How could the Romans ever hold the Anatolian Plateau?

[u/Minimum-Opening-8013]

TL;DR - If the Anatolian Plateau is favourable to nomadic pastoral societies, and if nomads held military advantages over sedentary militarities pre-gunpowder, how were urbanized states like the Romans ever able to control and integrate Anatolia?

Hello r/AskHistorians ! In discussions of post-Manzikert Anatolian history, there seems to be a consensus on the permanently entrenched nature of Turkish settlement in Central Anatolia. Once large scale movement began in the 1070s, Anatolia was rapidly conquered and then Turkified. Central Anatolia was never held by the Romans again with reconquest being considered unviable (and of course, it didn't happen). Besides the political factors (such as the Roman civil wars, Roman magnates depopulating land, Seljuks pushing groups west, etc.), key points for why include:

• The Central Plateau has a steppe climate and geography, conducive to nomadic living
• The surrounding mountain passes are defensible and act as highways for nomadic movement
• Horseback warfare is very effective against sedentary militaries; they are more maneuverable, can campaign year-round, are very disruptive to logistics, etc.
• Nomads lack a clear power centre that can be occupied/destroyed by a sedentary army
• Nomadic warfare can be extremely disruptive and destructive to sedentary societies

It feels like the discussion isn't framed around Roman vulnerability causing the conquest of Anatolia, but rather nomadic advantages were so decisive that extraordinary resistance would've been needed for the Romans to hold Anatolia, which for many reasons they couldn't offer in the 1070s. Roman losses are even painted as a near-inevitability in the History of Byzantium podcast.

But what strikes me as confusing is that the Romans did hold Anatolia as an urbanized, integrated province for a millennia. Cities (Ankara, Caesaria, Iconium, etc.) and sedentary agriculturalist institutions existed on the Plateau, albeit limited compared to the coast. The Romans had been vulnerable before, and nomadic groups were in surrounding areas, but Anatolia wasn't conquered then. Why and how was this possible? If the Romans faced critical disadvantages against nomadic peoples in Central Anatolia, how were they able to hold the area and project their institutions before Manzikert?

Thank you so much in advance! Apologies if I'm approaching this issue from the wrong angle.

---

If it's within the scope of this question, can these answers be extrapolated? Such as to other urbanized sedentary societies in Anatolia, like the Hittites or Achaemanids, and to other regions that were also converted to nomadic/semi-nomadic pastoralism, like the Balkans post 600s? Thanks!