King Harold probably learned of the
Norwegian invasion in mid-September and rushed north, gathering forces as he went.[28] The royal forces probably
took nine days to cover the distance from London to York, averaging almost 25 miles (40 kilometres) per day. At dawn
on 25 September Harold's forces reached York, where he learned the location of the Norwegians.[29] The English then
3 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
marched on the invaders and took them by surprise, defeating them in the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Harald of
Norway and Tostig were killed, and the Norwegians suffered such horrific losses that only 24 of the original 300 ships
were required to carry away the survivors. The English victory was costly, however, as Harold's army was left in a
battered and weakened state, and far from the English Channel.[28]
Norman invasion
Norman preparations and forces

William assembled a large invasion fleet and an army gathered from Normandy and all over France, including large
contingents from Brittany and Flanders.[30] He mustered his forces at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme and was ready to cross
the Channel by about 12 August.[31] The exact numbers and composition of William's force are unknown.[32] A
contemporary document claims that William had 726 ships, but this may be an inflated figure.[33] Figures given by
contemporary writers are highly exaggerated, varying from 14,000 to 150,000 men.[34] Modern historians have offered
a range of estimates for the size of William's forces: 7000–8000 men, 1000–2000 of them cavalry;[35] 10,000–12,000
men;[34] 10,000 men, 3000 of them cavalry;[36] or 7500 men.[32] The army would have consisted of a mix of cavalry,
infantry, and archers or crossbowmen, with about equal numbers of cavalry and archers and the foot soldiers equal in
number to the other two types combined.[37] Although later lists of companions of William the Conqueror are extant,
most are padded with extra names; only about 35 individuals can be reliably claimed to have been with William at
Hastings.[32][38][e]
William of Poitiers states that William obtained Pope Alexander II's consent for the invasion, signified by a papal
banner, along with diplomatic support from other European rulers. Although Alexander did give papal approval to the
conquest after it succeeded, no other source claims papal support before the invasion.[f] William's army assembled
during the summer while an invasion fleet in Normandy was constructed. Although the army and fleet were ready by
early August, adverse winds kept the ships in Normandy until late September. There were probably other reasons for
William's delay, including intelligence reports from England revealing that Harold's forces were deployed along the
coast. William would have preferred to delay the invasion until he could make an unopposed landing.[40]
Landing and Harold's march south

The Normans crossed to England a few days after Harold's victory over the
Norwegians at Stamford Bridge on 25 September, following the dispersal of
Harold's naval force. They landed at Pevensey in Sussex on 28 September
and erected a wooden castle at Hastings, from which they raided the
surrounding area.[30] This ensured supplies for the army, and as Harold
Landing in England scene from the and his family held many of the lands in the area, it weakened William's
Bayeux Tapestry, depicting ships opponent and made him more likely to attack to put an end to the
coming in and horses landing
raiding.[41]
Harold, after defeating his brother Tostig and Harald Hardrada in the
north, left much of his force there, including Morcar and Edwin, and marched the rest of his army south to deal with
the threatened Norman invasion.[42] It is unclear when Harold learned of William's landing, but it was probably while
he was travelling south. Harold stopped in London for about a week before reaching Hastings, so it is likely that he
took a second week to march south, averaging about 27 miles (43 kilometres) per day,[43] for the nearly 200 miles (320
4 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
kilometres) to London.[44] Although Harold attempted to surprise the Normans, William's scouts reported the English
arrival to the duke. The exact events preceding the battle remain obscure, with contradictory accounts in the sources,
but all agree that William led his army from his castle and advanced towards the enemy.[45] Harold had taken up a
defensive position at the top of Senlac Hill (present-day Battle, East Sussex), about 6 miles (10 kilometres) from
William's castle at Hastings.[46]
Contemporary sources do not give reliable data on the size and composition of Harold's army, although two Norman
sources give figures of 1.2 million or 400,000 men.[47] Recent historians have suggested figures of between 5000 and
13,000 for Harold's army at Hastings,[48] but most agree on a range of between 7000 and 8000 English troops.[49][50]
These men would have comprised a mix of the fyrd (militia mainly composed of foot soldiers) and the housecarls, or
nobleman's personal troops, who usually also fought on foot. The main difference between the two types was in their
armour; the housecarls used better protecting armour than that of the fyrd. The English army does not appear to have
had many archers, although some were present.[49] The identities of few of the Englishmen at Hastings are known; the
most important were Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine.[32] About 18 other named individuals can reasonably be
assumed to have fought with Harold at Hastings, including two other relatives.[39][g]
Hastings
The battle began at about 9 am on 14 October 1066 and lasted all day, but
while a broad outline is known, the exact events are obscured by
contradictory accounts in the sources.[51] Although the numbers on each
side were probably about equal, William had both cavalry and infantry,
including many archers, while Harold had only foot soldiers and few
archers.[52] The English soldiers formed up as a shield wall along the ridge,
and were at first so effective that William's army was thrown back with
heavy casualties. Some of William's Breton troops panicked and fled, and
some of the English troops appear to have pursued the fleeing Bretons.
Norman cavalry then attacked and killed the pursuing troops. While the
Bretons were fleeing, rumours swept the Norman forces that the duke had
been killed, but William rallied his troops. Twice more the Normans made
Likely depiction of Harold's death
feigned withdrawals, tempting the English into pursuit, and allowing the
from the Bayeux Tapestry
Norman cavalry to attack them repeatedly.[53] The available sources are
more confused about events in the afternoon, but it appears that the
decisive event was the death of Harold, about which different stories are told. William of Jumieges claimed that Harold
was killed by the duke. The Bayeux Tapestry has been claimed to show Harold's death by an arrow to the eye, but this
may be a later reworking of the tapestry to conform to 12th-century stories that Harold had died from an arrow wound
to the head.[54] Other sources stated that no one knew how Harold died because the press of battle was so tight around
the king that the soldiers could not see who struck the fatal blow.[55] William of Poitiers gives no details at all about
Harold's death.[56]
Aftermath of Hastings
The day after the battle, Harold's body was identified, either by his armour or marks on his body.[h] The bodies of the
English dead, who included some of Harold's brothers and his housecarls, were left on the battlefield,[58] although
some were removed by relatives later.[59] Gytha, Harold's mother, offered the victorious duke the weight of her son's
5 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
body in gold for its custody, but her offer was refused. William ordered that Harold's body be thrown into the sea, but
whether that took place is unclear.[58] Another story relates that Harold was buried at the top of a cliff.[60] Waltham
Abbey, which had been founded by Harold, later claimed that his body had been buried there secretly.[58] Later
legends claimed that Harold did not die at Hastings, but escaped and became a hermit at Chester.[59]
After his victory at Hastings, William expected to receive the submission of the surviving English leaders, but instead
Edgar the Ætheling[i] was proclaimed king by the Witenagemot, with the support of Earls Edwin and Morcar, Stigand,
the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ealdred, the Archbishop of York.[62] William therefore advanced, marching around
the coast of Kent to London. He defeated an English force that attacked him at Southwark, but being unable to storm
London Bridge he sought to reach the capital by a more circuitous route.[63]
William moved up the Thames valley to cross the river at Wallingford, Berkshire; while there he received the
submission of Stigand. He then travelled north-east along the Chilterns, before advancing towards London from the
north-west, fighting further engagements against forces from the city. Having failed to muster an effective military
response, Edgar's leading supporters lost their nerve, and the English leaders surrendered to William at Berkhamsted,
Hertfordshire. William was acclaimed King of England and crowned by Ealdred on 25 December 1066, in Westminster
Abbey.[63][j] The new king attempted to conciliate the remaining English nobility by confirming Morcar, Edwin and
Waltheof, the Earl of Northumbria, in their lands as well as giving some land to Edgar the Ætheling. William remained
in England until March 1067, when he returned to Normandy with English prisoners, including Stigand, Morcar,
Edwin, Edgar the Ætheling, and Waltheof.[65]
English resistance
First rebellions
Despite the submission of the English nobles, resistance continued for several years.[66] William left control of England
in the hands of his half-brother Odo and one of his closest supporters, William fitzOsbern.[65] In 1067 rebels in Kent
launched an unsuccessful attack on Dover Castle in combination with Eustace II of Boulogne.[66] The Shropshire
landowner Eadric the Wild,[k] in alliance with the Welsh rulers of Gwynedd and Powys, raised a revolt in western
Mercia, fighting Norman forces based in Hereford.[66] These events forced William to return to England at the end of
1067.[65] In 1068 William besieged rebels in Exeter, including Harold's mother Gytha, and after suffering heavy losses
managed to negotiate the town's surrender.[68] In May, William's wife Matilda was crowned queen at Westminster, an
important symbol of William's growing international stature.[69] Later in the year Edwin and Morcar raised a revolt in
Mercia with Welsh assistance, while Gospatric, the newly appointed Earl of Northumbria,[l] led a rising in
Northumbria, which had not yet been occupied by the Normans. These rebellions rapidly collapsed as William moved
against them, building castles and installing garrisons as he had already done in the south.[71] Edwin and Morcar again
submitted, while Gospatric fled to Scotland, as did Edgar the Ætheling and his family, who may have been involved in
these revolts.[72] Meanwhile, Harold's sons, who had taken refuge in Ireland, raided Somerset, Devon and Cornwall
from the sea.[73]
Revolts of 1069
Early in 1069 the newly installed Norman Earl of Northumbria, Robert de Comines, and several hundred soldiers
accompanying him were massacred at Durham; the Northumbrian rebellion was joined by Edgar, Gospatric, Siward
Barn and other rebels who had taken refuge in Scotland. The castellan of York, Robert fitzRichard, was defeated and
6 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
killed, and the rebels besieged the Norman castle at York. William hurried
north with an army, defeated the rebels outside York and pursued them
into the city, massacring the inhabitants and bringing the revolt to an
end.[74] He built a second castle at York, strengthened Norman forces in
Northumbria and then returned south. A subsequent local uprising was
crushed by the garrison of York.[74] Harold's sons launched a second raid
The remains of Baile Hill, the from Ireland and were defeated in Devon by Norman forces under Count
second motte-and-bailey castle built Brian, a son of Eudes, Count of Penthièvre.[75] In August or September
by William in York
1069 a large fleet sent by Sweyn II of Denmark arrived off the coast of
England, sparking a new wave of rebellions across the country. After
abortive raids in the south, the Danes joined forces with a new Northumbrian uprising, which was also joined by
Edgar, Gospatric and the other exiles from Scotland as well as Waltheof. The combined Danish and English forces
defeated the Norman garrison at York, seized the castles and took control of Northumbria, although a raid into
Lincolnshire led by Edgar was defeated by the Norman garrison of Lincoln.[76]
At the same time resistance flared up again in western Mercia, where the forces of Eadric the Wild, together with his
Welsh allies and further rebel forces from Cheshire and Shropshire, attacked the castle at Shrewsbury. In the south-
west, rebels from Devon and Cornwall attacked the Norman garrison at Exeter but were repulsed by the defenders and
scattered by a Norman relief force under Count Brian. Other rebels from Dorset, Somerset and neighbouring areas
besieged Montacute Castle but were defeated by a Norman army gathered from London, Winchester and Salisbury
under Geoffrey of Coutances.[76] Meanwhile, William attacked the Danes, who had moored for the winter south of the
Humber in Lincolnshire, and drove them back to the north bank. Leaving Robert of Mortain in charge of Lincolnshire,
he turned west and defeated the Mercian rebels in battle at Stafford. When the Danes attempted to return to
Lincolnshire, the Norman forces there again drove them back across the Humber. William advanced into
Northumbria, defeating an attempt to block his crossing of the swollen River Aire at Pontefract. The Danes fled at his
approach, and he occupied York. He bought off the Danes, who agreed to leave England in the spring, and during the
winter of 1069–70 his forces systematically devastated Northumbria in the Harrying of the North, subduing all
resistance.[76] As a symbol of his renewed authority over the north, William ceremonially wore his crown at York on
Christmas Day 1069.[70]
In early 1070, having secured the submission of Waltheof and Gospatric, and driven Edgar and his remaining
supporters back to Scotland, William returned to Mercia, where he based himself at Chester and crushed all remaining
resistance in the area before returning to the south.[76] Papal legates arrived and at Easter re-crowned William, which
would have symbolically reasserted his right to the kingdom. William also oversaw a purge of prelates from the
Church, most notably Stigand, who was deposed from Canterbury. The papal legates also imposed penances on
William and those of his supporters who had taken part in Hastings and the subsequent campaigns.[77] As well as
Canterbury, the see of York had become vacant following the death of Ealdred in September 1069. Both sees were filled
by men loyal to William: Lanfranc, abbot of William's foundation at Caen, received Canterbury while Thomas of
Bayeux, one of William's chaplains, was installed at York. Some other bishoprics and abbeys also received new bishops
and abbots and William confiscated some of the wealth of the English monasteries, which had served as repositories
for the assets of the native nobles.[78]
Danish troubles
In 1070 Sweyn II of Denmark arrived to take personal command of his fleet and renounced the earlier agreement to
7 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
withdraw, sending troops into the Fens to join forces with English rebels
led by Hereward the Wake,[m] at that time based on the Isle of Ely. Sweyn
soon accepted a further payment of Danegeld from William, and returned
home.[80] After the departure of the Danes the Fenland rebels remained at
large, protected by the marshes, and early in 1071 there was a final outbreak
of rebel activity in the area. Edwin and Morcar again turned against
William, and although Edwin was quickly betrayed and killed, Morcar
reached Ely, where he and Hereward were joined by exiled rebels who had
sailed from Scotland. William arrived with an army and a fleet to finish off
this last pocket of resistance. After some costly failures the Normans
managed to construct a pontoon to reach the Isle of Ely, defeated the rebels
at the bridgehead and stormed the island, marking the effective end of Coin of Sweyn II of Denmark
English resistance.[81] Morcar was imprisoned for the rest of his life;
Hereward was pardoned and had his lands returned to him.[82]
Last resistance
William faced difficulties in his continental possessions in 1071,[83] but in 1072 he returned to England and marched
north to confront King Malcolm III of Scotland.[n] This campaign, which included a land army supported by a fleet,
resulted in the Treaty of Abernethy in which Malcolm expelled Edgar the Ætheling from Scotland and agreed to some
degree of subordination to William.[82] The exact status of this subordination was unclear – the treaty merely stated
that Malcolm became William's man. Whether this meant only for Cumbria and Lothian or for the whole Scottish
kingdom was left ambiguous.[84]
In 1075, during William's absence, Ralph de Gael, the Earl of Norfolk, and Roger de Breteuil the Earl of Hereford,
conspired to overthrow him in the Revolt of the Earls.[85] The exact reason for the rebellion is unclear, but it was
launched at the wedding of Ralph to a relative of Roger's, held at Exning. Another earl, Waltheof, despite being one of
William's favourites, was also involved, and some Breton lords were ready to offer support. Ralph also requested
Danish aid. William remained in Normandy while his men in England subdued the revolt. Roger was unable to leave
his stronghold in Herefordshire because of efforts by Wulfstan, the Bishop of Worcester, and Æthelwig, the Abbot of
Evesham. Ralph was bottled up in Norwich Castle by the combined efforts of Odo of Bayeux, Geoffrey of Coutances,
Richard fitzGilbert, and William de Warenne. Norwich was besieged and surrendered, and Ralph went into exile.
Meanwhile, the Danish king's brother, Cnut, had finally arrived in England with a fleet of 200 ships, but he was too late
as Norwich had already surrendered. The Danes then raided along the coast before returning home.[85] William did
not return to England until later in 1075, to deal with the Danish threat and the aftermath of the rebellion, celebrating
Christmas at Winchester.[86] Roger and Waltheof were kept in prison, where Waltheof was executed in May 1076. By
that time William had returned to the continent, where Ralph was continuing the rebellion from Brittany.[85]
Control of England
Once England had been conquered, the Normans faced many challenges in maintaining control.[88] They were few in
number compared to the native English population; including those from other parts of France, historians estimate the
number of Norman landholders at around 8000.[89] William's followers expected and received lands and titles in
return for their service in the invasion,[90] but William claimed ultimate possession of the land in England over which
his armies had given him de facto control, and asserted the right to dispose of it as he saw fit.[91] Henceforth, all land
8 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
was "held" directly from the king in feudal tenure in return for military service.[91] A
Norman lord typically had properties located in a piecemeal fashion throughout
England and Normandy, and not in a single geographic block.[92]
To find the lands to compensate his Norman followers, William initially confiscated
the estates of all the English lords who had fought and died with Harold and
redistributed part of their lands.[93] These confiscations led to revolts, which
resulted in more confiscations, a cycle that continued for five years after the Battle
of Hastings.[90] To put down and prevent further rebellions the Normans
constructed castles and fortifications in unprecedented numbers,[94] initially mostly
on the motte-and-bailey pattern.[95] Historian Robert Liddiard remarks that "to
The Tower of London,
glance at the urban landscape of Norwich, Durham or Lincoln is to be forcibly
originally begun by William
reminded of the impact of the Norman invasion".[96] William and his barons also
the Conqueror to control
London[87] exercised tighter control over inheritance of property by widows and daughters,
often forcing marriages to Normans.[97]
A measure of William's success in taking control is that, from 1072 until the Capetian conquest of Normandy in 1204,
William and his successors were largely absentee rulers. For example, after 1072, William spent more than 75 per cent
of his time in France rather than England. While he needed to be personally present in Normandy to defend the realm
from foreign invasion and put down internal revolts, he set up royal administrative structures that enabled him to rule
England from a distance.[98]
Consequences
Elite replacement
A direct consequence of the invasion was the almost total elimination of the old English aristocracy and the loss of
English control over the Catholic Church in England. William systematically dispossessed English landowners and
conferred their property on his continental followers. The Domesday Book meticulously documents the impact of this
colossal programme of expropriation, revealing that by 1086 only about 5 per cent of land in England south of the Tees
was left in English hands. Even this tiny residue was further diminished in the decades that followed, the elimination
of native landholding being most complete in southern parts of the country.[99][100]
Natives were also removed from high governmental and ecclesiastical office. After 1075 all earldoms were held by
Normans, and Englishmen were only occasionally appointed as sheriffs. Likewise in the Church, senior English office-
holders were either expelled from their positions or kept in place for their lifetimes and replaced by foreigners when
they died. By 1096 no bishopric was held by any Englishman, and English abbots became uncommon, especially in the
larger monasteries.[101]
English emigration
Following the conquest, many Anglo-Saxons, including groups of nobles, fled the country[102] for Scotland, Ireland, or
Scandinavia.[103] Members of King Harold Godwinson's family sought refuge in Ireland and used their bases in that
country for unsuccessful invasions of England.[69] The largest single exodus occurred in the 1070s, when a group of
Anglo-Saxons in a fleet of 235 ships sailed for the Byzantine Empire.[103] The empire became a popular destination for
9 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
many English nobles and soldiers, as the Byzantines were in need of

