I hear you! I mean, where's the spring???MRAKoris said:Errrr... i got one small city right here... may i use that ancient technology to move it a bit closer to Bahamas? :rofl:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Marcus Valerius said:
You forgot something...Constantinople was a great fortress. It was difficult to take at once. If Byzantines lost control overseas then in order to avenged western enemies they must to "marched and gathered forces through Anatolia, the Caucuses, north of the Black Sea, and then into the Balkans" and it was still difficult to take Constantinople without control overseas. Byzantines returned Constantinople late.
Marcus Valerius said:
Yes, emperor (Caesar? Tsar?) Iohan Vatatzes didn't do it . It did Baty-khan. And Russians princes called him Tsar' of Tartars. Both armies was near in 1241 and none historian didn't see nothing unusual with it.
For instance, Baty-khan had a capitol. Rus chronicles called it as "Saray".
Do you know how Rus chronicles called Constantinople before Tatars invasion?
They called it as "Tsargorod" (from words "Tsar" - Tsar, Caesar, Emperor and "Gorod" - town). It means the town of emperor.
Historians didn't find "Saray".
We have two similar Leaders, two armies (technological advanced armies) near Balkans in 1241, two similar capitols...
Last edited:
I posted the meaning of the word Sarai just a few posts above! Linguistically, it doesn't have anything to do with Tsar, as you rarely had transitions from C to S (or back) in Slavic languages.De Slard said:
Cheers,
Milos
De Slard said:
Ok, yeah its a great fortress and you might want to gain more before you try to take it back. But all around the black sea? Why would you ever do that???? Talk about the long way home. You'd go south of Constantopol before north. Thats just crazy to do it on that path, your more likely to lose men than gain them.
De Slard said:
Hah, no. That didn't happen.
First of all, if he wanted to cross from Asia Minor to Europe, all he would have done was cross the Hellespont, as happened many times, both before and after 1241. Why would the Emperor suddenly decide to march all the way around the Black Sea that year?
Second, even if he had wanted to make such a march, there's no way the Turks would have let him through their lands. They weren't exactly allies, you know.
Finally, if the Turks *did* let him through, they would have just waited until Vatatzes had all of his troops halfway through, and ambushed them. Or the Turks would have waited until they were halfway around the Black Sea, and invaded in force to crush the now-defenseless Nicean Empire. And further, Vatatzes would have known the Turks would have done that - he was far too capable an Emperor and general to take such a risk.
De Slard said:
As Mishko was so kind to point out above, the word Sarai has nothing to do with the word Tsar - thus your whole line of argument here is faulty.
ed: By the way, where exactly did this 'theory' come from, anyway? Is this your own invention, or have you managed to find someone who claims to have done scholarly research to back it up?
Marcus Valerius said:
Yes, You are right. I have read several books. I'll give you exact name in the evening.
Several theories:
1) It was invasion of western countries. If shortly:
Tartars - men from Tatrs mountains in Czechia. Golden horde was a millitary order of Golden Star in the same place. Founder of theory - Morozov (lived more then hundred years ago).
2) It was invasion of Byzantine emperors who gathred forces and money for campaigns against western enemies. (Founder Zabinskiy?)
3) It was mixed invasion either western orders and Byzantine emperors.
And Rus principalities were divided between two hostile sides after all.
Last edited:
De Slard said:
Geez! Fomenko is far behind
De Slard can you provide some links to these works or books, i wanna see it badly
MRAKoris said:Geez! Fomenko is far behind
I have read only books.
I'll give names and authors in the evening. They were mentioned in the discussions during historical battles on Snowball forums.
Series books of different authors:
"Other history of.... culture, wars, the Middle Ages, Rus principalities, Moscow Russia".
Last edited:
Mishko said:
The original capital of the Golden horde was Sarai Batu (after Batu Khan), founded early on. It was somewhere on the Lower Volga.
It then became 'New' Sarai, often called Sarai Berke because it was supposedly founded by Batu's brother Berke (1257-67). However, it appears that they were both built on the same site (or at least very close), and Sarai Berke appears to have been built in the 1330s (archaeological). Apparently the mistake was Persian.
Sarai Berke is described as an extensive unwalled metropolis that was quite prosperous. It was Sarai Berke that was sacked by Tamerlane in the 1390s.
