Who is the greatest Byzantine general? [Archive]

cugel

02-28-2003, 00:54

Do Emperor-generals count? Then Basil II would be tops. Under his reign the empire reached it's height.

"On his expeditions against the barbarians, Basil did not follow the customary procedure of other emperors, setting out at the middle of spring and returning home at the end of summer. For him the time to return was when the task was accomplished. He endured the rigors of winter and the heat of summer with equal indifference. He disciplined himself against thirst. In fact, all his natural desires were kept under stern control and the man was as hard as steel. He had an accurate knowledge of the details of army life. . . the composition of his army, the relative functions of the individual units in the whole body. . . the various groupings and deployments suitable to the different formations. . . all these were no mysteries to Basil and the knowledge stood him in good stead in his wars. Moreover he knew the various formations suited to his men. Some he had read of in books, others he devised for himself during the operations of war, the result of his own intuition. He professed to conduct his wars and draw up the troops in line of battle, himself planning each campaign, but he preferred not to engage in combat personally. A sudden retreat might otherwise prove embarassing. . . Once he made contact with the enemy, a regular military liaison was established between the different formations of the Roman army. The whole force was drawn up like a solid tower, headquarters being in touch with the cavalry squadrons, who were themselves ket in communication with the light infantry, and these with various units of the heavy-armed foot. . . The decisive factor in the achievement of victory was, in his opinion, the massing of troops in one coherent body, and for this reason alone he believed the Roman armies to be invincible."

- Psellus, Fourteen Byzantine Rulers

A.Saturnus

02-28-2003, 13:33

Iiiiihhh, an off-topic thread. Mods? MOOODS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

kataphraktoi

02-28-2003, 17:12

George Curcuas was the premium general under the Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, he was the general considered to the one who led the Byzantine counteroffensive by which territory was on the agenda for conquesrt rather than large scale raids when the victory of General Petronas turned the tide of offensive Islam. His noted campaigns and achievements were:

The capture of Melitene, the first Arab Emirate to be conquered and incorporated.

Re-establishe Byzantine authority in Armenia

Retrieved the Mandylion from EDESSA(future Turin Shroud)

I didn't include Basil II because I forgot but I wou;dn't call him a great general anyway, he was a goood general who conquered Bulgaria and pushed the into Armenia but they were more by chance and revenge rather than deliberate conquest. Funnily enough all his conquests were not conquest for conquests sake. He reconfirmed why Byzantium had the best army and thats about it.

There is only one Maurice, Maurice was not only a successful general but an exceptional one, his misfortune was to not have attention focused on his military career whichif studied would reveal an excellent leader, his Strategikon reveals this already. He made his career by defeating the Persians overwhelmingly and by even conquering Azerbaijan and establishing a fleet in the Caspian Sea, Maurice established the two Exarchates on military lines, a prototype model for the later Heraclian thema system. Civlian and Military authroity was subordianted to one Strategos answerable to none but the Emperor.

I forgot one more general: John Tzimikes.
Defeated the Kievan Rus
Defeated the Magyars
Defeated the Bulgarians
Defeated the Fatimids
Defeated the Abbasid Caliphate

Orda Khan

02-28-2003, 17:45

None http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

.......Orda

Ckrisz

02-28-2003, 21:07

Belisarius. Lost only one battle, and it wasn't a major one but rather when his troops forced him to pursue a retreating Persian army. Consistently fought with troop contingents made up mostly of unreliable barbarian mercenaries and political appointees and STILL won against overwhelming odds.

Heraclius

02-28-2003, 22:39

John Tsimizces I have heard of. If I remember correctly he was a superb general but his career was marred by the murder of his friend, the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas, whom he killed in order to become Emperor himself. He scarred by guilt for the rest of his five year reign, which ended with him dying of a terribly painful disease. Please, correct me if I'm confusing him with someone else.

MacGregor

03-01-2003, 08:44

I'm a fan of Constantine IX, didn't exactly do much except go down with the ship, but you have to admire it. It was a fitting end to have the last Emperor die defending the city to the last.

kataphraktoi

03-01-2003, 14:16

John Tzimickes perpetrated one of the most appaling deaths in Byzantine history but that only adds to the mysterya nd the perplexing character of John Tzimickes, in light of his later actions it is indeed hard to reconcile his attitude towards Nicephorus with his merciful conduct against his enemies.

John Tzimickes was well known for the quality of mercy often preferring exile rather than hideous torture and mutilation, his conduct towards the last Emperor could be explained by none other than revenge, Nicephorus and Tzimickes were comrades in arms but John was appalled by the Emperor's jealousy towards him when he became Emperor and forced him into exile on his Anatolian estates.

Personally my choice for greatest general is Heraclius simply because:

He fought a campaign in what was possibly one of the greatest comebacks in history, I dare anyone to prove me wrong and suggest another comeback better than this.

He retrieved all holy relics lost.

He established the military foundation of Byzantium allowing it to reach its greatness under the Macedonian dynasty

He floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee, Chosroes can't defeat what his armies can't see.
He;s the most scientific, he's the most fliest dudes ever and he;'s the greatest.

Despite the end of his reign succumbing to the Muslims, he did participate in the wars agaisnt the stinking Arab scums, cowards who think they are brave because they can take advantage of weak superpowers who could whoop them back to the desert hovels if they wanted to, anyway he was also suffering from Hydrophobia the toll of which was exacted by his long service to the Empire.

I hate you dirty Khalid Al Walid and I hate you Caliph Omar, your warriors are nothing but vultures, every single one of them who prey on old women to prove their masculinity. You destroyed prosperous Christian communities and now they're disappearing from the Middle East. Well done numbskull.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Heraclius

03-01-2003, 18:34

seems like you have a little repressed anger there kataphraktoi. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif although I must agree with you, the arabs wre extremely lucky. Their rise to power was only made possible by the near destruction of the Sassanian Persian Empire by Heraclius, and the weakening of the Byzantine empire through that costly war. Who knows what might have happened to the world if the Sassanian-Byzantine war was never fought? Makes you think, doesn't it?

kataphraktoi

03-02-2003, 10:18

Yeah i could imagine a world without islam.

Imagine this. Muhammed Ali would not become a Muslim, he would instead change his name from Cassius Clay to Chosores Nuvishirvan and change his religion from Christianity to Zoraostarianism.

Imagine this, Camels would still be stinking and not feared.

