Posted on 06/26/2016 6:02:05 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
That is not true. They Turks lost many fights and their empire was less an occupation and more of a tribute scheme.
Also, the plague took its toll on the population of cities while the Turks were living in tents outside of cities. So the Turks were not ravaged by the plague as much.
The Romans aka Byzantines were pursing the Turks who were retreating and not giving battle. The Romans lost track of time in heat of pursuit and night fell and became separated form each other and the Turks using Mongol tactics ambushed them.
In fact by all accounts the Turks did not even know they had wiped out the only field army the Byzantines had in the region. They captured the emperor and made ransom terms like a normal raid party kind of thing. Only many weeks later when no Roman army appeared in the field did the Seljuks raid deep and established the the Seljuk Rum territory in a depopulated Anatolian heartland.
You’re right, in haste I replied to the wrong post. Apologies.
IOW, the Turks were way better than the Byzantines, and just beat their asses, just as I said.
No, the eastern Romans defeated the Turks in lots of battles but the Turks could recover quicker while the Byzantines would lose one battle and ruined. We are seeing that now with the American military. Won every battle in Vietnam and Iraq but could not sustain those victories because the US military is just too expensive to operate at that level continuously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.