Why the BYZ love?

[Arilou]

but when the army constantly had to defend the Empire from two front-lines...

And the Caliphate had what, three? Four?

Most of their territorial losses happened during times of internal instability, not because the oponents were stronger,

Err, if you suffer internal instability that means you are weak.

but still, even when they lost on one side they were mostly able to defend the other and then retake the loses back and in many cases even expand.

No, the Byzantine Empire didn't really expand beyond the Roman Empire at it's height (maybe a few bits and pieces, but nothing major) at best they managed to reverse the defeats they suffered, temporarily.

What other state survived so many critical moments?

No one disputes their capacity for survival....

They didn't surrender even when the New Rome was lost in 1204
that'sit. They were exiled for a short time.

What's your point? Many nations have lost thier capital and bounced back.

Now, that doesen't mean the Byzantines didn't contribute: Of course they did, but "implosion at a snail's pace" pretty much describes it

 

[Basileios I]

And the Caliphate had what, three? Four?

And what happened to the Caliphate? It withered away, powerless to enforce central authority in its provinces ...

Err, if you suffer internal instability that means you are weak.

To suffer internal instability (for example a civil war) in the Byzantine case means your army has to fight in the West, in the East and against rebels in Anatolia.

No, the Byzantine Empire didn't really expand beyond the Roman Empire at it's height (maybe a few bits and pieces, but nothing major) at best they managed to reverse the defeats they suffered, temporarily.

Why should the expand beyond what the Roman Empire had centuries before? The point is that they expanded. From the 9th century on at least until 1071.

Now, that doesen't mean the Byzantines didn't contribute: Of course they did, but "implosion at a snail's pace" pretty much describes it

Not at all. Abdul is very wrong there ...

 

[unmerged(10416)]

Now, that doesen't mean the Byzantines didn't contribute: Of course they did, but "implosion at a snail's pace" pretty much describes it

Well, let's say their historical role grew less over the centuries. That doesn't mean that the empire was in decline under the Macedon dynasty, or under the Nicaean era. There were long periods of expansion, longer than the kind of expansions that are usually attributed to that one good ruler who reversed the trend. If you had told Frederick Barbarossa that the Byzantine Empire was in decline, he would probably not have understood what you meant - the Eastern Empire was the most powerful empire of his time, and things like the loss of a city here and there, an army trashed every now and then, were everyday business to a monarch like Barbarossa. What Barbarossa and his contemporaries knew was that the Emperor in Constantinople had a treasury chest that dwarfed that of any other monarch, and that he could put armies in the field that were capable of defeating any other army at the time.

The role which the Byzantine Empire played was not that of an empire towards which foreigners pointed and said "Look, this is the empire that keeps losing all those battles and that looks like it's going to be conquered any time soon. We must hurry to conquer a piece of it before the Turks grab it all". That might have been so towards the end, but not during the hundreds of years before 1204.

On a long-term trend, Germany also kept losing land all the time, from the 14th century to 2006. What a decline! It started out with a vast empire, stretching from Burgundy to the Netherlands, Pomerania, Bohemia, and northern Italy, and now it's down to a pitiful rump state. Our collapse must be imminent! Should I learn Polish or French, I wonder... :wacko: Surely the historians of tomorrow will find that Germany was a tyrannical, decrepit empire, and that there was nothing new about Charles V, Bismarck, or Adenauer. Implosion at a snail's place, absolutely, eh! European history is defined by the snail's-pace-implosion of Germany, that's the new historical paradigm!

See why I think it's useless to construct 1000-year trends and interprete history through them??

 

[Arilou]

That doesn't mean that the empire was in decline under the Macedon dynasty, or under the Nicaean era.

Relatively they were in almost constant decline (at least after Justinian) That doesen't mean some dynasties didn't halt or even somewhat reverse it, their apogee was quite early on.

and that he could put armies in the field that were capable of defeating any other army at the time.

Except obviously that of the Seljuks. Or the Crusaders. Or the Ottomans...

And what happened to the Caliphate? It withered away, powerless to enforce central authority in its provinces ...

My point is that "Two fronts" isn't really that impressive. *Sweden* had two fronts at least.

To suffer internal instability (for example a civil war) in the Byzantine case means your army has to fight in the West, in the East and against rebels in Anatolia.

Yes, and the fact that they suffered such internal instability that could be exploited by their enemies is a sign of their weakness.

Just like it was for the chinese.

Why should the expand beyond what the Roman Empire had centuries before? The point is that they expanded. From the 9th century on at least until 1071.

But they expanded *into territories they had previously lost*: Even at their highest the best they did was try to reclaim their lost possessions, never to grab new ones. So while in 1071 they might have been expanding compared to 200 years earlier that still was at a lesser position than when Constantine first set up the Empire.