I don't know about Saraichik though.
Dimwit said:
1. Sarai Batu - Sarai Bati (Papa); it means on Russian "Sarai of the Pope"...Vatican?
2. Sarai Berke - sounds like Germans Sarai Burg; it means on Russian "town of Tsar" - ancient Russian name of Constantinople - Tsargrad?
3. 'New' Sarai - Bosna Sarai it is Turkish name of modern Saraevo (Bosnia)?
So many questions...
MRAKoris said:Geez! Fomenko is far behind
I have found only russian link of publisher:
http://www.veche.ru/txt/serii/versii.htm
@MRAKoris
I want to know you opinion about "Other history of Moscow state".
Marcus Valerius said:
It wasn't one campaign. It was several campaigns (incl. reconnaissance campaign to the north of Black Sea in 1214 after 10 years of fall...). Emperors retreated to deep of their (and allies) possessions.
Marcus Valerius said:
Vatatzes is respected as saint by Turks as I have read.
What we know about relations between Turks and emperors during 1204-1261?
Jove said:
What we know about eastern border of emperors' (and their allies') possessions? It is logically to retreat in 1204 in order to gather forces and subdued restless allies and vassals. And then...
Either your saying that the tribes north of the black see were allies of Byzantine or....what?De Slard said:
How do you retreat not just away, but above, around and finally in front of your enemy? You must think that the people ruling Constantinople were pretty stupid to allow this huge army with a long (500?) mile supply line along the Black sea to go without a raid to try to distrup it.
De Slard said:
This is from around the time of the sack of Constantinople. Not 100% accurate, but the best I could find online. Now tell me again how any competant Emperor would have marched from his holdings in Asia Minor all the way around the Black Sea through hostile territory (while leaving his own holdings essentially undefended) to get to Constantinople.
De Slard said:
Wait, so now you're claiming that the Byzantines did this more than once? Right. :rofl:
Look at my map above. In 1241, the lands held by Vatatzes were essentially the blue part of Asia Minor (a little less than is shown on that map, actually). Given the very limited resources he had at the time, and the fact that such an operation would have required him marching through enemy territory, it's simply not a credible theory. They Byzantines simply didn't *have* allies to the east at that time (and no, the Turks were not allies of the Byzantines).
De Slard said:
Much, much fighting for territory in Asia Minor. I don't know where you read that he was respected as a saint (which itself is nonsensical, because as the Turks were Muslims, they didn't revere *anyone* as a saint). The Byzantines spent more time fighting their Turkish neighbors in Asia Minor than they spent at peace. Not exactly conducive to the kind of operation your theory suggests, now is it?
De Slard said:
A lot, like Theodore I defeated Seljuks bitterly killing the sultan himself Qay-Husrau I. Or you wanna tell me that was done out of love and passion towards them?
Turks respect Ioannes Vatatzes as a saint? If i am precise, they destroyed his tomb after they had managed to capture Magnesia, the city where his remains were moved from Sosandra monastery.
De Slard said:
Okay, i will look into it a bit later, but let me disagree with you in all points where Byzantine is involved... I would like to recommend you to read Fedor Iv. Uspensky "History of Byzantine Empire" in 5 volumes 1912, re-published by AST Publishing House, Moscow 2002. Or else S.V. Dashkov's "Byzantine Emperors" Red Square Publishing House 1996.
Just found a bit of a better map, De Slard...
The territory shown as the "Empire of Nicea" was essentially what was held by Vatatzes in 1241 (plus a little more, but not that much of a difference).
The territory shown as the "Empire of Nicea" was essentially what was held by Vatatzes in 1241 (plus a little more, but not that much of a difference).
Marcus Valerius said:
This is from around the time of the sack of Constantinople. Not 100% accurate, but the best I could find online. Now tell me again how any competant Emperor would have marched from his holdings in Asia Minor all the way around the Black Sea through hostile territory (while leaving his own holdings essentially undefended) to get to Constantinople.
He must do it, you forget that emperors didn't control seas (Venice, Genoa). They always risked to be cut from main bases without the Caucasus and the north of Black Sea.
I didn't see Latin empire at the picture
When I am looking on the map and I am imagining compaigns of Baty-khan... It is clear that both Leaders were acting together, ... if they were two different men.
Last edited: