Was the Byzantine reconquest of Minor Asia possible?Could Byzantium defeat the Turks? Or the empire was doomed? Something between two possibilities? Discuss, please...
Printable View
Was the Byzantine reconquest of Minor Asia possible?Could Byzantium defeat the Turks? Or the empire was doomed? Something between two possibilities? Discuss, please...
It was doomed I think.. their military wasn't great, there wasn't much scientific advance and they were too focussed on living luxurious lives instead of doing what needed to be done (for their own good) : getting rid of the Sassanids and Ottomans.
I am reading a book about Vlad Draculae these days. Actually historical, so no bloodsucking, only impelling.
In there the author says they -the Eastern Romans- were a bit of a hassle for the sultan, but as they didn't have too much territory/power left, it may well have been just a question of time, until the Ottomans would conquer the whole city. It still was wealthy, that's for sure.
The Trapezunt period looks pretty much the same to me: not really a worthy enemy to the Ottomans who oriented themselves towards the Balkans & Europe. These days the Byzantines payed 2000 Ducats a year to the Sultan.
Feel free to correct me, I am not really an experet on Byzantine history.
Which period are you talking about? The Turks conquered Minor Asia twice; first time after the battle of Manzikert 1071, and second time in 14th century (Ottomans Osman and Orhan).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
After Minor Asia was conquered first time, the Comnen dynasty came to the Byzantine throne. They managed, alone or with the crusades, to re-conquer big parts of Minor Asia. Outememer states were even vasals (for some time) to Manuel I.
https://img289.imageshack.us/img289/...komneni4jv.jpg
This map (it was too big to post here) shows Byzantine re-conquer of Minor Asia during the Comnen dynasty. When Alexius I came to the throne, even Nicacea (close to Constatinopolis) was Turkish.
And about the Ottoman conquer of Minor Assia in 14th century- the empire was completely doomed at a time. While Ottomans were advancing and gaining new cities and territories, Byzantines were destroying themselves by civil wars.
The blow the Seljuks dealed to Byzantium after Manzikert was so decisive not per se (the Komnenoi indeed reconquered the largest part of Asia Minor) but it was significant because of the way the Byzantines dealed with it. Instead of trying to repopulate with Greeks and other christians the parts of Asia Minor (especially the Anatolian plateau) that was either resettled with Turks or massively converted under the "Ghazi" pressure, they settled for trying to take advantage of the "heithen" subjects just as they did with the Christians. The demographic alteration of Asia Minor - which came more apparent about in the Ottoman times - is what doomed the Empire. In the last 2 centuries of imperial rule, the Byzantines relied solely on mercenaries. They couldn't survive long that way.
It is true that every state or culture has a period of advance and a period of decay. Byzantion stood proudly - more or less - for 1.100 years. That's quite an achievement.
Vlad is disgusting. Do you know how long it took to die on one of those stakes? Days. And he did that to pregnant women as well. A psycho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subedei
Hey fella, you're talking about my ancestor here. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
We need another Dracula in our country again. :book:
Do you know what order and discipline was when Vlad reigned? There's a legend about this:
Order and discipline man. :knight:Quote:
A merchant left a town with the caravan for another town. At the middle of the road, he found out that he forgot his large bag of gold coins in the market. He rapidly came back, and he found it untouched and unharmed.
@back to topic
It would have been very hard for the Byzantines to reconquer the lost territories. Seldjuks were in extremely large number, and the stupid commercial privileges accorded to the Genoese and Venetians was fatal. :skull:
If this guy isn't a monster, I don't know what is.Quote:
Dracula once had a mistress who lived in a house in the back streets of Târgovişte. This woman apparently loved the prince to distraction and was always anxious to please him. Dracula was often moody and depressed and the woman made every effort to lighten her lover's burdens. Once, when Dracula was particularly depressed, the woman dared tell him a lie in an effort to cheer him up; she told him that she was pregnant. Dracula warned the woman not to joke about such matters but she insisted on the truth of her claim despite her knowledge of the prince's feelings about dishonesty. Dracula had the woman examined by midwives, to determine the veracity of her claim. When informed that the woman was lying, Dracula drew his knife and cut her open from the groin to her breasts while proclaiming his desire for the world to see where he had been. Dracula then left the woman to die in agony.
Vlad adopted the impaling practice by the Turks - he lived a great deal of his early life at the Porte as a "royal hostage" of sorts. His disdain and deep hate for the Turks comes precisely from this period of his life. The steppe people were the first to practice impaling - it was a very practical way of killing someone with great pain and agony, without having to actually be around. Steppe people were always on the move and couldn't afford to stay a couple of days to torture someone. So, they invented impaling - nobody could save the victim of an impalement, and if the impaler was good, the victim could last up to three days in agony. And with no need of supervising.
Vlad wasn't original. He just made quite an impact by the extensive use of this measure in Christian lands, hence the fuss about him.
One has to bear in mind that 90% of the stories of horror surrounding Vlad are blatant lies, myths and fantasy. They originate from a series of pamphlets published by the German merchants Vlad expulsed from Vlachia - Vlad's "bad press" is literally Bad Press ~D That doesn't mean he wasn't a monster by current standards, but by medieval standards he was just a very harsh despot, one of the many.