Imagine this, we wont have to be afraid of terrorist attacks, we will all need to be afraid of Catholics and their fetish for whips when they start an Inquisition.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, rumble young man rumble.

Its a shame, all those Christian Arabs think they're Arabs when they are really the indigenous population that existed before the Muslim invasions, why are they selling their heritage to be an Arab? I 'll tell you why, its because they are afraid of being persecuted, any Muslim that tells you Islam is a religion of peace needs to be checked in his head for being super-ultra-hyper stupid.

Ialam kills. Stay in SUnday School. Don't do drugs. I want to be like Mike. Everything you know about Islam is a lie. Watch more TV. U2 rules.

Ummm....yeah

Fnord

03-02-2003, 10:36

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Mar. 01 2003,07:16)]John Tzimickes perpetrated one of the most appaling deaths in Byzantine history but that only adds to the mysterya nd the perplexing character of John Tzimickes, in light of his later actions it is indeed hard to reconcile his attitude towards Nicephorus with his merciful conduct against his enemies.

John Tzimickes was well known for the quality of mercy often preferring exile rather than hideous torture and mutilation, his conduct towards the last Emperor could be explained by none other than revenge, Nicephorus and Tzimickes were comrades in arms but John was appalled by the Emperor's jealousy towards him when he became Emperor and forced him into exile on his Anatolian estates.
Those are the precise reasons I like John Tzimisces. First off, he rose to power in one of the more brutal and interesting coups of the Byzantines, and then he became a pretty enlightened ruler. It's refreshing to read about an emperor who doesn't castrate and blind everybody from the previous administration.

Ckrisz

03-03-2003, 15:24

Well, kataphraktoi certainly takes the cake for two of the most incoherent posts I've ever read on this board.

Heraclius

03-04-2003, 00:12

Quote[/b] (Ckrisz @ Mar. 03 2003,08:24)]Well, kataphraktoi certainly takes the cake for two of the most incoherent posts I've ever read on this board.
yeah but you still gotta love him, eh, Ckrisz? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

kataphraktoi

03-04-2003, 15:44

If I had an Award sponsored by some bezants I would award these generals with awards like:

Belisarius - brilliant strategist award
nominated because of African, Italian and Eastern campaigns

Heraclius - comeback kid award and persian killer award
nominated because he made a great comeback and flushed the persian rugs down the drain of the Euphrates

Basil II - imaginative punishment and humanitarian award
nominated for his role in the blinding of 15000 giving the 100th man one eye, quality of mercy, just astounding

Nicephorus II - bigot award, military man award and cradle snatcher award
nominated for his warlike temperament, his conquests and his marriage to the young, vicious, sexy but voraciously good looking Empress Theophano

George Curcuas - Armenian of the year award
nominated for his services in Armenia

Narses - Gatorade man of the year
nominated cos he still kicks butt in his evergreen years

John Tzimickes - Revenge award
nominated for his ability to instigate a foul coup

Basil II - award for importing foreign goods
nominated for importing Varangian Guards and insitutionalising them

Comentiolus - idiot general
nominated for being an idiotic general

Maurice - bookworm
nominated for his Strategikon manual

Leo II - award for hoodwinking opponents
nominated for fooling two large stupid Arab armies into retreating and later defeeating them at Constantinople

Alexius Comnenus I - skirt award
nominated for letting women control him like a piece of nomismata coin

Constantine the Great - conversion of the year
nominated for converting to Christianity

kataphraktoi

03-04-2003, 16:00

Yo Heraclius,

one day i was thinking what about a rulebook for roleplaying in MTW campiagns especially in Byzantine campaigns - these are goals which incorporate the current GA goals in MTW but add to it and is enuff, just enuff to clinch victory in the end for being the most glorious realm/state there is in Europe.

I already tried one, I tried the Macedonian Glory campaign by which the territories Basil ruled were reconquered and administered with no further conquests unless stipulated.
The challenge is to fend of enemies on all sides with the territory you have and to make it the wealthiest as well.

Unfortunately the Almohads were too powerful and I couldn't stand the thought of Arabs scoring big when they captured Frenc Women to put them in their harem so i went to war. north africa and southern is mine and the almohads are fighting amongst themselves. I couldn't resist I couldn't resist, I did enjoy bribing though, makes yu feel like a byzantine thru and thru

Heraclius

03-04-2003, 22:38

Sounds interesting. You should put your ideas down on paper, so to speak, and post them. I'd be really interested. On a different note which women controlled Alexius Comnenos. I always thought he was a great emperor. And don't insult him. I'm related to him At least that is what my Greek grandmother used to tell me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif But seriously, I have yet another question: Who is Comentiolos?

P.S- Have you played a game as the Byzantines where the Almohads haven't won? I've played many a Byzantine campaign and only once did I end up fighting the Spanish in North Africa and Spain. Just wondering.

kataphraktoi

03-05-2003, 14:31

The women who controlled Alexius were:

Mary of Alania - Alexius had a thing for Alania since she was a very beautiful Alan princess married to the Michael Ducas and Nicephorus Botanietes. Alexius wanted to marry her but for the intrigues of another woman.

His momma Anna Dalassena, responsible to a certain extent the elevation of Alexius to the throne because of her noble blood.

His wife Irene, exerted a strong influence over her husband but her husband the wily Anatolian he was managed to hoodwink her and beqeauth his crown to his son John Comnenus.

Comentiolus was a relation of that disastrous Emperor Phocas, need I say more? he got his army smashed by the Persians.

yeah its often a two way situation, either the Almohads runover Spain or the Almohads run over the Spanish.

Often as Byzantines its the Spanish but lately its the Almohads by far, superior in numbers but inferior when i beat them like cowards.

I will post the first roleplaying rules now

kataphraktoi

03-05-2003, 14:41

MACEDONIAN GLORY

Restore the borders of Basil II Bulgaroctonus’s borders and his unfinished business plus other external goals.

Essential territories
Naples, Croatia, Greece, Constantinople, Bulgaria, Nicaea, Anatolia, Lesser Armenia, Rum, Armenia, Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Crimea, Trebizond

Unfinished business - Sicily
Sicily long on agenda of Byzantium but never fulfilled

Treaty obligations - Georgia
Georgia (Ani) Byzantine claims on Georgia through agreement needs to be restored

Edessa
Formerly attached to the Euphrates Cities theme as a long line of defence, restore it to Byzantium’s eastern borders.

Security of the Empire
Fortresses in Edessa, Antioch, Rum, Armenia, Trebizond, Naples, Constantinople, Crete and Bulgaria, these are minimum requirements, of you wish to fortify all then do so.

Dominate Eastern Mediterranean
Become leading Naval power by size of Imperial Navy

Fabled Emperor’s wealth
Distribute the largesse of the Emperor’s wealth by constructing a monastery and relinquary in all provinces. Orthodox churches are noted for their particular wealth and extravagant devotion to religious works..

Healthy Treasury
Amass 500,000 florins

Establish Tagmata
Base 10 Varangian Guard, 5 Kataphraktoi, 5 Byzantine cavalry units to form the Tagmata, the central army of Constantinople and bodyguard of the Emperor as well as garrison for the city.

Raids
Devastate and ravage the province as reprisal for the Arab raids on Southern Italy
Provinces to be ravaged
Cyrenaica, Tunis and Algeria

Demonstrate the superiority of the Orthodox Church over the Papacy, establish 5 Orthodox Bishops in Rome as well as devastating Rome and the Papal States.

Heraclius

03-06-2003, 05:03

I did not know about Alexius's women problems, except for his daughter Anna. Thank you for informing me. As for your roleplaying idea it sounds quite tough but I would love to give it a go. I'm printing it out as we speak and as soon as I have some free time over the weekend I shall try and maybe post my results.

kataphraktoi

03-06-2003, 08:16

My future projects include the Arab Invasions and the age of the Khalifah. Modded Startpos files.

Arab Invasions
You start of with the territories recovered by Heraclius but they are stretched ridiculously from one end to the other.
Regions under control are rebellious and heretical, remember the Eastern provinces were heavily Monophysitist and Nestorian.
The Arabs start in Arabia of course but they have a substantial force, they start off with little money but strong enough to overcome the exhausted Byzantine Empire.
Byzantines however start with very little florins.

Age of the Khalifah
Byzantium is reduced to Asia Minor and outposts while the Arabs threaten to destroy the Romans.

I will post other rules up
I am working on Justinian's reign

Heraclius

03-07-2003, 00:10

The first two sound quite good but I would love to play as Justinian. Heraclius's campaign would also be quite nice too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

kataphraktoi

03-09-2003, 15:48

In making campaign mods, i actually didn't do the Arab invasion but made the mod for the Arab Caliphate in its first demo stages

I will list the factions with the changes

Almohads (Ommayad separatists)
I didn;t want to get rid of them so i made them Omayyad separatists based in Spain trying to complete the Spanish conquest as well as setting up an independent state.
Historically inaccurate but in MTW you make the history, so i deviated from norm one slight bit.

Turks (Mamluk srebels)
originally going to be Volga Bulgarians but at the moment nothing more than another separatist movement made up of former Turk slaves.

Novgorod (Bulgars)
I successfully made them into a pagan tribe like they were before they became Slavic Bulgars. They are based in bulgaria (old moesia) and wallachia. interesting faction to play with.

Poland at the moment is unchanged but I am thinking of making them Khazars.

French (Franks)

English (Mercia)

Germans (possibly Sexons or factional eastern Franks)

Italians (Lombards) effectively Catholic and a challenger to Byzantium rule in Italy

As the Byzantines your empire is shattered, Asia Minor is all you hold of the remaining Eastern provinces with Arabs ranged against you with their numerous armies. Their fleets are also ranged along the Mediteranean that use to be yours but now in the balance. You have outposts in the West under the Exarchate of the Ravenna. In this mod Venice, Naples and Sicily appear vulnerable to attacks by sea. In the Balkans all is lost except for Constantinople, the Balkans are overrun with Slavs so this is a good opportunity to give your troops some warm ups.

Tried the rulebooks yet?

Leet Eriksson

03-09-2003, 16:11

kataphraktoi,stop trolling,and khalid bin al walid can trash all your byzantine generals http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

kataphraktoi

03-09-2003, 17:03

hahahaha Faisal not Belisarius I'm afraid, just as Khalid that sly son of the desert was cunning Belisarius is ten times, no wait hundred fold more wiser and cunning that your dear Khalid Ibn Walid. Khalid may have wild eyed fanatical ghazi muslims on his side demolishing exhausted armies of exhausted empires (what kind of challenge is that?) whereas the great Belisarius conquered Africa and Italy with little men and little resources and yet he shook the world with his great strategic mind and his cunning Thracian wit.

no hard feelings. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif hehehe

Leet Eriksson

03-09-2003, 17:08

Khalid never lost a battle,and conquering serya and persia in 20 days was a feet http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.but anyways i guess i could look up belisarius sometime,right now i'm studying pre-islamic history(bronze ages to 600 AD)

Heraclius

03-09-2003, 17:36

This post may demonstrate my shocking lack of kowledge of Islamic history: who is Khalid bin al-walid?

PS: Kataphraktoi, two things. I'm pretty sure the mamluks were Egyptian slaves, and I think but I'm not sure, that the Khazars always livedon the northeaster shores of the Black Sea, until their mysterious disapearance from history. If you'res looking for a Turkic tribe to subsitute for the Polish, I'd go with either the Avars, who sieged Constantinople with the Arabs in the eigth century, or the Cumans. The magyars might be a good bet too.

Leet Eriksson

03-09-2003, 19:56

itsd kinda a long story,but i hope this should make it a bit short.

Click here (http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookhome.htm)

its quite a read,hope it helps.

kataphraktoi

03-10-2003, 15:21

Faisal I saved the link, will look thru when i got de time.

Well Heraclius u wanna know who Khalid was?

Well here's what I know, Khalid was one of the first great Arab generals in the early wars of expansion, beat up the Byzantines in Yarmuk. He is great becaue of his conquests but let us put this in a perspective, he was fighting an exhausted empire and whose Emperor was suffering from an illness that would kill him and from Hydrophobia too.

Other than that Mr Walid was a brave soldier fierce and cunning but lo he falls far short of the cunning of the Greeks, did your people not invent Greek Fire, that cursed weapon that beat back the Arabs from the walls of COnstantinople twice. Callinicus was from Syria but he was a Greek.

When i refer to Mamluks Im not talking about the Mamelukes, the term Mamluks can apply outside of that, it means effectively slave soldiers, the injuction of Islam to forbid Muslims slave meant that the Caliphs could recruit non - muslim slaves who later converted to Islam anyway.