mercenaries.[102] The English became the predominant element in the elite
Varangian Guard, until then a largely Scandinavian unit, from which the
emperor's bodyguard was drawn.[104] Some of the English migrants were
settled in Byzantine frontier regions on the Black Sea coast, and established
towns with names such as New London and New York.[102]
Depiction of the Varangian Guard

from the 12th-century Madrid
Governmental systems
Skylitzes
Before the Normans arrived, Anglo-
Saxon governmental systems were more
sophisticated than their counterparts in
Normandy.[105][106] All of England was divided
into administrative units called shires, with
subdivisions; the royal court was the centre of
government, and a justice system based on local
and regional tribunals existed to secure the rights
of free men.[107] Shires were run by officials
known as shire reeves or sheriffs.[108] Most
medieval governments were always on the move,
Page from the holding court wherever the weather and food or
Warwickshire Domesday other matters were best at the moment;[109] English counties in 1086
survey England had a permanent treasury at Winchester
before William's conquest.[110] One major reason
for the strength of the English monarchy was the wealth of the kingdom, built on the
English system of taxation that included a land tax, or the geld. English coinage was also superior to most of the other
currency in use in northwestern Europe, and the ability to mint coins was a royal monopoly.[111] The English kings had
also developed the system of issuing writs to their officials, in addition to the normal medieval practice of issuing
charters.[112] Writs were either instructions to an official or group of officials, or notifications of royal actions such as
appointments to office or a grant of some sort.[113]
This sophisticated medieval form of government was handed over to the Normans and was the foundation of further
developments.[107] They kept the framework of government but made changes in the personnel, although at first the
new king attempted to keep some natives in office. By the end of William's reign most of the officials of government
and the royal household were Normans. The language of official documents also changed, from Old English to Latin.
The forest laws were introduced, leading to the setting aside of large sections of England as royal forest.[108] The
Domesday survey was an administrative catalogue of the landholdings of the kingdom, and was unique to medieval
Europe. It was divided into sections based on the shires, and listed all the landholdings of each tenant-in-chief of the
king as well as who had held the land before the conquest.[114]
Language
One of the most obvious effects of the conquest was the introduction of Anglo-Norman, a northern Old Norse-
influenced dialect of Old French, as the language of the ruling classes in England, displacing Old English. Norman
French words entered the English language, and a further sign of the shift was the usage of names common in France
10 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
instead of Anglo-Saxon names. Male names such as William, Robert and Richard soon became common; female names
changed more slowly. The Norman invasion had little impact on placenames, which had changed significantly after
earlier Scandinavian invasions. It is not known precisely how much English the Norman invaders learned, nor how
much the knowledge of Norman French spread among the lower classes, but the demands of trade and basic
communication probably meant that at least some of the Normans and native English were bilingual.[115] Nevertheless,
William the Conqueror never developed a working knowledge of English and for centuries afterwards English was not
well understood by the nobility.[116]
Immigration and intermarriage