Impaling is only a marginally more unpleasant way of dying than crucification - or at least I'd imagine the difference is rather moot for the subject. And that one was pretty popular back in the day too.
...do I even need to point out this sort of thing is what tends to get said about Mussolini and similar fascists too...?Quote:
Hey fella, you're talking about my ancestor here.
We need another Dracula in our country again.
Do you know what order and discipline was when Vlad reigned? There's a legend about this:Order and discipline man.Quote:
A merchant left a town with the caravan for another town. At the middle of the road, he found out that he forgot his large bag of gold coins in the market. He rapidly came back, and he found it untouched and unharmed.
'Sides, obedience of laws merely out of fear is really just tyranny, and really only works as long as the subject thinks he may get caught. If authority is to be truly effective people have to want to uphold it - to such a degree that it is internalized and becomes a semi-instinctive response.
I never meant to say I am a vlad fan. "Not bloodsucking, only impalling" was meant ironic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
I think he was a power greedy bastard & pretty much used every kind of means to increase his influence.
To quote Rosacrux redux: That doesn't mean he wasn't a monster by current standards, but by medieval standards he was just a very harsh despot, one of the many.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
Some spilled coffee here :sweatdrop:
About the original topic, I'd hypothetically (and generally speaking) say that a partial reconquest during the byzantine last years might have been possible if there had been a somewhat more lasting Timurid empire and a great leader of sorts for Byzantium who would have been able to develop an understanding between the Balkan powers - more easily said than done,and I suspect that the surviving empire would acquire a more distinct slavic character, should the Ottomans be removed from the game or held in check by that hypothetical and unitedTimurid empire.
L' Impressario, I think Byzantion's last chance was the time right after the battle of Ankara, when Timur captured Bayazid and destroyed his army. After that the Ottoman celebi (princes) got involved into a long, bloody civil war. If Byzantion could unite the Christians of the Balkans or could get support from Catholic powers (Hungary excluded, they were still liking their wounds after the harsh defeat of their "crusade" in the hands of "the Thunder") they had a very good chance of drawning the young Ottoman power in it's infancy. But they were unable to do that... the Byzantines got eventually the chance to support their favorite celebi for the Ottoman throne, but that didn't gave them more than just a few years of life - even Murad II renewed the ghazi spirit of the Ottomans and gained lots of land in the Balkans.
I would agree that had the Byzantines succeeded in uniting the Balkan christians, the empire would go mostly Slavic, but that wouldn't be the case if the "westeners" would come to aid the crumbling empire.
Both periods. And also between them i.e. what if Michael VIII Palaelogus had paid more attention to the Asian borders of Byzantium and the akritois (border keepers) still existed. The Seljuk sultanate had fallen, no a strong and a big rival of Byzantium... Possible reconquest. But continue to discuss the other possibilities, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Templar
As for Vlad. Agree, Rosacrus. Extremely cruelty yes. He was the same as his time- cruel. It is not excuse but a good explanation. Were Genghis khan ,Timur or sultan Mehmed II better? I don't think so. What about the Turks- isn't it cruel to take the children from their mothers to recruit an army will serve to their enemies?! The Jannisaries were ready to kill anybody even their parents for the sake of the sultan. Vlad was an extremely cruel just as the time he lived. It is not so surprising...
Most probably there wasn't only a influence factor, Vlad liked it. But he's not an exception- another legendary leader Mehmed II (who conquered Constantinople) was extremely cruel too. He killed some slaves because there were doubts a melon had been stolen by them or when he wanted to demonstrate to an Italian artist how human neck looked inside he himself beheaded a slave or when he conquered Trapezund he killed the children of the Trapezund emperor and forced the empress herself to bury them , alone. Like any legendary leader Vlad had his positive and negative sides ( no one-sided point of view). I think edyz wanted to emphasize on this but he was misunderstood.
Edited: Grammar reasons.
In 1402, when the battle of Ankara took place, Byzantine empire was so ruined that it was not able to take advantage of Turkish defeat in the battle of Ankara and Turkish civil war. In fact, I believe that Turkish were ready to conquer Constantinople at a time, but Ankara postponed this for half century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
And about uniting with the Slavic countries or Hungary:
Hungary:recovering from Nicopolis plus there was civil war.
Bosnia: the country was weaking, because of no strong kings in 15th century. Nobleman were too powerful.
Serbia: recovering from defeat at Kosovo field (1389), plus there were no strong rulers after death of emperor Dushan.
Bulgaia: IIRC, conquered by Ottomans in the last decade of 14th century.
My point is that no Slavic country in Balkan was strong enough to help the Byzantines.
The big Slavic coalition actually happened in 1444, when Vladislav, king of Hungary and also king of Poland united with Serbian despot. Coalition managed to re-gain some territories and win some battles. However, when king Vladislav alone (without the Srebs) went into antother campaign against the Turks, his army was crushed and he got killed (the battle of Varna 1444).
edit:grammar