Byzantines overpowered?

[unmerged(334779)]

To me, it does not make sense that the Bynzantines can summon a force of 20-30k, double that of sultanate of Rum, in 1187.

 

[Hootieleece]

Here We go again............

 

[unmerged(334779)]

historically byzantines were crippled forever after battle of manzikert and idea they could create army to reconquer areas in sultanate of rum is preposterous

 

[riadach]

historically byzantines were crippled forever after battle of manzikert and idea they could create army to reconquer areas in sultanate of rum is preposterous

But they did exactly that.

Byzantium after Manzikert

Byzantium in 1176

 

[unmerged(334779)]

Maybe with a doukas on the throne they did...

 

[riadach]

Maybe with a doukas on the throne they did...

Actually, both were Comnenii.

 

[Sopot]

historically byzantines were crippled forever after battle of manzikert and idea they could create army to reconquer areas in sultanate of rum is preposterous

The second you start the game, any ideas of everything being historical go out the window.

 

[NezzeOne]

Basically what Riadach said. After Manzikert and the Seljuk invasion, Byzantium was essentially stripped of the Anatolian heartlands. After the Seljuk powerbase crumbled, Anatolian dominance varied back-and-forth between Byzantine and Turk control (up until the Fourth Crusade, which permanently crippled the Empire and drastically reduced its ability to resist the Turks.)

 

[unmerged(334779)]

regardless, besides a few blips, turkish control of the anatolian peninsula was basically constant after 1071. still think holdings of bynzantine empire are quite generous in their levies

 

[rickinator9]

To me, it does not make sense that the Bynzantines can summon a force of 20-30k, double that of sultanate of Rum, in 1187.

And yet Manuel was able to summon a force of 35000 10 years earlier.

Rum and Anatolia in general is very unhistorical, as PI just gave all of that land to Rum, while it would have only held Iconium, Ancyra and Tyana. The other lands were controlled by other turkish dynasties.

 

[Avalanchemike]

regardless, besides a few blips, turkish control of the anatolian peninsula was basically constant after 1071. still think holdings of bynzantine empire are quite generous in their levies

That's simply untrue. The loss of Constantinople was grievous to the Byzantines, because of the moral loss, the loss of the wealth of the city including it's many relics and the destruction of the bureaucracy, but when the Empire was at Nicea there was a minor revival. The Emperor Ioannes III encouraged local growth by showing everyone should have a trade which helps the nation (he had a chicken farm!), which led to a boom in the economy. Artists and scholars flocked there and imbued the city bringing a cultural revival. It's been speculated if instead of focusing so much of their attentions upon the Latins and Constantinople and focusing instead on regaining Anatolia from the Turks which were weak and suffering from internal squabbles at the time, iirc, they could have reforged an Empire stronger than before.

Again, Manzikert was a grievous loss, but it was by no means the end which can clearly be seen the Komnenid campaigns back into Anatolia. There were flaws, yes, but there is absolutely no reason to say that things were forced to happen that way, there is no reason to say that things could not have gone right. Nothing is impossible and ultimately the goal of the EU series is to represent that: that nothing is static. That nothing is railroaded. That intervention can change things. That nothing NEEDS to be the way it is. And that's why I love them.

To put this simply, you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[unmerged(334779)]

And yet Manuel was able to summon a force of 35000 10 years earlier.

Rum and Anatolia in general is very unhistorical, as PI just gave all of that land to Rum, while it would have only held Iconium, Ancyra and Tyana. The other lands were controlled by other turkish dynasties.

To put this simply, you do not know what you are talking about.

Is it not more ahistorical for the Byzantines to easily trump Turkish troops on a massive scale? The die had been cast for the Byzantine Empire and to give them such a static advantage as almost double the size of levies is simply preposterous and makes me think others are the ones who do not know what they are talking about. The Turks were not lucky to conquer the Byzantines, sorry.

 

[rickinator9]

Depends on the succession of an incompetent emperor, which happened historically around this time. In-game, this also has effects. States with incompetent rulers tend to have a lot of plots and factions. The turks were partly lucky, because the struggles for the byzantine throne were the cause of the 'sacking' of Constantinople.

 

[unmerged(68578)]

Is it not more ahistorical for the Byzantines to easily trump Turkish troops on a massive scale? The die had been cast for the Byzantine Empire and to give them such a static advantage as almost double the size of levies is simply preposterous and makes me think others are the ones who do not know what they are talking about. The Turks were not lucky to conquer the Byzantines, sorry.

Everything that has ever happened was because of luck.

 

[TC Pilot]

Basically, look up the Battle of Myriokephalon

 

[NezzeOne]

Is it not more ahistorical for the Byzantines to easily trump Turkish troops on a massive scale? The die had been cast for the Byzantine Empire and to give them such a static advantage as almost double the size of levies is simply preposterous and makes me think others are the ones who do not know what they are talking about. The Turks were not lucky to conquer the Byzantines, sorry.

Actually, they were. Manzikert happened because of miscommunication and a power-hungry general on behalf of the Byzantines. Not to say that the Turks didn't play a role (obviously they did, duh,) but the "ingenuity" of the Turks isn't why the Romans lost.

 

[Avalanchemike]

Is it not more ahistorical for the Byzantines to easily trump Turkish troops on a massive scale? The die had been cast for the Byzantine Empire and to give them such a static advantage as almost double the size of levies is simply preposterous and makes me think others are the ones who do not know what they are talking about. The Turks were not lucky to conquer the Byzantines, sorry.

No one has said that it was luck that caused the Turks to conquer. It was ruinous factions constantly ripping the Empire apart that allowed an opportunistic Turk to take control. Go and look at a history book: every time there is tumult, every time there is upheaval and a ruinous change of government, the Turk steps forward. It wasn't luck, it was opportunism and, on occasion, skill that allowed the Turks to defeat the Empire. A united Empire was nearly always able to turn the Turks back or make small gains until the final decades of its decline.

But whenever someone says "Manizkert was the end of the Empire" or "the 4th Crusade was the end of the Empire" they're simply wrong.

 

[unmerged(334779)]

Actually, they were. Manzikert happened because of miscommunication and a power-hungry general on behalf of the Byzantines. Not to say that the Turks didn't play a role (obviously they did, duh,) but the "ingenuity" of the Turks isn't why the Romans lost.

So you're saying an empire literally defined by its fractional attitude and divisiveness would have defeated the Turks and regained control of Anatolia quickly if it were not for some bad luck. lol

 

[NezzeOne]

So you're saying an empire literally defined by its fractional attitude and divisiveness would have defeated the Turks and regained control of Anatolia quickly if it were not for some bad luck. lol

Not at all

I'm saying that the Turks were lucky that the Romans decided to squabble amongst themselves during the battle. Disobey a few orders, miscommunicate, and an entire army can be thrown into disarray. A disorganized army cannot offer a proper resistance, and can be easily slaughtered. That's what happened at Manzikert.


Anyhow, a strong emperor leads to a strong empire. Alexios I managed to stabilize the empire, revitalize the economy and even push deep into Anatolia. Anatolia wasn't the heartland of the Empire -- that'd be Greece, and Greece was relatively untouched until the 4th Crusade (and later the Ottomans) rolled around. So to say that the loss of Anatolia would have crippled the Empire and prevent any attempt at reclamation would be false.

Avalanch makes my point a touch more clearly.

 

[unmerged(334779)]

If not Manzikert, the same thing would have happened in the next battle, or the one after it. Besides this, it's irrelevant to the point that the levies of Byzantium are probably too high. They should not be able to overpower the Turks in Anatolia at game start in 1187 with almost double their troops.