See what I mean? Even in their periods of expansion they never reached their former heights.

Not at all. Abdul is very wrong there ...

It is very comparable to the Ottomans post-Suleiman. Yes, there were periods of restoration. Yes, lost territory was reclaimed (Iraq) but it was also pretty clearly in decline.

If take from their thousand year-long history (as distinct from the combined "Roman Empire", yes, that's an anachronism, but a useful one) the trend was quite clearly downwards most of the time. Yeah, at times they managed to level out the curve, or even reverse it for a century or two.... But even during these tops they never reached their starting-point.

 

[Basileios I]

Relatively they were in almost constant decline (at least after Justinian) That doesen't mean some dynasties didn't halt or even somewhat reverse it, their apogee was quite early on.

Most scholars say their apogee was under the Macedonians.

Except obviously that of the Seljuks. Or the Crusaders. Or the Ottomans...

Still they had the best army of the known world in their time. The ancient Romans also had the "best army of the known world" and suffered defeats and setbacks

My point is that "Two fronts" isn't really that impressive. *Sweden* had two fronts at least.

When?

A constant (hundreds of years) two front conflict? With strong enemies on both sides (Arabs and Bulgars)?

Yes, and the fact that they suffered such internal instability that could be exploited by their enemies is a sign of their weakness.

It actually shows how powerful the Empire was. It still managed to maintain its borders and expand despite frequent internal unrest (mostly for religious reasons --> Iconoclasm for example).

But they expanded *into territories they had previously lost*: Even at their highest the best they did was try to reclaim their lost possessions, never to grab new ones. So while in 1071 they might have been expanding compared to 200 years earlier that still was at a lesser position than when Constantine first set up the Empire.

Which was like, 700 (!) years before ...

 

[Arilou]

When?

A constant (hundreds of years) two front conflict? With strong enemies on both sides (Arabs and Bulgars)?

Since forever

Denmark to the South, Russia to the east.

Which was like, 700 (!) years before ...

Which is why the implosion was at snail's pace.

Still they had the best army of the known world in their time. The ancient Romans also had the "best army of the known world" and suffered defeats and setbacks

But the Byzantine setbacks were severe, I'd almost say cataclysmic.

They lost North Africa, Egypt and Most of Syria in one fell swoop to the arabs and never reclaimed it. They lost Asia minor to the Seljuks and never reclaimed it all. They gradually lost their holdings in the balkans.... Fact is that for it's entire history the byzantine Empire was either on the defensive, trying to avoid conquest, or trying to retake previous territory (when they had failed with A))

The Byzantines didn't just suffer "setbacks", that implies they actually managed to make up for it: They didn't. They suffered *defeats*.

It actually shows how powerful the Empire was. It still managed to maintain its borders and expand despite frequent internal unrest (mostly for religious reasons --> Iconoclasm for example).

But it *didn't* manage to maintain it's borders! The Ottomans took Constantinopole! And before that there had been a gradual reduction of byzantine strength for hundreds of years!

 

[Basileios I]

Since forever

Denmark to the South, Russia to the east.

But you didn't fight them almost constantly. Along the frontier in Asia Minor and the Balkans for example, skirmishes and expeditions happened throughout the year.

But the Byzantine setbacks were severe, I'd almost say cataclysmic.

Other states (Franks for example) would've crumbled under the onslaught the Byzantine Empire faced. Look at what happened to the highly developed Sassanid Empire.

They lost North Africa, Egypt and Most of Syria in one fell swoop to the arabs and never reclaimed it.

Before they took Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria, Armenia and Mesopotamia from the Persians in one swoop. After that, both Empires (Persians and Romans) were exhausted. That is the sole reason for the Arab success. If the Romano-Persian wars hadn't happened, Sassanids and Romans would've driven the Arabs back into the desert.

Fact is that for it's entire history the byzantine Empire was either on the defensive, trying to avoid conquest, or trying to retake previous territory (when they had failed with A))

Byzantine history is a history of ups and downs (like of any state), not a "decline at snails pace".

But it *didn't* manage to maintain it's borders! The Ottomans took Constantinopole! And before that there had been a gradual reduction of byzantine strength for hundreds of years!

The Empire at the time of Basileios II was actually stronger than at the time of Herakleios. Territory isn't everything.

And according to your logic, the history of every fallen empire was a decline at snails pace (or even faster) because they didn't managed to maintain their borders.

 

[Arilou]

But you didn't fight them almost constantly. Along the frontier in Asia Minor and the Balkans for example, skirmishes and expeditions happened throughout the year.

Yes we did. Sweden has been fighting Russia and Denmark almost constantly for most of it's history.

And according to your logic, the history of every fallen empire was a decline at snails pace (or even faster) because they didn't managed to maintain their borders.

No, but only after their "high point".