Remember herac the Magyars are the Hungarians
I have turned the Hungs into Mags but have dare not tamper with the leader units the Magyars have royal knights as leading units

The Khazars were destroyed by Svyatoslav and disappeared in the 10th century but in AD 713 they are well and truly a powerful kingdom, my mod starts there. The Arabs are at my doorstep already with armies massed, they have an empire from the Atlantic to the Middle East and their power is ranged against me, they tried to sneak attack Sicily but I destroyed their Dhow. I have managed to defeat them in lesser Armenia but they are well entrenched in Syria, I dare not invade for it is not in my interests, however I am going to plan a campaign for Cyprus, the island is slowly being Islamicised and Arabicised, I must invade the island in earnest but must be aware on my eastern front, the armies of the Caliph are forever poised to invaded my empire. Pray that the Virgin Theotokos will lead the way to Cyprus - kyrie eleison hehehe

SYRIA AND PERSIA IN 20 DAYS surely this must be another Arabic myth and legend like all other stories by the other civilisations including the Byzantines with Digenis Akrites 20 days it took a year to take Antioch by the Arabs and it took 20 days to conquer SYria and Persia

Or do you mean 20 years, i think you mean 20 yrs, I can believe that it took 20 yrs but 20 days
Yes the Arab conquests were an astonishing feat, its amazing what opportunities present themselves when both persians and byzantines are weak as girls after fighting an outrageous 600 yr war. sheesh that would put Bush vs Hussein to shame.

Say Faisal you know anything about early Arabic armies, i hear they had armoured cavalry as well but I don't know what they were. any clues dude??

Heraclius

03-11-2003, 20:15

quite an impressive read, faisal. It took me this long to get through it all. Thanks to the both of you for tellin me about him. He sounds like quite an interesting guy, even if he did destroy my namesake and much his empire. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I sincerely doubt it took him 20 days to conquer Syria and Persia however. Still it couldn't have taken him more than a year or two as both the Byzantines and Persians were completely devasted (specially the Persians) Three cheers for Heraclius. Too bad that such a great general and tactician had to live out his last years in pain and misery due to his painful life ending disease and the Muslim conquests.

kataphraktoi

03-12-2003, 07:12

I recently picked up this book from my university library called "A history of the Byzantine State and Society" by Warren Treadgold, a very interesting read and very thorough to the point that there are so much details left out of Julius Norwich's account.

Did you know Basil II had 14,4 million Nomismata in his treasury even though he remitted 2 years of taxes worth 8 million nomismata?

The cost of maintaining the army was around 5.4 million nomismata in 1025. Basil was one rich fella for a guy who prefers dressing in dirty clothes rather than silk.

Heraclius

03-12-2003, 07:15

I guess that's exactly why Basil and his empire were so rich. Unlike many previous emperor's (and many who followed him) Basil was frugal and did not waste huge sums giving banquets or building royal palaces. I will have to take a look at the book you are reading.

Leet Eriksson

03-12-2003, 11:50

oops sorry got something wrong,not 20 days http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif thats another story for another time.but i doubt the Byzantines were already devastated,if they were,constantinople would be an arabian city,not turkish http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

the fact that they raised 200,000 men in such a short time to fight the arabs is not what i call devastated...

Galestrum

03-12-2003, 14:14

try reading about the byzantine - persian war and tell me again that both those empires were not devastated.

being able to raise 200k men doesnt prove anything - anyone can impress 10's of thousands of people and say hey look at my great army http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

kataphraktoi

03-12-2003, 16:31

Faisal Faisal my Saracen friend let me put this forward.

In the Byzantine - Persian war over a million combatants and civilians perished as was numerous wealth and treasure, on the Byzantine side alone the church wealth was used to finance 4 campaigns and expensive truces and other expenses. I doubt the Byzantine raised 200,000 men to attack the Arabs - exhaustion doesn;'t mean capitulation.

That is difference between the Persians and the Byzantines, the reason why an exhausted Byzantium did not capitulate to the Arabs was because Heraclisu had already organised the Western exarchates and Asia Minor into an efficient administrative body hence the "thema" system which was strong enough to resist the enormous might of the Caliphate. As for the territories that fell quite early and quickly they were barely organised into an efficient administrative outfit when the Arabs struck - the pacification of the dissident groups were active and detrimental to this as well, these areas were SYRIA, EGYPT AND MESOPTAMIA, not enough time to organise them properly.
So you see Faisal as much as the Arabs would like to have captured Constantinople the reason why they didn't wqas because of strong organisation in certain parts of the empire before the Aran conquest enabling the Empire to retain and ride out the Arab invasions.

If you want to pursue this position then let me put this situation to you.
Before the second Arab siege of Constantinople the Byzantine Empire had 7 revolutions already and many Emperors overthrown in a short period, the time of the 7th revolution was when two large armies from the Caliphate inavded -however they were duped by the Strategos Leo who understood Arab minds and tricked them to withdraw. Leo then overthrew the Emperor and became the EMperor himself. Now is this a stable Byzantine state? The reason why after numerous civil wars and insurrections that Byzantium was able to survive was because of Heraclius organisation in the areas before the Arab invasion. Asia Minor was able to survive and provide the resources as meager as they were to protect COnstantinople.

Exhaustion doesn;t mean complete capitulation, this was true of the Persian Empire where the whole empire was in ruins but for the Byzantines only certain parts and not all hence the ability to absorb the blows.

COnstantinople by the way was the strongest fortification in the world at that stage, I doubt pitiful stone throwers could damage the triple walls.

Faisal as much as the Arabs were powerful they were not all powerful, the Byzantines were smart creatures who adapted well to their fate - don;t underestimate the Byzantine mind, they lasted longer than the Caliphate didn;t they who gave them hell by their incessant banditry on the frontiers and piratical raids in the Mediterranean.
The Byzantines were efficient administrators who gave the Arabs their first taste of real empire administration when they were needed by the Arabs to hold their empire efficiently. St John of Damascus was a former official for the Arabs, his father was responsible for the smooth surrender of Damascus.

kataphraktoi

03-12-2003, 16:52

Heres rule 2 for Justinian

JUSTINIANIC EMPIRE

Restore Justinian’s Empire and hold it for the rest of the campaign

Essential territories
Cordoba, Granada, Morocca, Algeria, Tunisia, Cyrenaica, Egypt, Jerusalem, Syria, Tripoli, Antioch, Edessa, Armenia, Lesser Armenia, Rum, Trebizond, Anatolia, Georgia, Nicaea, Constantinople, Crimea, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Venice, Papal States, Rome, Tuscany, Milan, Genoa, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus

Defend Italian territories from the Papacy who will continually attempt to seize back his former dominions.