An estimated 8000 Normans and other continentals settled in England as a result of the conquest, although exact
figures cannot be established. Some of these new residents intermarried with the native English, but the extent of this
practice in the years immediately after Hastings is unclear. Several marriages are attested between Norman men and
English women during the years before 1100, but such marriages were uncommon. Most Normans continued to
contract marriages with other Normans or other continental families rather than with the English.[117] Within a
century of the invasion, intermarriage between the native English and the Norman immigrants had become common.
By the early 1160s, Ailred of Rievaulx was writing that intermarriage was common in all levels of society.[118]
Society
The impact of the conquest on the lower levels of English society is difficult
to assess. The major change was the elimination of slavery in England,
which had disappeared by the middle of the 12th century.[119] There were
about 28,000 slaves listed in Domesday Book in 1086, fewer than had been
enumerated for 1066. In some places, such as Essex, the decline in slaves
was 20 per cent for the 20 years.[120] The main reasons for the decline in
slaveholding appear to have been the disapproval of the Church and the
cost of supporting slaves, who unlike serfs, had to be maintained entirely by
their owners.[121] The practice of slavery was not outlawed, and the Leges Modern-day reconstruction of an
Henrici Primi from the reign of King Henry I continue to mention Anglo-Saxon village at West Stow
slaveholding as legal.[120]
Many of the free peasants of Anglo-Saxon society appear to have lost status and become indistinguishable from the
non-free serfs. Whether this change was due entirely to the conquest is unclear, but the invasion and its after-effects
probably accelerated a process already under way. The spread of towns and increase in nucleated settlements in the
countryside, rather than scattered farms, was probably accelerated by the coming of the Normans to England.[119] The
lifestyle of the peasantry probably did not greatly change in the decades after 1066.[122] Although earlier historians
argued that women became less free and lost rights with the conquest, current scholarship has mostly rejected this
view. Little is known about women other than those in the landholding class, so no conclusions can be drawn about
peasant women's status after 1066. Noblewomen appear to have continued to influence political life mainly through
their kinship relationships. Both before and after 1066 aristocratic women could own land, and some women
continued to have the ability to dispose of their property as they wished.[123]
Historiography
11 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
Debate over the conquest started almost immediately. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, when discussing the death of
William the Conqueror, denounced him and the conquest in verse, but the king's obituary notice from William of
Poitiers, a Frenchman, was full of praise. Historians since then have argued over the facts of the matter and how to
interpret them, with little agreement.[124] The theory or myth of the "Norman yoke" arose in the 17th century,[125] the
idea that Anglo-Saxon society had been freer and more equal than the society that emerged after the conquest.[126]
This theory owes more to the period in which it was developed than to historical facts, but it continues to be used to the
present day in both political and popular thought.[127]
In the 20th and 21st centuries historians have focused less on the rightness or wrongness of the conquest itself, instead
concentrating on the effects of the invasion. Some, such as Richard Southern, have seen the conquest as a critical
turning point in history.[124] Southern stated that "no country in Europe, between the rise of the barbarian kingdoms
and the 20th century, has undergone so radical a change in so short a time as England experienced after 1066".[128]
Other historians, such as H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, believe that the transformation was less radical.[124] In
more general terms, Singman has called the conquest "the last echo of the national migrations that characterized the
early Middle Ages".[129] The debate over the impact of the conquest depends on how change after 1066 is measured. If
Anglo-Saxon England was already evolving before the invasion, with the introduction of feudalism, castles or other
changes in society, then the conquest, while important, did not represent radical reform. But the change was dramatic
if measured by the elimination of the English nobility or the loss of Old English as a literary language. Nationalistic
arguments have been made on both sides of the debate, with the Normans cast as either the persecutors of the English
or the rescuers of the country from a decadent Anglo-Saxon nobility.[124]
Notes
a. Harthacnut was the son of King Cnut the Great and Emma of Normandy, and thus was the half-brother of Edward
the Confessor. He reigned from 1040 to 1042, and died without children.[13] Harthacnut's father Cnut had defeated
Æthelred's son Edmund Ironside in 1016 to claim the English throne and marry Æthelred's widow, Emma.[14] After
Harthacnut's death in 1042, Magnus began preparations for an invasion of England, which was only stopped by
his own death in 1047.[15]
b. Other contenders later came to the fore. The first was Edgar Ætheling, Edward the Confessor's great nephew who
was a patrilineal descendant of King Edmund Ironside. He was the son of Edward the Exile, son of Edmund
Ironside, and was born in Hungary, where his father had fled after the conquest of England by Cnut. After his
family's eventual return to England and his father's death in 1057,[17] Edgar had by far the strongest hereditary
claim to the throne, but he was only about thirteen or fourteen at the time of Edward the Confessor's death, and
with little family to support him, his claim was passed over by the Witenagemot.[18] Another contender was Sweyn
II of Denmark, who had a claim to the throne as the grandson of Sweyn Forkbeard and nephew of Cnut,[19] but he
did not make his bid for the throne until 1069.[20] Tostig Godwinson's attacks in early 1066 may have been the
beginning of a bid for the throne, but after defeat at the hands of Edwin and Morcar and the desertion of most of
his followers he threw his lot in with Harald Hardrada.[21]
c. Tostig, who had been Earl of Northumbria, was expelled from that office by a Northumbrian rebellion in late 1065.
After King Edward sided with the rebels, Tostig went into exile in Flanders.[22]
d. The King of Scotland, Malcolm III, is said to have been Tostig's sworn brother.[22]
e. Of those 35, 5 are known to have died in the battle – Robert of Vitot, Engenulf of Laigle, Robert fitzErneis, Roger
son of Turold, and Taillefer.[39]
f. The Bayeux Tapestry may possibly depict a papal banner carried by William's forces, but this is not named as
such in the tapestry.[40]
g. Of these named persons, eight died in the battle – Harold, Gyrth, Leofwine, Godric the sheriff, Thurkill of
Berkshire, Breme, and someone known only as "son of Helloc".[39]
12 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
h. A 12th-century tradition stated that Harold's face could not be recognised and Edith the Fair, Harold's common-law
wife, was brought to the battlefield to identify his body from marks that only she knew.[57]
i. Ætheling is the Anglo-Saxon term for a royal prince with some claim to the throne.[61]
j. The coronation was marred when the Norman troops stationed outside the abbey heard the sounds of those
inside acclaiming the king and began burning nearby houses, thinking the noises were signs of a riot.[64]
k. Eadric's by-name "the Wild" is relatively common, so despite suggestions that it arose from Eadric's participation
in the northern uprisings of 1069, this is not certain.[67]
l. Gospatric had bought the office from William after the death of Copsi, whom William had appointed in 1067. Copsi
was murdered in 1068 by Osulf, his rival for power in Northumbria.[70]
m. Although the epithet "the Wake" has been claimed to be derived from "the wakeful one", the first use of the epithet
is from the mid-13th century, and is thus unlikely to have been contemporary.[79]
n. Malcolm, in 1069 or 1070, had married Margaret, sister of Edgar the Ætheling.[70]
Citations
1. Bates Normandy Before 1066 pp. 8–10
2. Crouch Normans pp. 15–16
3. Bates Normandy Before 1066 p. 12
4. Bates Normandy Before 1066 pp. 20–21
5. Hallam and Everard Capetian France p. 53
6. Williams Æthelred the Unready p. 54
7. Huscroft Ruling England p. 3
8. Stafford Unification and Conquest pp. 86–99
9. Higham Death of Anglo-Saxon England pp. 167–181
10. Walker Harold pp. 136–138
11. Bates William the Conqueror pp. 73–77
12. Higham Death of Anglo-Saxon England pp. 188–190
13. Keynes "Harthacnut" Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England
14. Huscroft Norman Conquest p. 84
15. Stenton Anglo-Saxon England pp. 423–424
16. Huscroft Ruling England pp. 12–14
17. Huscroft Norman Conquest pp. 96–97
21. Thomas Norman Conquest pp. 33–34
22. Stenton Anglo-Saxon England pp. 578–580
26. Marren 1066 pp. 65–71
27. Marren 1066 p. 73
13 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
29. Marren 1066 pp. 74–75

31. Douglas William the Conqueror p. 192
32. Gravett Hastings pp. 20–21
33. Bennett Campaigns of the Norman Conquest p. 25
34. Lawson Battle of Hastings pp. 163–164
36. Marren 1066 pp. 89–90
37. Gravett Hastings p. 27
38. Marren 1066 pp. 108–109
39. Marren 1066 pp. 107–108
41. Marren 1066 p. 98
42. Carpenter Struggle for Mastery p. 72
43. Marren 1066 p. 93
46. Marren 1066 pp. 99–100
47. Lawson Battle of Hastings p. 128
49. Gravett Hastings pp. 28–34
50. Marren 1066 p. 105
55. Marren 1066 p. 137
60. Marren 1066 p. 146
62. Douglas William the Conqueror pp. 204–205
67. Williams "Eadric the Wild" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
14 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM

72. Williams English and the Norman Conquest pp. 24–27
75. Williams English and the Norman Conquest p. 35
79. Roffe "Hereward" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
87. Douglas William the Conqueror p. 216 and footnote 4
89. Carpenter Struggle for Mastery pp. 82–83
94. Chibnall Anglo-Norman England pp. 11–13
95. Kaufman and Kaufman Medieval Fortress p. 110
96. Liddiard Castles in Context p. 36
99. Thomas English and Normans pp. 105–137
100. Thomas "Significance" English Historical Review pp. 303–333
101. Thomas English and Normans pp. 202–208
102. Ciggaar Western Travellers pp. 140–141
103. Daniell From Norman Conquest to Magna Carta pp. 13–14
104. Heath Byzantine Armies p. 23
105. Thomas Norman Conquest p. 59
107. Loyn Governance of Anglo-Saxon England p. 176
108. Thomas Norman Conquest p. 60
15 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
113. Keynes "Charters and Writs" Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England p. 100
116. Crystal "Story of Middle English" English Language
118. Thomas Norman Conquest pp. 107–109
120. Clanchy England and its Rulers p. 93
121. Huscroft Ruling England p. 94
124. Clanchy England and its Rulers pp. 31–35
125. Chibnall Debate p. 6
126. Chibnall Debate p. 38
128. Quoted in Clanchy England and its Rulers p. 32
129. Singman Daily Life p. xv
References
Bates, David (1982). Normandy Before 1066. London: Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-48492-4.
Bates, David (2001). William the Conqueror. Stroud, UK: Tempus. ISBN 978-0-7524-1980-0.
Bennett, Matthew (2001). Campaigns of the Norman Conquest. Essential Histories. Oxford, UK: Osprey.
ISBN 978-1-84176-228-9.
Carpenter, David (2004). The Struggle for Mastery: The Penguin History of Britain 1066–1284. New York:
Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-014824-4.
Chibnall, Marjorie (1986). Anglo-Norman England 1066–1166. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
ISBN 978-0-631-15439-6.
Chibnall, Marjorie (1999). The Debate on the Norman Conquest. Issues in Historiography. Manchester, UK:
Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-4913-2.
Ciggaar, Krijna Nelly (1996). Western Travellers to Constantinople: the West and Byzantium, 962–1204. Leiden,
Netherlands: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-10637-6.
Clanchy, M. T. (2006). England and its Rulers: 1066–1307. Blackwell Classic Histories of England (Third ed.).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-0650-4.
Crouch, David (2007). The Normans: The History of a Dynasty. London: Hambledon & London.
ISBN 978-1-85285-595-6.
Crystal, David (2002). "The Story of Middle English". The English Language: A Guided Tour of the Language
(Second ed.). New York: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-100396-0.
Daniell, Christopher (2003). From Norman Conquest to Magna Carta: England, 1066–1215. London: Routledge.
ISBN 978-0-415-22216-7.
Douglas, David C. (1964). William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact Upon England. Berkeley: University of
California Press. OCLC 399137 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/399137).
Gravett, Christopher (1992). Hastings 1066: The Fall of Saxon England. Campaign. 13. Oxford, UK: Osprey.
ISBN 978-1-84176-133-6.
16 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
Hallam, Elizabeth M.; Everard, Judith (2001). Capetian France 987–1328 (Second ed.). New York: Longman.
ISBN 978-0-582-40428-1.
Heath, Ian (1995). Byzantine Armies AD 1118–1461. London: Osprey. ISBN 978-1-85532-347-6.
Higham, Nick (2000). The Death of Anglo-Saxon England. Stroud, UK: Sutton. ISBN 978-0-7509-2469-6.
Huscroft, Richard (2009). The Norman Conquest: A New Introduction. New York: Longman.
ISBN 978-1-4058-1155-2.
Huscroft, Richard (2005). Ruling England 1042–1217. London: Pearson/Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-84882-5.
Kaufman, J. E. & Kaufman, H. W. (2001). The Medieval Fortress: Castles, Forts, and Walled Cities of the Middle
Ages. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81358-0.
Keynes, Simon (2001). "Charters and Writs". In Lapidge, Michael; Blair, John; Keynes, Simon; Scragg, Donald.
Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 99–100. ISBN 978-0-631-22492-1.
Keynes, Simon (2001). "Harthacnut". In Lapidge, Michael; Blair, John; Keynes, Simon; Scragg, Donald. Blackwell
Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 229–230. ISBN 978-0-631-22492-1.
Lawson, M. K. (2002). The Battle of Hastings: 1066. Stroud, UK: Tempus. ISBN 978-0-7524-1998-5.
Liddiard, Robert (2005). Castles in Context: Power, Symbolism and Landscape, 1066 to 1500. Macclesfield, UK:
Windgather Press. ISBN 978-0-9545575-2-2.
Loyn, H. R. (1984). The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England, 500–1087. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-1217-0.
Marren, Peter (2004). 1066: The Battles of York, Stamford Bridge & Hastings. Battleground Britain. Barnsley, UK:
Leo Cooper. ISBN 978-0-85052-953-1.
Roffe, David (2004). "Hereward (fl. 1070–1071)" (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/13074). Oxford Dictionary
of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/13074 (https://doi.org
/10.1093%2Fref%3Aodnb%2F13074). Retrieved 29 March 2013. (subscription or UK public library membership
(http://www.oxforddnb.com/help/subscribe#public) required)
Singman, Jeffrey L. (1999). Daily Life in Medieval Europe. Daily Life Through History. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30273-2.
Stafford, Pauline (1989). Unification and Conquest: A Political and Social History of England in the Tenth and
Eleventh Centuries. London: Edward Arnold. ISBN 978-0-7131-6532-6.
Stenton, F. M. (1971). Anglo-Saxon England (Third ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-280139-5.
Thomas, Hugh M. (2003). The English and the Normans. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-925123-0.
Thomas, Hugh (2007). The Norman Conquest: England after William the Conqueror. Critical Issues in History.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7425-3840-5.
Thomas, Hugh M. (April 2003). "The Significance and Fate of the Native English Landowners of 1086". The
English Historical Review. 118 (476): 303–333. doi:10.1093/ehr/118.476.303 (https://doi.org
/10.1093%2Fehr%2F118.476.303). JSTOR 3490123 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3490123).
Walker, Ian (2000). Harold the Last Anglo-Saxon King. Gloucestershire, UK: Wrens Park.
ISBN 978-0-905778-46-4.
Williams, Ann (2003). Æthelred the Unready: The Ill-Counselled King. London: Hambledon & London.
ISBN 978-1-85285-382-2.
Williams, Ann (2004). "Eadric the Wild (fl. 1067–1072)" (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8512). Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/8512 (https://doi.org
/10.1093%2Fref%3Aodnb%2F8512). Retrieved 29 March 2013. (subscription or UK public library membership
(http://www.oxforddnb.com/help/subscribe#public) required)
17 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
Williams, Ann (2000). The English and the Norman Conquest. Ipswich, UK: Boydell Press.
ISBN 978-0-85115-708-5.
External links
Bibliographies for undergraduate students at the University of Sheffield, UK
(http://turbulentpriests.group.shef.ac.uk/the-norman-conquest-bibliographies/)
Essential Norman Conquest (https://web.archive.org/web/20070304102625/http:
//www.essentialnormanconquest.com/) from Osprey Publishing
Normans – a background to the Conquest (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/normans/background_01.shtml)
from the BBC
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norman_conquest_of_England&oldid=889718767"
This page was last edited on 27 March 2019, at 14:14 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
18 of 18 3/31/2019, 10:56 PM
Byzantine–Seljuq wars - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine–Seljuq_wars
Byzantine–Seljuq wars
The Byzantine–Seljuq Wars (Turkish: Bizans-Selçuklu Savaşları) were
Byzantine–Seljuq wars
a series of decisive battles that shifted the balance of power in Asia Minor
and Syria from the European Byzantine Empire to the Central Asian Seljuq. Date 1048 to 1308 (End of
Riding from the steppes of Central Asia, the Seljuq replicated tactics Sultanate of Rum)
practiced by the Huns hundreds of years earlier against a similar Roman Location Asia Minor
opponent but now combining it with new-found Islamic zeal; in many Territorial Most of Anatolia
ways, the Seljuq resumed the conquests of the Muslims in the Byzantine– changes permanently
Arab Wars initiated by the Rashidun, Umayyad and Abassid Caliphate in conquered by the
the Levant, North Africa and Asia Minor. Seljuqs.
Today, the Battle of Manzikert is widely seen as the moment when the Belligerents
Byzantines lost the war against the Turks; however the Byzantine military Byzantine Seljuq
was of questionable quality before 1071 with regular Turkish incursions Empire
overrunning the failing theme system. Even after Manzikert, Byzantine rule Empire of Seljuk Empire
over Asia Minor did not end immediately, nor were any heavy concessions Trebizond Sultanate of Rum
levied by the Turks on their opponents – it took another 20 years before The
the Turks were in control of the entire Anatolian peninsula and not for long Crusader
either. States
Strength
During the course of the war, the Seljuq Turks and their allies attacked the
Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt, capturing Jerusalem and catalyzing the call for c. 1071: unknown
the First Crusade. Crusader assistance to the Byzantine Empire was mixed Could
with treachery and looting, although substantial gains were made in the raise up
First Crusade. Within a hundred years of Manzikert, the Byzantines had to
(with Crusader assistance) successfully driven back the Turks from the 100,000
coasts of Asia Minor and extended their influence right down to Palestine troops
and even Egypt. Later, the Byzantines were unable to extract any more 1140:
assistance, and the Fourth Crusade even led to the sack of Constantinople. 25,000 to
Before the conflict petered out, the Seljuqs managed to take more territory 50,000
from the weakened Empire of Nicaea until the Sultanate itself was taken field
over by the Mongols, leading to the rise of the ghazis and the conclusive troops
Byzantine–Ottoman wars.
Contents
Origins
Initial Conflicts: 1064–1071
Turkic Conquests: 1071–1096
Byzantium Survives: 1096–1118
1 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
Byzantine counter-attack: 1118–1176

John II Comnenus
Manuel Comnenus
Byzantine Collapse 1180–1308
Analysis
Byzantine army
Crusades
Seljuq Turks
Conclusion
Consequences
See also
References
Further reading
Origins
The wars' distant origins lay in the formation of the Byzantine Empire
from the collapsing Roman Empire in the 4th century. Prior to the
formation of the Byzantine realm in the 3rd century AD, the Roman
Empire faced a severe military and political crisis; political
assassinations and dangerous campaigning led to 32 Emperors seizing
and losing power within 50 years of Roman history.[1] Matters were
made worse with an economic and demographic problem. The
population of the Roman Empire began to fall in the 4th century due
to a lack of conquest leading to a lack of slaves,[2] a vital and
The division of the Empire after the death significant group of people in the Empire. Reforms by Emperors like
of Theodosius I, ca.395 AD Constantine I and Theodosius I prolonged the Roman Empire but
superimposed on modern borders. nonetheless the Empire split into Eastern and Western Halves in 395
AD.[3] The Western Half (Western Roman Empire) was plagued by
barbarian invasions, collapsing in 476 AD whilst the Eastern Half
survived and began to undergo Hellenization[4] transforming into
what historians label today as the Byzantine Empire. Unlike the
Western Half of the Roman Empire, the Eastern Half experienced
fewer barbarian invasions although encounters with the Huns and
Persians kept the Byzantines busy enough from making any serious
Byzantine Empire in 1025 AD. recovery attempts in the West.
In the 7th and 8th centuries, the Byzantines experienced several co-
ordinated Arab invasions losing several vital provinces, such as Egypt and the Levant. A Byzantine resurgence under
the Macedonian Dynasty allowed the Byzantines to reconquer parts of Syria and Mesopotamia; in particular were the
efforts of Basil II who from the late 10th century to early 11th century transformed the Empire into the most powerful
state in the Medieval World.[5]
Despite this, the Byzantines were far from safe. The decades after the death of Basil II 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
2 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
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 this Dynatoi class by
varying means from purchase to intimidation to outright robbery. One
major consequence of this was the reduction in available manpower to The Seljuq Turks at their greatest
serve in the imperial armies. Added to this were the internal rivalry extent, in 1092. To the North East in
between the bureaucrats and military aristocracy. Bureaucrats sought to North Western China (Altay
Mountains) lies a probable origin of
reduce the power and likelihood of the aristocrats to launch rebellions by
the Turks.[6]
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, rivaly 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 who converted to Islam in the 7th and later 8th
centuries[7] 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
Ghaznevids, another Turkic people. The migration of Seljuq Turks into Persia in the 10th century led to the Ghaznevids
being overthrown. There they settled and adopted Persian language and customs.[8] The Seljuqs established a powerful
domain and captured Baghdad in 1055 from the Abassid Caliphate. The Abassid Caliphate henceforth became a mere
figurehead in the Islamic World. The Seljuq Turks, spurred on by their previous success, now launched an attack on
the Levant and against Fatimid Egypt, which lost Jerusalem in 1071.[9]
Encounters between the Seljuq Turks and the Byzantines did not occur until after the reign of Basil II. However, the
outcome of another war, the Byzantine-Georgian wars, was in some ways influenced by the incursions of the Seljuk
Turks into Georgia,[10] so it is unlikely that they were unheard of.
When the Seljuq Turks did encounter the Byzantines, they had chosen a good time to attack; Byzantium was faced with
weak rule, Norman conquests[11] and the schism whilst the Abassid Caliphate had recently been seriously weakened
with its wars against the Fatimid dynasty.[12]
Initial Conflicts: 1064–1071

Ever since the early 11th century, the Seljuq Turks from central Asia had been expanding westward,[13] defeating
various Arab factions and occupying the Abassid caliphate's power base in Baghdad.[14] At the same time, the
3 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
Byzantine empire was making a few gains in Edessa and Syria. In 1067 the
Seljuq Turks invaded Asia Minor attacking Caesarea and in 1069 Iconium.[15]
A Byzantine counterattack in 1069 drove the Seljuq Turks back from these
lands.[16] Further offensives by the Byzantine army drove the Turks back
across the Euphrates.
Despite this, the Seljuq 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 Seljuqs and add some
military justification to his rule (which had seen the loss of southern Italy to
Norman conquests). During the march, Alp Arslan, the leader of the Seljuq
Alp Arslan led Seljuq Turks to Turks withdrew from Manzikert. His tactical withdrawal allowed his army to
victory against the Byzantines in ambush the Byzantines, reclaiming Manzikert shortly after.[17] The victory
1071. itself led to few gains at the time for the Seljuq Turks, but the civil chaos that
resulted in the Byzantine Empire allowed the Seljuqs and various other
Turkic allies to swarm into Asia Minor.
Turkic Conquests: 1071–1096

After Manzikert, the Seljuq 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.[18] 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.[19] Byzantine Empire 1081. By now, the
Empire was in financial crisis at a
The result of the civil war meant that pretenders to the Byzantine throne time when increased taxes needed
sought Turkic aid by conceding Byzantine territory. The loss of these cities to be levied on a smaller population
to raise revenue for increased
such as Nicaea and another defeat in Anatolia led to a prolongation of the
defenses.
war. The civil conflict finally ended when Alexius I Comnenus, who had
been leading Imperial armies to defeat revolts in Asia Minor became a rebel
himself and seized the Byzantine throne in 1081. Despite emergency reforms implemented by Alexius, Antioch and
Smyrna were lost by 1084.[20] However, between 1078 and 1084 the city had been in the hands of Philaretos
Brachamios, an Armenian renegade. By 1091, the few remaining Byzantine towns in Asia Minor inherited by Alexius
were lost as well. However, all was not to end in defeat for Byzantium; in 1091, a combined Seljuq/Pecheneg invasion
and siege of Constantinople was thoroughly defeated whilst the Norman invasions had been held back as well allowing
the Empire to focus its energies against the Turks. The Byzantines were thus able to recover the Aegean islands from
Tzachas and destroy his fleet, and even regain the southern littoral of the 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
4 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
dissolution of the Empire in 1204 during which time the Byzantines struggled to hold on to their territories.
Byzantium Survives: 1096–1118

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 Nicaea on 6 May 1097.[23] Kilij Arslan I was unable to assist the Turks there due to
the immense size of the Crusader armies; another small defeat on 16 May[23] convinced Kilij Arslan to withdraw and
abandon the city, which surrendered to the Byzantines on 19 June.[23] After this, a decisive victory at Dorylaeum[24]
gave the Crusaders an Asia Minor that was open to attack: Sozopolis, Philomelium, Iconium, Antioch in Pisidia,
Heraclea and Caesarea[25][26][27] all fell to the Crusaders and they reached as far as Cilicia where they allied with
Cilician Armenia.[28][29]
Unfortunately for Alexius Comnenus, the Byzantines were unable to fully capitalize on these conquests with Caesarea
returning to the Seljuqs as a part of the Sultanate of Rum along with several other cities such as Iconium, the future
capital of the Seljuq 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.[30]
Following their victories, the Crusaders went on to lay siege to Antioch a

city under Seljuq occupation. The siege marked the end of Crusader
assistance to the Byzantines due to the simulations of Stephen of Blois.
Kerbogha the Seljuk governor of Mosul, had a huge army of 75,000 troops
sent to relieve Antioch; his unsuccessful siege of Edessa (a city that had
recently fallen to the Crusaders) allowed the Crusaders time to capture
Antioch on 3 June 1098,[31] a day before Kerbogah's arrival. Despite this,
Kerbogah's troops were able to breach the citadel[31] where vicious and
desperate fighting allowed the Crusaders to repulse his offensive. At this
point, one of the Crusaders present, Stephen of Blois deserted and reaching
Alexius Comnenus warned him that the Crusaders were destroyed and the
A 15th century depiction of the siege
Byzantine Emperor was forced to turn back. of Antioch, with soldiers
anachronistically shown wearing
As a result of this apparent desertion of Alexius I, the Crusaders refused to
plate as opposed to mail armour.
hand back Antioch when they managed to defeat Kerbogah's scattered
army.[32] With this resentment, the Crusaders largely abandoned assisting
the Byzantines against the Seljuqs and their allies. A further Crusade in 1101 to follow up the successes of the First
ended in total defeat[33] and the consolidation of Seljuq power in Asia Minor with Iconium (modern day Konya) being
established as the capital of the Sultanate of Rum.
Byzantine counter-attack: 1118–1176
5 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
John II Comnenus
The death of Alexius I brought John II Comnenus to power. By now, the Seljuq
Turks had fractured and became loosely allied to each other.[34] During this time
the Sultanate of Rum was busy fighting off their former allies, the 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 Konya, 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 II Comnenus, John spent considerable time and effort on a series of campaigns in Syria, which
Byzantium's greatest
emphasised his dominance over the local Crusader kingdoms, especially Edessa and
military leader since Basil II.
Antioch, but resulted in no long-term territorial gains for the Byzantine Empire. The
John was able to exploit the
weakness of the Turks emperor did strengthen the Byzantine army by recruiting new divisions and
using the still fragile state establishing new castles, fortifications and training camps in Byzantine territory.
and army he had inherited However, the scale of resources poured into his campaigns in Syria was far greater
from his father 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.[35]
Manuel Comnenus
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 Seljuq Turks were able to subdue their enemies,
the Danishmends under Kilij Arslan II.[36] This resulted in a powerful centralised Turkish state based at Konya, 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 Sivas, 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 Seljuq 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.[37]
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 –
6 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
there was no more Byzantine reconquest in Asia Minor after