If the Byzantines are considered the heirs of the roman Empire their apogee was during the reign of the Good Emperors. And since then it was downhill.

Any empire that fell is by definition in decline since it's apogee.

 

[Basileios I]

If the Byzantines are considered the heirs of the roman Empire their apogee was during the reign of the Good Emperors. And since then it was downhill.

1025 is commonly considered the apogee of Byzantine history. After that it was downhill, with a temporary reversal under the Comnenian dynasty.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Oh come on... what defines a "decrepit" state for you? A state which plunders its subjects to pay for its boundless armies, and where the rich run amok, ruining the state... then welcome to the Carolingian Empire, that's pretty much what they did after Charlemagne.

I ain't saying the Franks weren't. I got suckered into the labelling game by Basileos's superlatives about best this and best that. I questioned that by pointing out their contemporaries.

- The Franks had a better army than the "best army" of the Byzantines.
- The Aghlabids had a better navy than the "best navy" of the Byzantines.
- The Arabs forged a superior civilization than the "most superior civilization" of the Byzantines.

In short, I'm unimpressed.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

What Barbarossa and his contemporaries knew was that the Emperor in Constantinople had a treasury chest that dwarfed that of any other monarch, and that he could put armies in the field that were capable of defeating any other army at the time.

Whom, for instance?

Byzantium's heyday was the 6th C., not the 10th. Thereafter, it was a second-tier power engaged in a largely defensive struggle and losing territory throughout.

With a couple of exceptions (i.e. Bulgaria), any territorial gains they made were temporary and at the expense of midget opponents, tiny fledgling states on their borders, not state-of-the-art armies of rival empires. Defeating a rebel Duke of Benevento or Hamdanid Emir isn't much to show for the "best army" in the Mediterranean.

The role which the Byzantine Empire played was not that of an empire towards which foreigners pointed and said "Look, this is the empire that keeps losing all those battles and that looks like it's going to be conquered any time soon. We must hurry to conquer a piece of it before the Turks grab it all". That might have been so towards the end, but not during the hundreds of years before 1204.

So what were the Arabs, the Bulgars, the Lombards, the Franks, the Aghlabids, the Fatimids, the Normans, the Turks, etc. doing venturing into Byzantine lands? Tourism?

Surely the historians of tomorrow will find that Germany was a tyrannical, decrepit empire, and that there was nothing new about Charles V, Bismarck, or Adenauer. Implosion at a snail's place, absolutely, eh! European history is defined by the snail's-pace-implosion of Germany, that's the new historical paradigm!

The dear ol' HRE wasn't much of an empire, no. It wasn't implosion at a snail's pace. It was implosion at the speed of sound. It was practically an irrelevance as quickly as it was founded. It never had the chance to grow tyrannical and decrepit.

Anyway, let me step back from the brink. I don't wish to continue blasting the Byzzies because I find such exercises unproductive and unfair. Byzantium was what it was. I don't confuse it with the Roman Empire, so my expectations aren't high - and they don't exceed them. I'd rather consider them on their own merits and credit them for that, rather than blast them for failure to live up to their astronomical billing.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

Before they took Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria, Armenia and Mesopotamia from the Persians in one swoop. After that, both Empires (Persians and Romans) were exhausted. That is the sole reason for the Arab success. If the Romano-Persian wars hadn't happened, Sassanids and Romans would've driven the Arabs back into the desert.

What is the base for that theory? Certainly the Arab conquest were quite impressive, beating both empires in open battles. The walls of Constantinopel saved the Byzantine empire, not some field battle they barely lost.

Why should a fresher Byzantine empire defeat the clearly best army of the period?

 

[Basileios I]

Why should a fresher Byzantine empire defeat the clearly best army of the period?

Maybe not in one this one battle, but an empire not as exhausted would've put up a much stiffer resistance (like it did against the Persians). The same goes for the Sassanids (who actually won one battle against the Arabs first). And in terms of organisation and tactics the Arabic army was clearly not the best of the time. The Roman and Persian armies were more sophisticated and developed. The problem was that they weakened themselves in one big war before. I highly doubt that the Arab conquest would've been succesful without the Romano-Persian wars ...

 

[Basileios I]

- The Franks had a better army than the "best army" of the Byzantines.

Wrong. Go read about the Byzantine Army, It could really help before you enter a discussion about it.

The Frankish army used only little battle-tactics and was rather unorganised - so the typical western medieval army.

Is the North-Vietnamese Army/Vietcong also better than the US-Army, because they defeated them?

- The Aghlabids had a better navy than the "best navy" of the Byzantines.

Probably once, but how long did they last? The Emirate started in 800 and fell in 909. Wow.

- The Arabs forged a superior civilization than the "most superior civilization" of the Byzantines.