Dominate the whole Mediterranean
Undisputed mastery of Mediterranean trade

Establish trade throughout Europe

Establish Tagmata
In Justinian’s time there was the Scholae, Ecubitores and the Vigla
Scholae must have 2 Vikings, 2 Italian infantry and 3 Fuedal mean at arms
Excubitores must have 4 Turcoman horse archers, 3 Khwarazmian Cavalry and 2 Armenian Heavy Cavalry
Vigla 5 foreign mercenary troops

Contempt of Holy Roman Empire
Byzantium acknowledges one Emperor only and that is he who rules Constantinople, show your contempt by being the enemy of the Empire throughout the rest of the campaign, you will also be required to topple the HRE by either military means or agency activity, once destroyed all former HRE territory must be abandoned, all troops must be withdrawn back to the Empire.

Amass 750,000 florins

Silk Trade
Retain provinces with silk production
Constantinople, Greece and Naples

Establish 5 Bishops and 10 priests in each of the following provinces to root out wrong teaching and establish the Orthodoxy faith:
Egypt, Jerusalem, Antioch, Tripoli, Syria, Edessa and Lesser Armenia

Establish frontier protection for Eastern provinces
Build Fortresses in Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli, Syria and Jerusalem

Balkan defensive structures
Fortresses in Bulgaria, Constantinople, Serbia and Croatia

Establish presence in Southern Spain
Fortress in Cordoba

Emperor’s piety
A Relinquary in all provinces.

Art of War
Establish Military Academy and have at least 3 generals with 8 stars or more *easy with Princes not princes anymore

EXARCHATES OF THE WEST
Restore respect and presence in the West by resurrecting Maurice’s great Exarchate of the Ravenna and Carthage – hold onto Core territories in Asia while maintaining military rule over the western outposts

Essential core territories
Constantinople, Greece, Bulgaria, Nicaea, Anatolia, Rum, Lesser Armenia, Georgia. Crimea and Armenia, Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes

Exarchate of Ravenna
Papal States, Genoa, Venice, Rome, Sicily *Naples is excluded even though part of GA

Exarchate of Carthage
Tunisia, Algeria, Morocca, Sardinia, Malta and Corsica

Dominate Eastern Mediterranean

Syrian Campaign
Devastate Antioch, Edessa, Tripoli and Syria, destroy everything

Amass 400,000

Fortresses built in Rome, Carthage, Papal States and Venice

Capital city defence
Constantinople Fortress status

Leet Eriksson

03-12-2003, 19:11

Kataphraktoi-i guess everyone to his sources http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif,becuase what you said is far different from what i have read.

kataphraktoi

03-13-2003, 14:11

Well Faisal what have you been reading???

If anybody says that the Byzantines used 200,000 soldiers to confront the Arabs must be shot in the head, 200,000 do you know how much that it is support such an army, the byzantines had used up much of their money agaisnt the Persians. I can believe the byzantines raised an army of 20,000 - 30,000 against the Arabs because the last time the Byzantines had an army in the 100,000 figures was in CVonstantine the Great's day amounting to 650,000, in Justinian's day it was 150,000 but 200,000
gahhhhhhhh

I read books from scholars with no tendency to Christianity or the Byzantines, I aspect a fair assessment, i want the creditable truth not favourable media.

What are your sources anyway.

kataphraktoi

03-14-2003, 16:53

Garggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

King James I

03-15-2003, 04:58

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Mar. 02 2003,03:18)]Yeah i could imagine a world without islam.

Imagine this. Muhammed Ali would not become a Muslim, he would instead change his name from Cassius Clay to Chosores Nuvishirvan and change his religion from Christianity to Zoraostarianism.

Imagine this, Camels would still be stinking and not feared.

Imagine this, we wont have to be afraid of terrorist attacks, we will all need to be afraid of Catholics and their fetish for whips when they start an Inquisition.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, rumble young man rumble.

Its a shame, all those Christian Arabs think they're Arabs when they are really the indigenous population that existed before the Muslim invasions, why are they selling their heritage to be an Arab? I 'll tell you why, its because they are afraid of being persecuted, any Muslim that tells you Islam is a religion of peace needs to be checked in his head for being super-ultra-hyper stupid.

Ialam kills. Stay in SUnday School. Don't do drugs. I want to be like Mike. Everything you know about Islam is a lie. Watch more TV. U2 rules.

Ummm....yeah
Spanish inquisitors just using whips? Right, maybe you should do a bit of a background check. Ask why the Jews settled in Spain fled Spain and settled in territory controlled by the Muslim Turks .

Roman/Byzantine Empire better than Arabs. Right, ask the Venetti Celts, Cimbri and Teutons, Vandals, and many other peoples. Oh yes, they don't exist any more because they were exterminated by the Romans. Most of the communites who were in territories controlled by the Byzantine Empire welcomed the Arabs especially those in Persia, Egypt, and Palestine with open arms.

The religion of Islam has been one of the most tolerant religions in world history. The amount of Christian communities attest to the fact. Some Jews even rose to into high places in the Ottoman hierachy.

How many Jews, Muslims, and Heretic do you see in Spain now eh. How many pagans are there in Prussia or the Baltic States eh. or do you think they just simultaneously became Christians voluntarily. Look at what happened to the Muslim Slavs during the Bosnian War. They almost got ethnically cleansed by Roman Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs, which is ironic since they were ethnically the same people. Am I saying they were shining lights of virtue. No Nobody is, but I don't think people should not be murdered just because of their religion.

Am I a Muslim? No I have been a Baptist Christian since I was eight years old, but that does not mean I am blind to the crime that have been committed in the name of my religion.

Heraclius

03-15-2003, 06:11

oh don't take kataphraktoi seriously when he's having a muslim-bashing day. he only feels it is his duty to avenge the noble Byzantine Empire in the sacred halls of the .org. read his posts. how can you take anything he says seriously? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif just kidding kat. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

kataphraktoi

03-15-2003, 14:31

AM i blind to Christianity's atrocities?? no of course not and I will be the first one to express my abhorrence of cruelty in Christ's name but I AM NOT GOING TO TURN A BLIND EYE TO ISLAM'S ATROCITIES.