1176, leaving the process begun by Alexios incomplete at best.
For the Seljuqs, the acquisition of Danishmend territory gave
them a victory though once again the Seljuqs 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. Byzantine territory in red, and the Sultanate of
Iconium and Four Emirates in 1180 A.D. Due to
However, Manuel Comnenus refused and when Kilij Arslan
the nature of the war and terrain, boundaries were
tried to enforce this treaty, a Turkish army invaded Byzantine constantly violated by raiding parties on both
territory and sacked a string of Byzantine cities as far as the sides.
Aegean coast, damaging the heartland of Byzantine control in
the region. Nevertheless, John Vatatzes, who was sent by the
Emperor to repel the Turkish invasion scored an ambush victory over the Turks at the Battle of Hyelion and
Leimocheir in the Meander valley. The Turkish commander and many of his troops were killed while attempting to
flee, and much of the plunder was recovered, an event that has been seen by historians as a sign that the Byzantine
army remained strong and that the defensive program of western Asia Minor was still successful.[38] After the victory
on the Meander, Manuel himself advanced with a small army to drive the Turks from Panasium and Lacerium, south of
Cotyaeum.[39] However, in 1178 a Byzantine army retreated after encountering a Turkish force at Charax, allowing the
Turks to capture many livestock.[40] The city of 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.[40]
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
– Manuel never again attacked the Turks and, after his death, they began to move further and further west, deeper into
Byzantine territory.
Byzantine Collapse 1180–1308

The death of Manuel I Comnenus in 1180 did not end the Komnenoi dynasty, but Manuel's son proved to be incapable
of holding together an empire burdened with heavy expenditure thanks to his father's extensive campaigning. In 1183,
Alexius II Comnenus was deposed and replaced by Andronikos I Komnenos. His attempts to continue the
militarization of the empire led to his torture, blinding, 3 days of public humiliation and finally death in 1185.[41] Even
the Komnenoi proved fallible – Sozopolis, Ankara and Heraclea all fell to Kilij Arslan II, reaping the benefits of
Myriokephalon at long last.
Following this turmoil, the Byzantine Empire was ruled by a series of corrupt and/or incapable emperors between 1185
and 1204, who failed to guard the frontier. The weak Imperial Byzantine rule led to the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia
and Antioch freeing themselves from Byzantine vassal status, the latter doing so in 1180[42] and the former
establishing Prince Leo II on the throne in 1187.[43]
Meanwhile, the Crusader states in Palestine began to fall to Saladin resulting in the Third Crusade. This ended in a
wasted opportunity for the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire to make substantial gains in the Middle
East. The Byzantine Emperor Isaac II further demonstrated his incompetent rule by promising Saladin to keep the
7 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
Third Crusade from crossing Anatolia (he had little military power to back
up this agreement) and when he did allow the Third Crusade to pass due to
Frederick I's threat, he failed to capitalize on the Crusader sacking of
Iconium which had the potential to reverse the defeat at Myriokephalon.
For an empire that was surrounded by enemies the downfall of Byzantium

Byzantine Empire in Purple with the became a greater probability and in 1204 the city of Constantinople was
Seljuqs of Rum in Green, c. 1180. sacked by soldiers of the Fourth Crusade bringing the Empire into another
Despite a highly efficient military
era of chaos. The Seljuqs of Rum under a new Sultan Kaykhusraw exploited
system, the Komnenian Dynasty
this event and attacked the port of Antalya in 1207 capturing it from the
failed to drive the Seljuqs out of Asia
weakened splinter Empire of Nicaea.[44] The tide turned however in 1210
Minor.
when the Sultan himself was killed in single combat by the Emperor of
Nicaea at the Battle of Antioch on the Meander and from then on the
eastern frontier was more or less stabilized.[45] In 1243, the Mongol invasion broke Seljuq power in Anatolia. Three
years later, the early death of Kaykhusraw II placed his three young sons on the throne.[44] Civil disputes arose once
again in the Sultanate of Rum allowing the Empire of Nicaea to recapture Constantinople from the Latins in 1261.[44]
In 1283, the Sultanate of Rum took its share of Civil warfare and in 1308 was disbanded; Iconium was taken some time
afterward by the Karamanids, another Turkic people.[44] The end of the Sultanate did not end the confrontations
between the Turks and the Byzantines; the rising power of one of the nobles of the Sultanate, Osman (Uc Beg) gave rise
to the Ottoman Beylik and the Byzantine–Ottoman wars, a continuation of confrontations between the Turks and the
Byzantines ultimately leading to the demise of the Byzantine Empire and Islamic domination in Anatolia.
Analysis
Byzantine army
As the below table demonstrates, the population of Byzantium
did not fall as a result of Seljuq acquisitions; manpower was
still as readily available in 1143 as in 1025. In fact, Western
Asia Minor and Greece experienced a population growth on
an unprecedented scale, thanks in part due to the trade of the
The Komnenian Restoration gave the
Italian city states of Venice and Genoa and also due to the
Byzantines a small respite; by 1210 the
influx of Greek refugees fleeing the Seljuq Turks.[46] Manuel
Byzantines were fighting once more for their
Komnenos' first expedition to Iconium saw the entire Greek survival.
population of Philomelion evacuated and settled west.
However, the efficiency and resources needed to raise large
armies had dwindled somewhat, as can be seen by John and Manuel's failure to create a national army.
Year Population Soldiers Area
1025 12,000,000 110,000 Byzantine Empire
1143 10,000,000 50,000 Byzantine Empire
1204 9,000,000 30,000+ Byzantine Empire
1281 5,000,000 20,000 Byzantine Empire[47]
8 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
Throughout the 10th and 11th centuries, the Byzantine Army was utilized in an increasingly aggressive manner, with
new conquests made in the East and the West.[48] As a result, the Theme system which was designed as a defensive
military solution to wear down invasions of Asia Minor slowly began to break down. Troops were needed that would
maintain a full-time presence on the field, something that the Thematic militia armies drawn from peasant farmers
could not do. As a result, the use of Tagmata, full-time professional soldiers became increasingly necessary to wage the
offensive warfare that had propelled Byzantium to Great Power status in the 11th century.[49] The Tagmata were also
drawn from mercenaries, such as Franks, Normans and no doubt Saxons, Rus' and Vikings. The use of Tagmata troops
did not directly undermine Byzantine military strength – Romanus Diogenes' campaigns into Seljuq controlled
Mesopotamia was composed of Tagmata as well as Theme troops. Nonetheless, the Theme troops began to seriously
decline in quality.[50] Michael Attaleiates commented at the time of the Manzikert Campaign that the troops of the
Theme system were poorly supplied, poorly provisioned and unfit for warfare. Consequently, when the Tagmata army
was routed at Manzikert, the Theme system could not stop the relentless advance of the Seljuq Turks and their Turkic
allies as they swarmed over Asia Minor, over-running the last Byzantine settlements in 1091. The Tagmata army was
not the cause of the failure at Manzikert; however, the reliance on the Tagmata troops was one of the causes that led to
the disintegration of the Theme System. As the Turks took Asia Minor, any organized resistance (as demonstrated by
Alexius I's pre-Imperial career) had to make-do with an army in a poor condition.
Furthermore, the frontline had moved much closer to Constantinople. Throughout the 12th century, Constantinople
held the initiative against Iconium, especially so under Manuel's early and middle rule, thanks in part due to his
aggressive policies and that of his Father, but when the balance of power shifted to the Turks, losses steadily mounted;
soon Western Asia Minor became infiltrated by Turkish ghazis.
Crusades
Historians continue to debate the effect of the Crusaders on Byzantium. The First Crusade saw Byzantium make
substantial gains in territory although this may have been achieved by the Byzantines themselves; there were plenty of
civil conflicts in Asia Minor and amongst the Turks for Alexius to exploit. Furthermore, every other Crusade after the
First had a detrimental effect on the Empire with Crusader armies unable to resist raiding towns which were supposed
to be their allies[51] but in Byzantine territory there were quarrels over supplies and a few incidents of fighting. Once
again, the westerners had created an unfavorable impression of themselves, and once again the Greeks had made
themselves seem untrustworthy. At Constantinople, there were further incidents, even to the point that Conrad III
threatened to return from the crusade and take the city by force. The Second Crusade saw increased unity amongst the
Islamic World,[52] with Zengids able to bring Damascus into the fold and soon after much of Syria became a united
front against the Crusades and a threat to Byzantine interests there. The Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I even
threatened an assault on Constantinople in the Third Crusade and the Fourth Crusade saw the sack of Constantinople
and substantial loss of territory by the Byzantines to the Frankish Crusaders and the Seljuq Turks.
Long term consequences of the Crusade also includes increased Islamic fanaticism and no more clearly is this seen
then in the numerous Beyliks set up in Western Anatolia after 1204, particularly the Beylik of the Ottomans, Osman I's
domain.[53] Later, the Crusades of Nicopolis in 1396 and Varna in 1444 designed to aid the Byzantines made
Constantinople appear as a magnet for Frankish Knights to launch their zealous attacks — this did not help the
Byzantines in the long run.
On the other hand, the Crusades allowed Byzantium a chance to regain power in the Mediterranean. Additionally,
under Manuel Comnenus, the Byzantine and Catholic Churches experienced far better relations than in the previous
few decades and even coming close to healing the Schism. The alliance with the Pope was also crucial. Together, the
9 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
Byzantines and Catholics were able to put on hold the incursions of the Normans from southern Italy who were
ravaging Byzantine territory in the Balkans, becoming almost as dangerous a threat as the Seljuq Turks.
Seljuq Turks
The war's outcome was determined as much by the weakness of the
Byzantines as the strengths of the Seljuqs. Nonetheless, the latter, just like
the Arabs many years earlier, failed to destroy the Byzantine Empire. The
Seljuq Turks, having originated from the steppes, possessed many
advantages. At the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine heavy cavalry was
defeated using simple hit and run tactics,[56] with the faster light cavalry of
the Turks outflanking and outmaneuvering the exhausted cavalry.
Asia Minor was not completely overrun by the Turks after Manzikert but
the resulting chaos that followed was easily exploited – Turkic soldiers had
been used as Mamluks by the Arabs before seizing power themselves – the
same occurred in Asia Minor, with Byzantine factions inviting Turkic
mercenaries to garrison towns. As Imperial rule was re-imposed in A 15th-century French depiction of
Manzikert (Paris, BnF ms. fr. 226,
Byzantium, these factions, which were secured by Turkic soldiers, became
fol. 256r[54]), with no accuracy
part of the Seljuq Turk domains. Some Greeks fled conquered areas, others
applied to the weapons, tactics or
stayed to become second-class citizens in an Islamic world (though under clothing worn by the combatants.[55]
Islamic rule were protected provided they paid the jizya tax). More On the right, Alp Arslan steps on
importantly, others converted and were assimilated into the settling Romanus
population of Turks. Orthodox churches were replaced with Mosques and
the crippling Imperial taxes levied by the government and the
accompanying Church were lowered.
Conclusion
Though Anatolia had been under Roman rule for almost 1000 years, the Seljuqs rapidly consolidated their holdings.[57]
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 Seljuq Turks, who rarely allowed the Byzantines to engage them, hence the slow campaigning of
John Komnenus.
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.
Consequences
The war had great consequences. 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 Ayyubids, whilst the Byzantines severely weakened
by the Seljuqs. Power shifted to the Mamelukes 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
10 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
East. As the Turks steadily gained ground in Anatolia, the

local population converted to Islam, further reducing any
chances of a successful reconquest.[58]
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
Aftermath of Manzikert.
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.
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.[59] 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
Settlements and regions affected
nobles, Osman I. Matters were made worse for the Byzantine Empire due to during the first wave of Turkish
the Latin presence in the Peloponnese and the rising power of the invasions in Asia Minor (11th-13th
Bulgarians who continued to press hard against the borders of Byzantium. century)
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 left the Byzantines reeling from one siege after
another until Constantinople fell in 1453.
See also
Seljuq Turks
Komnenian army
Byzantine military
Decline of the Byzantine Empire
Rise of the Ottoman Empire
Second Crusade
Third Crusade
References
1. "Table of the Emperors" (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_chaosemp_table.htm). About.com. 2007.
Retrieved 2007-11-03.
2. "Book Review: Deep in denial (or in de' Mississippi)" (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GI07Aa01.html).
Asia Times Online. 7 September 2005. Retrieved 2007-11-03.
3. "Theodosius I" (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0848408.html). The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia
(6th ed.). Columbia University Press. 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-03.
11 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
4. "Heraclius" (http://www.answers.com/topic/heraclius). Answers.com. Retrieved 2007-11-03.