What did the Arabs have what the Byzantines hadn't? Have you read the accounts of crusaders in Constantinople in 1204?

 

[Zohrath]

The Byzantine empire wasn't a big naval power, they won some yes, but they had many atrocious losses too. They never even managed to keep the aegean pirate-free.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Wrong. Go read about the Byzantine Army, It could really help before you enter a discussion about it.

The Frankish army used only little battle-tactics and was rather unorganised - so the typical western medieval army.

Is the North-Vietnamese Army/Vietcong also better than the US-Army, because they defeated them?

I am not particularly impressed by fancy titles & uniforms. Results speak for themselves. The Franks conquered a huge empire, fifteen times larger than Byzantine territory. The Franks handed the Byzantines their ass practically every time they fought.

Probably once, but how long did they last? The Emirate started in 800 and fell in 909. Wow.

Again, results speak for themselves. The Aghlabids (and that was only one of several Arab naval powers) dominated the Mediterranean with impunity until the Italians (Pisa specifically) went on the offensive in the 11th C. Then it was the Normans' turn. Throughout, the Byzantine navy couldn't barely break out of their harbors. I've given you an account of that before.

What did the Arabs have what the Byzantines hadn't? Have you read the accounts of crusaders in Constantinople in 1204?

Yes.

Again, I leave you to the thrill of discovery by yourself.

Are we done with this silly discussion?

 

[Basileios I]

I am not particularly impressed by fancy titles & uniforms. Results speak for themselves. The Franks conquered a huge empire, fifteen times larger than Byzantine territory. The Franks handed the Byzantines their ass practically every time they fought.

15 times larger?

And please point me to a site or list those Frankish victories, I'd be interested to read about it.

Again, results speak for themselves. The Aghlabids (and that was only one of several Arab naval powers) dominated the Mediterranean with impunity until the Italians (Pisa specifically) went on the offensive in the 11th C. Then it was the Normans' turn. Throughout, the Byzantine navy couldn't barely break out of their harbors. I've given you an account of that before.

The Aghlabids were gone by the 11th century btw. And there are plenty of Byzantine naval victories and succesful naval operations. The reconquest of Crete and Cyprus, for example or combined land/naval operations against the Bulgars and Rus.

Again, I leave you to the thrill of discovery by yourself.

What did an Arab city have what Constantinople didn't have?

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

15 times larger?

A figure of speech. But when you separate the part they inherited from the part they conquered, you'll see it's not too far off.

And please point me to a site or list those Frankish victories, I'd be interested to read about it.

Go read a book about southern Italy in the 8th/9th C. Several encounters there.

The Aghlabids were gone by the 11th century btw. And there are plenty of Byzantine naval victories and succesful naval operations. The reconquest of Crete and Cyprus, for example or combined land/naval operations against the Bulgars and Rus.

It wasn't the Aghlabids who held Crete, but a handful of Spanish pirates.

The Byz record at sea is a handful of victories against hundreds of defeats. Byz had practically no naval projection outside its immediate waters. Even the landlubber Franks achieved more at sea than the Byzzies.

Ah, yes, it must have been a mighty contest against the Bulgar fleet. P.S. - That's the Black Sea, not the Mediterranean.

Please quit this nonsense.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

Maybe not in one this one battle, but an empire not as exhausted would've put up a much stiffer resistance (like it did against the Persians). The same goes for the Sassanids (who actually won one battle against the Arabs first). And in terms of organisation and tactics the Arabic army was clearly not the best of the time. The Roman and Persian armies were more sophisticated and developed. The problem was that they weakened themselves in one big war before. I highly doubt that the Arab conquest would've been succesful without the Romano-Persian wars ...

So, you want that to be true, rather then assume that the Arab army was superior then they opponents. So they were exhausted, but not battle hardend?

The results speak for the Arabs, they were usually outnumbered, but they did win versus almost all other armies of the period. That is pretty much the definition of superior.

 

[Basileios I]

Go read a book about southern Italy in the 8th/9th C. Several encounters there.

So was it against the forces of the Themes of Calabria and Langobardia?

It wasn't the Aghlabids who held Crete, but a handful of Spanish pirates.

I know. A handfull is good though ...

Th Byz record at sea is a handful of victories against hundreds of defeats. Byz had practically no naval projection outside its immediate waters. Even the landlubber Franks achieved more at sea than the Byzzies.

The Franks (how many ships did they have?) never fought the central fleet of the Empire stationed at Constantinople. I highly doubt that. Rather a force of some naval theme.

The Byzantine navy drove the so-powerful Arab navy away from Constantinople, out of the Agean and off Cyprus.

At the time of Basil II the Byzantine fleet controled the Eastern Med again. Preparations were made to liberate Sicily from the Muslims. But then he died and this succesors neglected army and navy.