The reason for Christendom's bloodlust is based on the cycle of unforgiveness, Catholic Christendom's persecution of muslims and jews rises from the ages of conflicts between Islam and Christianity, it was Islam who invaded Christian lands first whether or not the Christian inhabitants in those lands excepted the Muslims or not, this was in spite of Islam not because of Islam.

Islam was and first foremost the aggressor in the 7th century, you will need to remember the suffering of Western Europe at the hands of Muslim piracy and raids devastating the lands of Christendom for decades, in Asia Minor the Byzantine Emperor repeatedly moved populations to Asia Minor because of the depopulation by Arab invasions. The Holocuast of Asia Minor came after the battle of Manizkert, the Turks butchered the populaton and replaced with Turks who were muslims all because they were "Ghazis" warriors of the faith, spreading Islam specificaaly with the sword.

jews rose in the Turkish hierarchy but would they rise to office if they kept their old religion? I don't think so.

non-turks have risen to office because:
- muslim overlords were inadequate to administrate their conqests
- they adopted islam for the obvious benefits which complemented their exceptional talents

ISLAM as a religion of peace brought the sword in the 7th century, they were only stopped when the West resumed military superiority, when that happened muslims became the victims but do not forget that these victims were once the aggressors, their former victims have now wrought revenge to the detriment of western world and eastern society as such.

Why don;t you ask the Coptic Christian of Egypt how they are feeling, they are sick of the crap the Muslims are doing to them and have done so for centuries. Islam is indeed a religion of tolerance but the question is what kind of tolerance?????

Tolerance in terms of secular western liberalism or tolerance defined in the practical doctrines of the Quran???

Islamic tolerance means:
Jizya Tax - all non - muslims pay "protection money" which is discriminatory
Wearing different clothes so people can see your kafir state
Forbidding new churches to be built
Having your own churches converted into mosques(masjids)
To not build your house higher than a muslim's since the Quran expressed the superiority of Muslims over Christians
Muslims are always better than Christians, protection of the "people of the book" is basically the expression of Islam's destiny as the final revelation for mankind superior than its previous cousins.
Being called a "Dhimmi" whose identity is defined by religion not ethnicity, hows that for cultural ethnic cleansing.

You say Jews fled to Muslim Turks because of SPain's oppressive measrues???
Granted that Spain was horrible for their inquisition I never agree with their methods.
Are these the same Turks that took a "child tribute" from Christian families making them into fanantical muslims whose existence is to press the Ottoman frontiers into Christian Europe??? Skanderbeg leader of Albania's shortlived independence was a former Janissary who repiudiated Islam when returned to his motherland, he was taken as a child tribute, a shameful exploitation of children.

I know Christians have done terrible things but I am talkig about the terrible things Isl;am has done, I am talking about Islam not Christianity, you can't even talk about Islam without someone always bringing Christinaity into it. There is no excuse for Christians or the Byzantines, i admit that and will not defend them but I am pointing out Islam;s own wrongdoings, i am not ignorant of this and have researched my material and the history involved.

kataphraktoi

03-15-2003, 14:49

By the way i consider both Christianity and ISLAM as worse as each other in the conduct of temporal affairs, in this case I am talking about Islam, don't think i am blind to the former's own crimes.

If you know anything about Balkan mentality then you would see the atrocities as a form of "honour revenge", the muslims on the region are recieving what they dished out to the Christians in the region, the Christians in the region didn;t seem to think the Islamic rule of the tolerant Turks was tolerant at all. Its not right what the Christians did but its not right to forget the reasons why they did the things they did, u are right they are Slavic brethren but religion and culture has made them into dialectical slavic enclaves, eg, Croatian catholic roman alphabet bloc, Serbia orthodox Cyrillic text bloc, Bosnian muslim Roman alphabet bloc. Eventually it becomes a distinct identity that thes Slavs can distinguish each other for the better and the worse.

It is case of where former aggressors become victims and former victims become assume the role of aggressor. It is cycle same as in Christanity vs Islam, each religion is neither tolerant or peaceful in the temporal sense, Islam invaded first and replaced pagans as Christianity's public enemy no.1, Christianity then tried to match Islam's atrocities culminating in the infamous Crusades, muslims have memories of the crusades but so do the greeks who use to inhabit much of what is now the republic of turkey, look at cyprus even. To stake Islam as the world's tolerant religion is to spit in the face of Islam's victims. On the versa side to forget Christianity's victims is to spit in their faces too.

But Islam is my topical focus here not Christianity on trial.

Heraclius

03-15-2003, 17:58

interestingly enough an old saying dating from the Byzantine Empire and continuing right up to Greece's war of independence in 1821 was: "better the Sultan's turban than the cardinal's hat" of course here they were only refering to Catholiscm compared to Islam and not Greek orthodoxy which everyone knows ist the most tolerant religion in the world http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

kataphraktoi

03-16-2003, 14:50

Hhahaha yes Herac,

I know that saying all too well.

its a matter of which one is the lesser evil isn;t it?

Lets be a Byzantine and compare the two.

If I Alexius Turkopouli had to choose between living in a Catholic or a Muslim state what would I experience.

Catholic:
Inquisition
Overbearing Pope
At least rhe Catholics will fight Islam
AD 1204 never forgave them for that

Islam:
Give my first child to be raised as a Muslim
Freedom of religion under strict guidelines and certain discriminatory actions
Pay extra taxes

Yes Islam seems like the "tolerant" option and the lesser of the two evils at the moment.

Its a funny saying too, the Catholics administerred the greatest blow in 1204 but the Turks destroyed them.

Say Herac as a Greek are you aware of a website thats made by Greeks that concerns the 11th century Asia Minor Holocaust when the Seljuks poured into Anatolia???

Galestrum

03-16-2003, 18:59

Quote[/b] ]Roman/Byzantine Empire better than Arabs. Right, ask the Venetti Celts, Cimbri and Teutons, Vandals, and many other peoples. Oh yes, they don't exist any more because they were exterminated by the Romans

Its called war http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif show me any nation/people that didnt wipe out their enemies when they could have. And they were not exterminated, but absorbed.

As far as the celtic tribes you listed, they attacked Rome first, and in many ways were the genesis of Rome becoming a power because of their raids in the 300's BC.