5. Holmes, Catherine (1 April 2003). "Basil II (A.D. 976–1025)" (http://www.roman-emperors.org/basilii.htm). De
Imperatoribus Romanis. Retrieved 2007-11-03.
6. Black, Jeremy (2005). The Atlas of World History. American Edition, New York: Covent Garden Books. pp. 65,
228. 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.
7. "Seljuk Empire" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080530042519/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia
/hutchinson/m0009478.html). Tiscali encyclopedia. Research Machines. 2007. Archived from the original
(http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0009478.html) on 30 May 2008. Retrieved
2007-11-03.
8. Amir-Moezzi, M.A. "Shahrbanu" (https://web.archive.org/web/20071015160335/http://www.iranica.com/newsite
/articles/ot_grp7/ot_shahrbanu_20050131.html). Encyclopaedia Iranica. Archived from the original
(http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp7/ot_shahrbanu_20050131.html) on 15 October 2007. Retrieved
2007-11-03. "... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznevids, Saljuqs and
Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of
Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ..."
9. bint 'abd al-Karim al-hakim al-Fassi, Anahita (20 November 2000). "Know Your Turks!" (http://home.earthlink.net
/~lilinah/Library/KnowYourTurks.html). Retrieved 2007-11-03.
10. "Georgia in the De veloped Feudal Period (XI–XIII cen.)" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101202063638/http:
//www.aboutgeorgia.ge/history/index.html?page=4#). About Georgia. Archived from the original
(http://www.aboutgeorgia.ge/history/index.html?page=4) on 2 December 2010. Retrieved 4 February 2010.
11. Bicheno, Hugh. "Robert Guiscard" (http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-guiscard). Answers.com. Retrieved
2007-11-03.
12. "The Abassid dynasty" (https://web.archive.org/web/20071012233024/http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM
/ABASSID.HTM). Archived from the original (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/ABASSID.HTM) on 12 October
2007. Retrieved 2007-11-03.
13. "The Seljuk Empire" (http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=Seljuk_empire). All Empires. Retrieved
2007-11-03.
14. Bright, Martin (16 March 2003). "Iraq's 5,000 years of pride" (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story
/0,,914918,00.html). The Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved 2007-11-03.
15. Sherrard 1966, p. 164.
16. http://navsci.berkeley.edu/ma20/PPT/14%20Feb%2006%20Byzantine.ppt Archived (https://web.archive.org
/web/20070626142619/http://navsci.berkeley.edu/ma20/PPT/14%20Feb%2006%20Byzantine.ppt#) 26 June 2007
at the Wayback Machine.
17. Rickard, J. "Battle of Manzikert, 19 August 1071" (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_manzikert.html).
18. "Before of the Crusades - 350 - 1095 - Timeline of the Crusade: Christianity vs. Islam:" (http://atheism.about.com
/library/FAQs/christian/blchron_xian_crusades01.htm). About.com Agnosticism/Atheism.
19. Markham, Paul. "The Battle of Manzikert: Military Disaster or Political Failure?" (https://web.archive.org
/web/20070513082203/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/markham.htm). Archived from the original
(http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/markham.htm) on 13 May 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-19.
20. "Antioch – Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9355511). britannica.com.
Retrieved 14 April 2018.
21. Urban II. "Speech at Clermont 1095" (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2a.html). Medieval Sourcebook.
22. Madden 2005, p. 35.
23. Madden 2005, p. 40.
12 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
24. Rickard, J. (3 April 2001), Battle of Dorylaeum (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_dorylaeum.html), 1 July

1097.
25. Madden 2005, p. 41.
26. Mango 2002, pp. 185–187.
27. Parker 2005, pp. 48–49.
28. Chahin 2001, p. 244.
29. Phillips 2014, p. 28.
30. Angold, Michael (1984). The Byzantine Empire 1025–1204. Longman, Harlow Essex. p.150
31. Madden 2005, pp. 42–43.
32. Rickard, J. (2 April 2001), Antioch, Kerboga's siege of (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles
/battles_antioch_kerboga.html), 5–28 June 1098
33. Knox, Skip E. "Second Battle of Ramleh (http://crusades.boisestate.edu/1101/11.shtml)." The Crusades. Boise
State University. 2 June 2007.
34. The Seljuk Empire – All Empires (http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=Seljuk_empire)
35. Stone, Andrew. "An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors (http://www.roman-emperors.org/johncomn.htm)."
26 Nov 2004. University of Western Australia. 2 June 2007
36. Houtsma, Martin Theodoor (1911). "Seljūks" (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop
%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Selj%C5%ABks). In Chisholm, Hugh. Encyclopædia Britannica. 24 (11th ed.). Cambridge
University Press. p. 608–611.
37. "Events After Myriokephalon (https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare
/Labyrinth/2398/oocinfo/history/postmyrio.html&date=2009-10-25+11:27:37)." GeoCities. 2 June 2007.
38. Birkenmeier, J. W. (2002). The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081–1180. History of warfare. 5. Boston:
Brill. p. 196. ISBN 90-04-11710-5.
39. Treadgold, W. (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press. p. 649.
ISBN 0-8047-2421-0.
40. Stone, A. "Manuel I Comnenus" (http://www.roman-emperors.org/mannycom.htm).
41. Norwich, John Julius (1999). A Short History of Byzantium. New York: Vintage Books. p. 298.
ISBN 0-679-77269-3.
42. Tore Kjeilen. "Antioch, Norman Principality of - LookLex Encyclopaedia" (http://lexicorient.com
/e.o/antioch_crusaders.htm).
43. "IV/2 Cilician Armenian (1071-1375 AD)" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080527092839/http://fanaticus.org
/DBA/armies/IV2.html#). Archived from the original (http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/IV2.html) on 27 May
2008. Retrieved 29 May 2007.
44. Lowe, Steven; Baker, Martin. "The Seljuqs of Rum" (https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http:
//www.geocities.com/egfroth1/Seljuqs.htm&date=2007-07-22+04:56:02). Archived from the original
(http://www.geocities.com/egfroth1/Seljuqs.htm) on 22 July 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-09.
45. Madden 2005, p. 162.
46. Whilst some stayed, large numbers of Turk farmers settled in Cappadocia, thus undermining the decaying Thema
system
47. "World Gazetteer, Greece" (https://web.archive.org/web/20071001063022/http://www.world-gazetteer.com
/wg.php?x=&men=gpro&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-92&srt=pnan&col=aohdq). Archived from the original
(http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gpro&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-92&srt=pnan&col=aohdq) on 1
October 2007. Retrieved 30 January 2007.
48. Haldon 2002, p. 48.
49. Haldon 2002, p. 49.
13 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
50. Haldon 2002, p. 51.

51. Knox, Skip (19 June 2007). "Second Crusade" (http://crusades.boisestate.edu/2nd/05.shtml). Crusades. Boise
State University.
52. Bentley & Ziegler 2006, p. 533.
53. Turnbull, Stephen. The Ottoman Empire 1326–1699. New York: Osprey, 2003. pg 17
54. " " Des Cas des nobles hommes et femmes ", de " JEHAN BOCCACE ", traduction de " LAURENT DE
PREMIERFAIT " " (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9009520k/f265). Gallica.
55. http://www.allempires.com/empires/seljuk/seljuk_warriors_enh.jpg
56. Grant, R G. (2005). Battle. A Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley.
57. "Turkey Sultanate of Rum (http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/turkey/turkey_history_sultanate_of_rum.html)."
www.workmall.com. Jan. 1995. The Library of Congress Studies. 29 May 2007
58. Bentley & Ziegler 2006, p. 465.
59. Tom Brosnahan. "Seljuk Turks" (http://turkeytravelplanner.com/details/History/Seljuks.html).
Further reading
Bentley, Jerry H.; Ziegler, Herbert (2006). Traditions & Encounters a Global Perspective on the Past (3rd ed.).
Boston: McGraw–Hill. ISBN 0-07-295754-9.
Cahen, Claude (1968). Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History
c.1071-1330. New York: Taplinger.
Chahin, Mark (2001). The Kingdom of Armenia. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7007-1452-9.
Cheynet, Jean-Claude (1998). "La résistance aux Turcs en Asie Mineure entre Mantzikert et la Première
Croisade" (http://books.openedition.org/psorbonne/4269). ΕΥΨΥΧΙΑ. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler (in
French). Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne. pp. 131–147. ISBN 9782859448301.
Grant, R. G. (2005). Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley.
ISBN 1-4053-1100-2.
Haldon, John (2002). Byzantium at War: AD 600–1453. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 1-84176-360-8.
Madden, Thomas F. (2005). Crusades the Illustrated History (1st ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
ISBN 0-472-03127-9.
Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 0-19-814098-3.
Parker, Geoffrey (2005). Compact History of the World (4th ed.). London: Collins. ISBN 0-00-721411-1.
Phillips, Jonathan (2014). The Crusades, 1095-1204. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-73636-7.
Sherrard, Philip (1966). "Great Ages of Man Byzantium". New York: Time-Life Books.
Vryonis, Speros (1971). The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the
Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byzantine–Seljuq_wars&oldid=889533493"
This page was last edited on 26 March 2019, at 08:49 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
14 of 14 3/31/2019, 10:57 PM
Reading: Ottoman Empire and the Classical Age
Rise of the Ottoman Empire (1299–1453)

Main article: Rise of the Ottoman Empire
Further information: Ottoman Dynasty and Gaza Thesis
With the demise of the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum (c. 1300), Anatolia was divided into a
patchwork of independent states, the so-called Anatolian Beyliks. By 1300, a
weakened Byzantine Empire had lost most of its Anatolian provinces to these Turkish
principalities. One of the beyliks was led by Osman I (d. 1323/4), from which the
name Ottoman is derived, son of Ertuğrul, around Eskişehir in western Anatolia. In
the foundation myth expressed in the story known as "Osman's Dream", the young
Osman was inspired to conquest by a prescient vision of empire (according to his
dream, the empire is a big tree whose roots spread through three continents and whose
branches cover the sky).[1] According to his dream the tree, which was Osman's
Empire, issued four rivers from its roots, the Tigris, the Euphrates, the Nile and
the Danube.[1] Additionally, the tree shaded four mountain ranges, the Caucasus,
the Taurus, the Atlas and the Balkan ranges.[1] During his reign as Sultan, Osman I
extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the Byzantine Empire.
During this period, a formal Ottoman government was created whose institutions
would change drastically over the life of the empire.
In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the
Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. Osman's son, Orhan, captured the city
of Bursa in 1326 and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state. The fall of Bursa
meant the loss of Byzantine control over Northwestern Anatolia. The important city
of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. The Ottoman victory
at Kosovo in 1389 effectively marked the end of Serbian power in the region, paving
the way for Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, widely
regarded as the last large-scale crusade of the Middle Ages, failed to stop the advance
of the victorious Ottoman Turks. With the extension of Turkish dominion into the
Balkans, the strategic conquest of Constantinople became a crucial objective. The
Empire controlled nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but
the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when Timur invaded Anatolia in the Battle
of Ankara in 1402. He took Sultan Bayezid I as a prisoner. The capture of Bayezid I
threw the Turks into disorder. The state fell into a civil war that lasted from 1402 to
1413, as Bayezid's sons fought over succession. It ended when Mehmed I emerged as
the sultan and restored Ottoman power, bringing an end to the Interregnum.


Battle of Kosovo (1389)
Battle of Nicopolis (1396)
Sultan Mehmed I. Ottoman miniature, 1413-1421


Battle of Varna (1444)
Part of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans (such as Thessaloniki, Macedonia and
Kosovo) were temporarily lost after 1402, but were later recovered by Murad
II between the 1430s and 1450s. On 10 November 1444, Murad II defeated
the Hungarian, Polish and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also
King of Hungary) and János Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna, which was the final
battle of the Crusade of Varna.[2][3] Four years later, János Hunyadi prepared another
army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks, but was again
defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448.
The son of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror, reorganized the state and the military,
and demonstrated his martial prowess by capturing Constantinople on 29 May 1453,
at the age of 21.
Classical Age (1453–1550)

Main article: Classical Age of the Ottoman Empire
Fall of Constantinople (1453)


Battle of Chaldiran (1514)
Siege of Rhodes (1522)
Battle of Mohács (1526)

Fall of Constantinople (1453)
Mehmed II conquered Constantinople in 1453 and brought an end to

the Byzantine Empire.
The Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by Mehmed II cemented the status

of the Empire as the preeminent power in southeastern Europe and the eastern
Mediterranean. After taking Constantinople, Mehmed met with the Orthodox
patriarch, Gennadios and worked out an arrangement in which the Orthodox Church,
in exchange for being able to maintain its autonomy and land, accepted Ottoman
authority.[4] Because of bad relations between the latter Byzantine Empire and the
states of western Europe as epitomized by Loukas Notaras's famous remark "Better
the Sultan's turban than the Cardinal's Hat", the majority of the Orthodox population
accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to Venetian rule.[4]
Upon making Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) the new capital of the Ottoman
Empire in 1453, Mehmed II assumed the title of Kayser-i Rûm (literally Caesar
Romanus, i.e. Roman Emperor.) In order to consolidate this claim, he would launch a
campaign to conquer Rome, the western capital of the former Roman Empire. To this
aim he spent many years securing positions on the Adriatic Sea, such as in Albania
Veneta, and then continued with the Ottoman invasion of Otranto and Apulia on 28
July 1480. The Turks stayed in Otranto and its surrounding areas for nearly a year, but
after Mehmed II's death on 3 May 1481, plans for penetrating deeper into the Italian
peninsula with fresh new reinforcements were given up on and cancelled and the
remaining Ottoman troops sailed back to the east of the Adriatic Sea.
Selim I conquered the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt, making the Turks the
dominant power in the Islamic world.
Suleiman the Magnificentbecame a prominent monarch of 16th-century Europe,

presiding over the apex of the Ottoman Empire's power.
During this period in the 15th and 16th centuries, the Ottoman Empire entered a long
period of conquest and expansion, extending its borders deep into Europe and North
Africa. Conquests on land were driven by the discipline and innovation of the
Ottoman military; and on the sea, the Ottoman Navy aided this expansion
significantly. The navy also contested and protected key seagoing trade routes, in
competition with the Italian city states in the Black, Aegean and Mediterranean seas
and the Portuguese in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.
The state also flourished economically due to its control of the major overland trade
routes between Europe and Asia.[5]
The Empire prospered under the rule of a line of committed and effective Sultans.
Sultan Selim I (1512–1520) dramatically expanded the Empire's eastern and southern
frontiers by defeating Shah Ismail of Safavid Persia, in the Battle of
Chaldiran.[6] Selim I established Ottoman rule in Egypt, and created a naval presence
on the Red Sea. After this Ottoman expansion, a competition started between
the Portuguese Empire and the Ottoman Empire to become the dominant power in the
region.[7]
Selim's successor, Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566), further expanded upon

Selim's conquests. After capturing Belgrade in 1521, Suleiman conquered the
southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary. (The western, northern and
northeastern parts remained independent.)[8][9]
Barbarossa Hayreddin Pashadefeated the Holy League at the Battle of

Preveza in 1538.
Süleymaniye Mosque(1558)
Walls of Constantinople(Gate of Belgrade)
Rumelihisarı (Rumelian Castle 1453)
After his victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the
territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European
territories, (See also: Ottoman–Hungarian Wars). He then laid siege to Vienna in 1529,
but failed to take the city after the onset of winter forced his retreat.[10]
In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in the Siege of Güns, 97
kilometres (60 mi) south of the city at the fortress of Güns.[11][12] In the other version
of the story, the city's commander, Nikola Jurišić, was offered terms for a nominal
surrender.[13] However, Suleiman withdrew at the arrival of the August rains and did
not continue towards Vienna as previously planned, but turned homeward
instead.[13][14]
After further advances by the Turks in 1543, the Habsburg ruler Ferdinand officially
recognized Ottoman ascendancy in Hungary in 1547. During the reign of
Suleiman, Transylvania, Wallachia and, intermittently, Moldavia, became tributary
principalities of the Ottoman Empire. In the east, the Ottoman Turks
took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535, gaining control of Mesopotamia and naval
access to the Persian Gulf. By the end of Suleiman's reign, the Empire's population
totaled about 15,000,000 people.[15]
Under Selim and Suleiman, the Empire became a dominant naval force, controlling
much of the Mediterranean.[16] The exploits of the Ottoman admiral Barbarossa
Hayreddin Pasha, who commanded the Ottoman Navy during Suleiman's reign, led to
a number of military victories over Christian navies. Important naval victories of the
Ottoman Empire in this period include the Battle of Preveza (1538); Battle of
Ponza (1552); Battle of Djerba (1560); conquest of Algiers (in 1516 and 1529)
and Tunis (in 1534 and 1574) from Spain; conquest of Rhodes (1522) and Tripoli
(1551)from the Knights of St. John; capture of Nice (1543) from the Holy Roman
Empire; capture of Corsica (1553) from the Republic of Genoa; capture of
the Balearic Islands (1558) from Spain; capture of Aden (1548), Muscat
(1552) and Aceh (1565–67) from Portugal during the Indian Ocean expeditions;
among others.
Suleiman's policy of expansion throughout the Mediterranean basin was however

halted in Malta in 1565. During a summer-long siege which was later to be known as
the Siege of Malta, the Ottoman forces which numbered around 50,000 fought
the Knights of St. John and the Maltese garrison of 6000 men. Stubborn resistance by
the Maltese led to the lifting of the siege in September. The unsuccessful siege (the
Turks managed to capture the Isle of Gozo together with Fort Saint Elmo on the main
island of Malta, but failed elsewhere and retreated) was the second and last defeat
experienced by Suleiman the Magnificent (who died a year later, in 1566) after the
likewise inconclusive first Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1529. The Battle of Lepanto in
1571 (which was triggered by the Ottoman capture of Venetian-controlled Cyprus in
1570) was another major setback for Ottoman naval supremacy in the Mediterranean
Sea, despite the fact that an equally large Ottoman fleet was built in a short time
and Tunisia was recovered from Spain in 1574.
The conquests of Nice (1543) and Corsica (1553) occurred on behalf of France as a
joint venture between the forces of the French king Francis I and the Ottoman
sultan Suleiman I, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals Barbarossa
Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis.[17] A month prior to the siege of Nice, France
supported the Ottomans with an artillery unit during the Ottoman conquest of
Esztergom in 1543. France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to
Habsburg rule in both Southern and Central Europe, became strong allies during this
period. The alliance was economic and military, as the sultans granted France the
right of trade within the Empire without levy of taxation. By this time, the Ottoman
Empire was a significant and accepted part of the European political sphere. It made a
military alliance with France, the Kingdom of England and the Dutch
Republic against Habsburg Spain, Italy and Habsburg Austria.
As the 16th century progressed, Ottoman naval superiority was challenged by the
growing sea powers of western Europe, particularly Portugal, in the Persian Gulf,
Indian Ocean and the Spice Islands. With the Ottoman Turks blockading sea-lanes to
the East and South, the European powers were driven to find another way to the
ancient silk and spice routes, now under Ottoman control. On land, the Empire was
preoccupied by military campaigns in Austria and Persia, two widely separated
theatres of war. The strain of these conflicts on the Empire's resources, and the
logistics of maintaining lines of supply and communication across such vast distances,
ultimately rendered its sea efforts unsustainable and unsuccessful. The overriding
military need for defence on the western and eastern frontiers of the Empire
eventually made effective long-term engagement on a global scale impossible.
Inca Civilization
Definition
by Mark Cartwright
published on 15 September 2014
Listen to this article, narrated by Richard de Man

The Inca civilization flourished in ancient Peru between c. 1400 and 1533 CE, and
their empire eventually extended across western South America from Quito in the
north to Santiago in the south, making it the largest empire ever seen in the Americas
and the largest in the world at that time. Undaunted by the often harsh Andean
environment, the Incas conquered people and exploited landscapes in such diverse
settings as plains, mountains, deserts, and tropical jungle. Famed for their unique art
and architecture, they constructed finely-built and imposing buildings wherever they
conquered, and their spectacular adaptation of natural landscapes with terracing,
highways, and mountaintop settlements continues to impress modern visitors at such
world famous sites as Machu Picchu.
Historical Overview
As with other ancient Americas cultures, the historical origins of the Incas are
difficult to disentangle from the founding myths they themselves created. According
to legend, in the beginning, the creator god Viracocha came out of the Pacific Ocean,
and when he arrived at Lake Titicaca, he created the sun and all ethnic groups. These
first people were buried by the god and only later did they emerge from springs and
rocks (sacred pacarinas) back into the world. The Incas, specifically, were brought
into existence at Tiwanaku (Tiahuanaco) from the sun god Inti, hence, they regarded
themselves as the chosen few, the 'Children of the Sun', and the Inca ruler was Inti's
representative and embodiment on earth. In another version of the creation myth, the
first Incas came from a sacred cave known as Tampu T'oqo or 'The House of
Windows', which was located at Pacariqtambo, the 'Inn of Dawn', south of Cuzco.
The first pair of humans were Manco Capac (or Manqo Qhapaq) and his sister (also
his wife) Mama Oqllu (or Ocllo). Three more brother-sister siblings were born, and
the group set off together to found their civilization. Defeating the Chanca people
with the help of stone warriors (pururaucas), the first Incas finally settled in the
Valley of Cuzco and Manco Capac, throwing a golden rod into the ground,
established what would become the Inca capital, Cuzco.
40,000 Incas governed a territory with 10 million subjects speaking over

30 different languages.
More concrete archaeological evidence has revealed that the first settlements in the
Cuzco Valley actually date to 4500 BCE when hunter-gather communities occupied
the area. However, Cuzco only became a significant centre sometime at the beginning
of the Late Intermediate Period (1000-1400 CE). A process of regional unification
began from the late 14th century CE, and from the early 15th century CE, with the
arrival of the first great Inca leader Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui ('Reverser of the World')
and the defeat of the Chanca in 1438 CE, the Incas began to expand in search of
plunder and production resources, first to the south and then in all directions. They
eventually built an empire which stretched across the Andes, conquering such peoples
as the Lupaka, Colla, Chimor, and Wanka civilizations along the way. Once
established, a nationwide system of tax and administration was instigated which
consolidated the power of Cuzco.
The rise of the Inca Empire was spectacularly quick. First, all speakers of the Inca
language Quechua (or Runasimi) were given privileged status, and this noble class
then dominated all the important roles within the empire. Thupa Inca Yupanqui (also
known as Topa Inca), Pachacuti's successor from 1471 CE, is credited with having
expanded the empire by a massive 4,000 km (2,500 miles). The Incas themselves
called their empire Tawantinsuyo (or Tahuantinsuyu) meaning 'Land of the Four
Quarters' or 'The Four Parts Together'. Cuzco was considered the navel of the world,
and radiating out were highways and sacred sighting lines (ceques) to each quarter:
Chinchaysuyu (north), Antisuyu (east), Collasuyu (south), and Cuntisuyu (west).
Spreading across ancient Ecuador, Peru, northern Chile, Bolivia, upland Argentina,
and southern Colombia and stretching 5,500 km (3,400 miles) north to south, 40,000
Incas governed a huge territory with some 10 million subjects speaking over 30
different languages.
Map of the inca Empire
Government & Administration
The Incas kept lists of their kings (Sapa Inca) so that we know of such names as
Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui (reign c. 1438-63 CE), Thupa Inca Yupanqui (reign c.
1471-93 CE), and Wayna Qhapaq (the last pre-Hispanic ruler, reign c. 1493-1525 CE).
It is possible that two kings ruled at the same time and that queens may have had
some significant powers, but the Spanish records are not clear on both points. The
Sapa Inca was an absolute ruler, and he lived a life of great opulence. Drinking from
gold and silver cups, wearing silver shoes, and living in a palace furnished with the
finest textiles, he was pampered to the extreme. He was even looked after following
his death, as the Inca mummified their rulers. Stored in the Coricancha temple in
Cuzco, the mummies (mallquis) were, in elaborate ceremonies, regularly brought
outside wearing their finest regalia, given offerings of food and drink, and 'consulted'
for their opinion on pressing state affairs.
Inca rule was, much like their architecture, based on compartmentalised and
interlocking units. At the top was the ruler and ten kindred groups of nobles called
panaqa. Next in line came ten more kindred groups, more distantly related to the king
and then, a third group of nobles not of Inca blood but made Incas as a privilege. At
the bottom of the state apparatus were locally recruited administrators who oversaw
settlements and the smallest Andean population unit the ayllu, which was a collection
of households, typically of related families who worked an area of land, lived together
and provided mutual support in times of need. Each ayllu was governed by a small
number of nobles or kurakas, a role which could include women.
Local administrators reported to over 80 regional-level administrators who, in turn,