As far as the vandals, give me a break, we have the words vandal today because of them, Im not sorry that a hoard of rampaging germanic rapists, murderors and pirates were wiped of the face of earth by belisarius http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Quote[/b] ]Most of the communites who were in territories controlled by the Byzantine Empire welcomed the Arabs especially those in Persia, Egypt, and Palestine with open arms.

True, but then again, this was political - they were a heavily taxed, war weary people that had no real choice, would you rather be put to the sword by fanatical religious freaks, or just accept them as your new rulers and live?

Quote[/b] ]The religion of Islam has been one of the most tolerant religions in world history. The amount of Christian communities attest to the fact.

Yeah and the Roman empire was just as "tolerant" if not moreso of religions, the empire made every religion/language/people its own, just not above the state incarnations.

Also considering that Egypt, Palestine and Persia were predominantly Christian and Zoroastrian in the 600s and now the area is 2% max non islamic, how tolerant was islam? If it was "tolerant" by most peoples meanings, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey would be very populous christian nations, but they are not.

If tolerance is making everyone different a second class citizen, sure Islam is tolerant.

Quote[/b] ]How many pagans are there in Prussia or the Baltic States eh. or do you think they just simultaneously became Christians voluntarily.

If you look thru history, religions of a people is based upon politics. There are a multitude of historical examples. Look to Rome, first it supressed christians and then embraced them, both were done for politics.

The danes accepted christianity for political reasons, as did numerous other pagan tribes, other adopted christianity due to war and at "swordpoint" which is political too.

And believe it or not christianity/islam offered something that the more primitive pagan religions could not offer.

Heraclius

03-17-2003, 04:02

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Mar. 16 2003,07:50)]Say Herac as a Greek are you aware of a website thats made by Greeks that concerns the 11th century Asia Minor Holocaust when the Seljuks poured into Anatolia???
there was a holocaust?

kataphraktoi

03-17-2003, 15:31

Well Herac, as you are a Greek I am very surprised that you don;t know about the Asian Minor Holocaust.

Every Greek knows that Asia minor was once very Hellenised then Romanised and then Christianised in the Greek orthodox manner, therefore there were strong majorities of Greeks and Christians in the region. After the terrible battle of Manizkert the Seljuk Turks poured in and caused a Holocaust by which the Greek population was massacred(not entirely but a vast number nonetheless) and Christianity replaced by Islam, the power of Byzantium always lied in the manpower in Asia Minor but the Turks destroyed this when they wasted and put to the sword the population a large majority of the Christians. When Alexius reconquered Western Asia Minor he found it devastated and the barren, it took centuries under the Ottomans to recover but by then it was Turkish and Muslim. Ask any scholar and they will tell you it is certain that a significant number of Turks are descended from Christian Greeks who either survived or converted and assimilated.

Thanks Galestrum, its nice to know some people don;t follow the "Islam is tolerant" party line, it seems that there is an automatic assumption that if u criticise Islam you are wrong and ignorant

I done some reading on Arab rule and apparently not surprisingly the Islam utopia wasn;t all cracked up to be, let me put this forward:

1.
In the Islamic civil wars of the early muslim period the population of the Middle East suffered from the civil wars, the majority of these people were Christians. Were they protected and were they happy with this Islamic paradise? One of the reason for the Islamicisation of the Middle East was because Christians were either caught up in the devastation, fled to Byzantium (which many did) or were transported by the Byzantine emperors onto imperial lands and given lands to live on. Callinicus was a refugee from the terrible Arab invasions and went on to produce GREEK FIRE His revenge I guess on the Arabs.

2. When the general Manuel in the 7th century recaptured Alexandria briefly the Christians in Egypt accepted them happily because the Caliph's taxes were more oppressive than the Byzantine Empires Moreover they were persecuted as well, oh yes persecuated, the Monophysites who accepted the Muslims for political reasons now realised their mistake when the Caliph proved intolerant of these infidel kafirs( a well used muslim term) Manuel blew his chance when he plundered the countryside but the fact that the Christians hated the Caliph blows up the "tolerant Islam" myth.

3. In the second Arab siege of Constantinople a new Arab fleet sailing to Constantinople abandoned their ships to join the Byzantine Emperor, the reason? Easy, they were peeved by the treatment of the Christians by the Muslims. If they were tolerated under an Islamic paradise why rebel?????

4. The Mardaites of Lebanon a guerilla Christian group fought against the Caliph, their homeland was conquered by Muslims, they didn;t think Islam was tolerant of them or their religion.

No muslim will ever admit or apologise for their atrocites, funnily enuff the catholics we;ve all been bashing have apologised especially the Pope. Oh yes the Pope, not the Caliph, not one Imam, not one Mullah and not one Muslim.

kataphraktoi

03-18-2003, 14:41

YO HERAC, you ever seen the statue of COnstantine XI in Greece?

Heraclius

03-18-2003, 17:41

are you sure this isn't religious propaganda, kataphraktoi, which I must tell you the Greek Orthodox Church is becoming quite good at. Yes, I know that before Manzikert the population of Asia Minor was almost completely Hellenized and practiced Greek Orthodoxy. However after Alp Arslan conquered most of Asia Minor, many Greeks converted to Islam to avoid high taxes and general discrimination (although this rarely turned into outright persecution).
This explains substantial population of Greek speaking muslims in Turkey (many of whom pretended to convert) and their comrades who only converted their language the [I]karamanlis [I] the Turkish speaking Greek Orthodox. If you want an example of a Turkish holocaust you should take a look at the "Great Disaster" of the early 1920's. Namely the invasion of Turkey by Greece and the subsequent defeat by Kemal Attaturk and the slaughtering of the Greek Muslims, karamanlis and Armenians living in Turkey at the time.

Quote[/b] ]YO HERAC, you ever seen the statue of Constantine XI in Greece? You mean the one in Athens were he is dressed in armor and holding a sword across his chest and shoulder? I have seen it in my childhood but I can't remember where. I believe it was in a church though.

kataphraktoi

03-19-2003, 15:05

herac, This is not Greek Orthodox Church propaganda, my research and information all come from respected historians such as John Haldom, Ian Heath and Warren Treadgold, yes even John Julius Norwich.

I have taken into account conversion to Islam and intermarriage but that is inadequate to explain the demographic change in Asia Minor.

Knowing the character of the Turks and their attitude towards war, mercy is indeed a rare quality, the expert scholars agree that Asia Minor was depopulated by massacres, famine and plague caused by the Turkish invasion.