reported to a governor responsible for each quarter of the empire. The four governors
reported to the supreme Inca ruler in Cuzco. To ensure loyalty, the heirs of local
rulers were also kept as well-kept prisoners at the Inca capital. The most important
political, religious, and military roles within the empire were, then, kept in the hands
of the Inca elite, called by the Spanish the orejones or 'big ears' because they wore
large earspools to indicate their status. To better ensure the control of this elite over
their subjects, garrisons dotted the empire, and entirely new administrative centres
were built, notably at Tambo Colorado, Huánuco Pampa and Hatun Xauxa.
For tax purposes censuses were taken and populations divided up into groups based
on multiples of ten (Inca mathematics was almost identical to the system we use
today). As there was no currency in the Inca world, taxes were paid in kind - usually
foodstuffs, precious metals, textiles, exotic feathers, dyes, and spondylus shell - but
also in labourers who could be shifted about the empire to be used where they were
most needed, known as mit'a service. Agricultural land and herds were divided into
three parts: production for the state religion and the gods, for the Inca ruler, and for
the farmers own use. Local communities were also expected to help build and
maintain such imperial projects as the road system which stretched across the empire.
To keep track of all these statistics, the Inca used the quipu, a sophisticated assembly
of knots and strings which was also highly transportable and could record decimals up
to 10,000.
Khipu
Although the Incas imposed their religion and administration on conquered peoples,
extracted tribute, and even moved loyal populations (mitmaqs) to better integrate new
territories into the empire, the Incas also brought certain benefits such as food
redistribution in times of environmental disaster, better storage facilities for foodstuffs,
work via state-sponsored projects, state-sponsored religious feasts, roads, military
assistance and luxury goods, especially art objects enjoyed by the local elite.
Most splendid were the temples built in honour of Inti and Mama Kilya -
the former was lined with 700 2kg sheets of beaten gold.
Cuzco
The Inca capital of Cuzco (from qosqo, meaning 'dried-up lake bed' or perhaps
derived from cozco, a particular stone marker in the city) was the religious and
administrative centre of the empire and had a population of up to 150,000 at its peak.
Dominated by the sacred gold-covered and emerald-studded Coricancha complex (or
Temple of the Sun), its greatest buildings were credited to Pachacuti. Most splendid
were the temples built in honour of Inti and Mama Kilya - the former was lined with
700 2kg sheets of beaten gold, the latter with silver. The whole capital was laid out in
the form of a puma (although some scholars dispute this and take the description
metaphorically) with the imperial metropolis of Pumachupan forming the tail and the
temple complex of Sacsayhuaman (or Saqsawaman) forming the head. Incorporating
vast plazas, parklands, shrines, fountains, and canals, the splendour of Inca Cuzco
now, unfortunately, survives only in the eye-witness accounts of the first Europeans
who marvelled at its architecture and riches.
Inca Religion
The Inca had great reverence for two earlier civilizations who had occupied much the
same territory - the Wari and Tiwanaku. As we have seen, the sites of Tiwanaku and
Lake Titicaca played an important part in Inca creation myths and so were especially
revered. Inca rulers made regular pilgrimages to Tiwanaku and the islands of the lake,
where two shrines were built to Inti the Sun god and supreme Inca deity, and the
moon goddess Mama Kilya. Also in the Coricancha complex at Cuzco, these deities
were represented by large precious metal artworks which were attended and
worshipped by priests and priestesses led by the second most important person after
the king: the High Priest of the Sun (Willaq Umu). Thus, the religion of the Inca was
preoccupied with controlling the natural world and avoiding such disasters as
earthquake, floods, and drought, which inevitably brought about the natural cycle of
change, the turning over of time involving death and renewal which the Inca called
pachakuti.
Sacred sites were also established, often taking advantage of prominent natural
features such as mountain tops, caves, and springs. These huacas could be used to
take astronomical observations at specific times of the year. Religious ceremonies
took place according to the astronomical calendar, especially the movements of the
sun, moon, and Milky Way (Mayu). Processions and ceremonies could also be
connected to agriculture, especially the planting and harvesting seasons. Along with
Titicaca's Island of the Sun, the most sacred Inca site was Pachacamac, a temple city
built in honour of the god with the same name, who created humans, plants, and was
responsible for earthquakes. A large wooden statue of the god, considered an oracle,
brought pilgrims from across the Andes to worship at Pachacamac. Shamans were
another important part of Inca religion and were active in every settlement. Cuzco had
475, the most important being the yacarca, the personal advisor to the ruler.
Inca religious rituals also involved ancestor worship as seen through the practice of
mummification and making offerings to the gods of food, drink, and precious
materials. Sacrifices - both animals and humans, including children - were also made
to pacify and honour the gods and ensure the good health of the king. The pouring of
libations, either water or chicha beer, was also an important part of Inca religious
ceremonies.
The Incas imposed their religion on local populations by building their own temples
and sacred sites, and they also commandeered sacred relics from conquered peoples
and held them in Cuzco. Stored in the Coricancha, they were perhaps considered
hostages which ensured compliance to the Inca view of the world.
Machu
Picchu Aerial View
Inca Architecture & Roads
Master stone masons, the Incas constructed large buildings, walls and fortifications
using finely-worked blocks - either regular or polygonal - which fitted together so
precisely no mortar was needed. With an emphasis on clean lines, trapezoid shapes,
and incorporating natural features into these buildings, they have easily withstood the
powerful earthquakes which frequently hit the region. The distinctive sloping
trapezoid form and fine masonry of Inca buildings were, besides their obvious
aesthetic value, also used as a recognisable symbol of Inca domination throughout the
empire.
One of the most common Inca buildings was the ubiquitous one-room storage
warehouse the qollqa. Built in stone and well-ventilated, they were either round and
stored maize or square for potatoes and tubers. The kallanka was a very large hall
used for community gatherings. More modest buildings include the kancha - a group
of small single-room and rectangular buildings (wasi and masma) with thatched roofs
built around a courtyard enclosed by a high wall. The kancha was a typical
architectural feature of Inca towns, and the idea was exported to conquered regions.
Terracing to maximise land area for agriculture (especially for maize) was another
Inca practice, which they exported wherever they went. These terraces often included
canals, as the Incas were expert at diverting water, carrying it across great distances,
channelling it underground, and creating spectacular outlets and fountains.
Goods were transported across the empire along purpose-built roads using llamas and
porters (there were no wheeled vehicles). The Inca road network covered over 40,000
km and as well as allowing for the easy movement of armies, administrators, and
trade goods, it was also a very powerful visual symbol of Inca authority over their
empire. The roads had rest stations along their way, and there was also a relay system
of runners (chasquis) who carried messages up to 240 km in a single day from one
settlement to another.
Inca Art
Although influenced by the art and techniques of the Chimu civilization, the Incas did
create their own distinctive style which was an instantly recognisable symbol of
imperial dominance across the empire. Inca art is best seen in highly polished
metalwork (in gold - considered the sweat of the sun, silver - considered the tears of
the moon, and copper), ceramics, and textiles, with the last being considered the most
prestigious by the Incas themselves. Designs often use geometrical shapes, are
technically accomplished, and standardized. The checkerboard stands out as a very
popular design. One of the reasons for repeated designs was that pottery and textiles
were often produced for the state as a tax, and so artworks were representative of
specific communities and their cultural heritage. Just as today coins and stamps reflect
a nation's history, so, too, Andean artwork offered recognisable motifs which either
represented the specific communities making them or the imposed designs of the
ruling Inca class ordering them.
Inca Ruler
Atahualpa
Works using precious metals such as discs, jewellery, figures, and everyday objects
were made exclusively for Inca nobles, and even some textiles were restricted for
their use alone. Goods made using the super-soft vicuña wool were similarly
restricted, and only the Inca ruler could own vicuña herds. Ceramics were for wider
use, and the most common shape was the urpu, a bulbous vessel with a long neck and
two small handles low on the pot which was used for storing maize. It is notable that
the pottery decoration, textiles, and architectural sculpture of the Incas did not usually
include representations of themselves, their rituals, or such common Andean images
as monsters and half-human, half-animal figures.
The Inca produced textiles, ceramics, and metal sculpture technically superior to any
previous Andean culture, and this despite stiff competition from such masters of metal
work as the expert craftsmen of the Moche civilization. Just as the Inca imposed a
political dominance over their conquered subjects, so, too, with art they imposed
standard Inca forms and designs, but they did allow local traditions to maintain their
preferred colours and proportions. Gifted artists such as those from Chan Chan or the
Titicaca area and women particularly skilled at weaving were brought to Cuzco so
that they could produce beautiful things for the Inca rulers.
Collapse
The Inca Empire was founded on, and maintained by, force, and the ruling Incas were
very often unpopular with their subjects (especially in the northern territories), a
situation that the Spanish conquistadores, led by Francisco Pizarro, would take full
advantage of in the middle decades of the 16th century CE. The Inca Empire, in fact,
had still not reached a stage of consolidated maturity when it faced its greatest
challenge. Rebellions were rife, and the Incas were engaged in a war in Ecuador
where a second Inca capital had been established at Quito. Even more serious, the
Incas were hit by an epidemic of European diseases, such as smallpox, which had
spread from central America even faster than the European invaders themselves, and
the wave killed a staggering 65-90% of the population. Such a disease killed Wayna
Qhapaq in 1528 CE and two of his sons, Waskar and Atahualpa, battled in a
damaging civil war for control of the empire just when the European treasure-hunters
arrived. It was this combination of factors - a perfect storm of rebellion, disease, and
invasion - which brought the downfall of the mighty Inca Empire, the largest and
richest ever seen in the Americas.
The Inca language Quechua lives on today and is still spoken by some eight million
people. There are also a good number of buildings, artefacts, and written accounts
which have survived the ravages of conquerors, looters, and time. These remains are
proportionally few to the vast riches which have been lost, but they remain
indisputable witnesses to the wealth, ingenuity, and high cultural achievements of this
great, but short-lived civilization.

10

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

10

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Major Conquests 1000-1500 A.D.

Norman conquest of England

William's claim to the English throne

Tostig's raids and the Norwegian

Norman preparations and forces

Landing and Harold's march south

many English nobles and soldiers, as the Byzantines were in need of

Depiction of the Varangian Guard

Immigration and intermarriage

29. Marren 1066 pp. 74–75

71. Douglas William the Conqueror pp. 214–215

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norman_conquest_of_England&oldid=889718767"

This page was last edited on 27 March 2019, at 14:14 (UTC).

Byzantine counter-attack: 1118–1176

Emperors under the increasing influence of bureaucrats in Constantinople.

Initial Conflicts: 1064–1071

Turkic Conquests: 1071–1096

Byzantium Survives: 1096–1118

Following their victories, the Crusaders went on to lay siege to Antioch a

Byzantine counter-attack: 1118–1176

there was no more Byzantine reconquest in Asia Minor after

Byzantine Collapse 1180–1308

For an empire that was surrounded by enemies the downfall of Byzantium

Year Population Soldiers Area

1025 12,000,000 110,000 Byzantine Empire

1143 10,000,000 50,000 Byzantine Empire

1204 9,000,000 30,000+ Byzantine Empire

1281 5,000,000 20,000 Byzantine Empire[47]

East. As the Turks steadily gained ground in Anatolia, the

The War also gave Western Christendom the opportunity to

4. "Heraclius" (http://www.answers.com/topic/heraclius). Answers.com. Retrieved 2007-11-03.

24. Rickard, J. (3 April 2001), Battle of Dorylaeum (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_dorylaeum.html), 1 July

50. Haldon 2002, p. 51.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byzantine–Seljuq_wars&oldid=889533493"

This page was last edited on 26 March 2019, at 08:49 (UTC).

Rise of the Ottoman Empire (1299–1453)

Battle of Kosovo (1389)

Battle of Nicopolis (1396)

Sultan Mehmed I. Ottoman miniature, 1413-1421

Battle of Varna (1444)

Classical Age (1453–1550)

Fall of Constantinople (1453)

Battle of Chaldiran (1514)

Siege of Rhodes (1522)

Battle of Mohács (1526)

Mehmed II conquered Constantinople in 1453 and brought an end to

The Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by Mehmed II cemented the status

Suleiman the Magnificentbecame a prominent monarch of 16th-century Europe,

Selim's successor, Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566), further expanded upon

Barbarossa Hayreddin Pashadefeated the Holy League at the Battle of

Rumelihisarı (Rumelian Castle 1453)

Suleiman's policy of expansion throughout the Mediterranean basin was however

Listen to this article, narrated by Richard de Man

40,000 Incas governed a territory with 10 million subjects speaking over

Government & Administration

Local administrators reported to over 80 regional-level administrators who, in turn,

Inca Architecture & Roads

Вам также может понравиться