Primary accounts state the numbers of Greek refugees found by the Byzantine EMperors when they attempted to recover a part of Asia Minor. Often they followed the Byzantine army for protection from the marauding Turks.

Not Herac, they were substantial number of freewheeling Turks who operated their raids and atacks without consent of the Sejuks or the Danishmend but the the major Turkish powers also contributed as well.

Asia Minor was the main source of manpower, the depopulated of this source meant that Byzantium could recruit an army in Asia Minor hence the icnreasing reliance on mercenaries. Can you see the pattern???

Turks Manizkert defeat Byzantines
Turks penetrate Asia Minor
Depopulation
Byzantium recovers western asia minor but cannot recruit because of devastated state
Mercenaries are brought in
Population plantation in western asia minor by Byzantine emperors to repopulated areas where the Turks depopulated it.

By the way Herac, there was recognition by Turkey of the Greek holocaust and apologies were made by them. amazing isn't , funny though no apologies made to kurds or armenians. maybe cos turkey wants to join the European Union club.

by the Herac I have not heard of the orthodox church's views on this.

The orthodox church has always maintained a defensive position. eg self defence. Basil of Caeserea laid down the doctrines for warfare and essentially stated that soldiers must abstain from church rituals because of the blood spilt by their hands, by no means condemning warfare but imposing restrictions of permissible warfare - self defence.
the orthodox is considered much more strict than the western churches, whereas the papacy freely used warfare for his won ends the church is rarely involved in warfare apart from the Heraclius reign when it was seen a battle between christians and pagans.
Even the conquests of Nicephorus, tzimickes and basil were considered a defensive war, since the territories conquered were essentially reconquests of former territories.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Heraclius

03-19-2003, 19:26

aaah. the massacres I know of. I thought you were reffering to an organized attempt to rid Asia Minor of Greeks (ie a holocaust), which these massacres were arguably not. The Seljuk Turks were originally nomads much like the Mongols and their killing was their way of life. Many Asia Minor Greeks also met their deaths when their cities fell after sieges to the Turks. It was customary and regular in those times, and still was for many centuries before and afterwards, that if a city resisted then folowing capture the victorious army's troops would be allowed three days to pillage the city and slaughter the inhabitants. I guess this issue come down to a miscommunication. after all english is not my native tongue.

Galestrum

03-19-2003, 21:49

I want to take this discussion on a short-lived tangent.

Isnt it funny how modern day people seem to have different definitions of words depending who it is applied too?

For instance, historically speaking, many people state that the Reconquista and Inquisition in Spain were bad things, a holocaust, yet a similar episode, lets say the intital muslim conquest of spain which did the very exact same thing, was just seen as "well tahts the way tehy were"? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

For instance the crusades are thought to be bad, but noone comments on what lead to the crusades - try reading some of the accounts of what the muslims did to spain, sicily, and the middle east & asian minor.

Or in Hera's post He says thats the way the turks were, but point to a event where the Byzantines did the same and they are regarded as evil, and malevolent. (im not picking on you Hera, just bringing up an observation). Im just saying that when the Turks decided to go in and slaughter and ravage asia minor it was just as much a holocaust as any other - and it certainly had the very same effect.

But Hera is correct that nearly every group of people did the same thing, refusing to give into a siege almost always resulted in total barbarity if the siege was lost, this applies to muslims & christians, and everyone else.

IMO, every group of people sucked back then, and most still do today http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif I only like certain ones better than others, by what they left for posterity http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Galestrum

03-19-2003, 21:54

By the way, who is the greatest byzantine general?

Why me of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Heraclius

03-20-2003, 00:32

true Galestrum. But just to clear something up, I was not excusing what the Turks did because it was their way of life, what they did and the Mongols too was quite barbaric. I just meant that the massacre of the Greeks of Asia Minor was not a premeditated affair. It was what the Seljuks did to almost anyone who they conquered and who had previously resisted. You're right though. Every country throughout history has several skeletons in their closet. (God I love these American phrases).

DemonArchangel

03-20-2003, 01:21

Speaking of the Byzantines, in my alternate history of the Byzantine empire, the greatest byzantine general is Psilos the Ennuch, who was single-handedly drove the mongols out of asia minor and the balkans with a tiny army of militiamen.

(ooc: that battle took me 125 minutes to complete, but i got constantinople back.)

Hakonarson

03-20-2003, 05:41

Here's a couple of web sites that may be of interest - the first is a pdf about the first Turks in Europe (http://www.deremilitari.org/oikonomides.pdf)

And this one is about pre-20th century massacring of people in general and makes quite sobering reading Pre 20th century massacre/genocide/democide (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM)

Heraclius

03-20-2003, 07:58

thanks hakonarson. when I get a chance I'll definitely read them.

kataphraktoi

03-20-2003, 12:04

Galestrum, I am aware of anachronism that sneak in when interpreting history and the political or cultural baggage that is inevitably attached.

Yes it is true every state/nation/people indulged in horrible acts of terror but you can easily categorise and identify them as either an "incursion" or a "permanent incursive effect"

In this case Asia Minor is an example of "permanent incursive effect", the massive changes in demography sets Manikert out from other strocities.

Eg. Take Iran for example,that place has been invaded numerous times but it has been able to hold onto itself and its population to retain a majority of Iranian and Farsi speaking people whereas Asian Minor experienced nothing of a kind.

Why?
Lets compare

Iran
Muslim even if Shi'ite
Large area
established religion and language
capable of absorbing foreign invaders

Asia Minor
Christians and therefore considered fair game
Smaller area
not as homogenous but concentrated in one area
established religion and language
incapable of absorbing foreign invaders and culture

With Asia Minor being incapable of absorbing the Turks meant a survival of the fittest scenario, you're either Greek or Turkish, a Muslim or Christian. pressures of alien rule forced and stimulated assimilation of the indigenous population in Asia Minor, characteristics of the Turks presented them as a warlike and militatn race, Iran was able to absorb the shock since its population is too much to depopulate(exception is the Mongols) whereas Asia Minor is isolated on 3 corners by sea and vulnerable to a massive effort to the Turks.

Modern historians do consider this a holocaust in all practical definition, it is far more pronounced to be a norm so therefore it is an exception like the Jewish Holocaust, in terms of precentage of population it is particularly devastating.

Turkey even recognised this as well, part of reconciliation efforts with the Greeks.