History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedSecond Siege of Constantinople

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
Author
Liudovik_Nemski View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Liudovik_Nemski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 13:28
But you're a descendant of the ones who got it Big%20smile
Back to Top
Athanasios View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 547
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Athanasios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 19:22
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

 
 
 
 
nor for this
Quote
but not critical... That may sounds strange to some of you...
 
The "saviour of Europe"
 
 
you provided any arguments. Especially for the later you may just guess. So basically this is just usless rending of the air.
Quote                          Cry
 
Not realy, i thought you knew that your "saviour" mainly attacked on starving exhausted Arabians from the back, ok that was a useful tactic for defeating an enemy splitted in 2 fronts(siege and Bulgarians(?)) but not critical .
 
 
[QUOTE]
but how the heck this title came from...
So, how did it come? I was trying to find the origin of this title but failed. The only thing I found was in wiki:
 
 
I'll tell you: Nationalist comments based on historical propaganda, a method wich is abandoned from E.U. nations many decades before...Wink
 
 
Originally posted by Liudovik_Nemski Liudovik_Nemski wrote:

Anton,our greek friend is just jealous that his eastern roman masters weren't able to take all the glory from the victory(so that he can take part of it for the modern greeks). Leave him alone it's pointless.First he says that we're the evil nationalists(which at least in my case is true i am a nationalist) but then he says "saviour of Europe pfffff"LOL
 
LOL
3.000 years of recordered history , i have many more important victories to rememberWink. If you read more carefully, you'll see that i don't overlook the Bulgarian aid, i just don't think that it had a key role for the solve of the siege. The Roman army was capable enough to win the Arabs for a second time, but their bellicose neighbours were willing to help, so Romans took this advantage so why to argue about?
 
 
 

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 20:52
Originally posted by Athanasios Athanasios wrote:

Not realy, i thought you knew that your "saviour" mainly attacked on starving exhausted Arabians from the back, ok that was a useful tactic for defeating an enemy splitted in 2 fronts(siege and Bulgarians(?)) but not critical .
 
It seems you didn't read the thread carefully. "Starving exhausted Arabians" seemed to be starving and exhausted due to Bulgarian cavalry.  As for "not critical" you never know. This is for historical amusement forum.
 
 
 
Quote  
I'll tell you: Nationalist comments based on historical propaganda,
 
Did I miss something or you didn't try to post any facts and suggestions to support your idea?  Besides, I don't understand how could Italian poet from 16th century be affected by modern nationalism in Bulgarian historical scholars. Ouch
 
Quote
a method wich is abandoned from E.U. nations many decades before...Wink
LOLLOLLOL Read something from Anastasia Karakasidou (your copatriot) about archeological education in Greece and then tell me more about abandoned nationalism in EU countries.
 
 
 
 
Quote  
LOL
3.000 years of recordered history , i have many more important victories to rememberWink. If you read more carefully, you'll see that i don't overlook the Bulgarian aid, i just don't think that it had a key role for the solve of the siege.
 
I am wondering why are you, who is so uninterested in episodes common for Bulgarian and Greek history, always participate in the discussion. LOL 
 
Quote
The Roman army was capable enough to win the Arabs for a second time, but their bellicose neighbours were willing to help, so Romans took this advantage so why to argue about?
 
A kind of historical amusement topic -- "what would happen if Bulgars didn't come to help the Romans". 700 years later they (and Serbs) refused to help Romans to financially support Roman navy. 


Edited by Anton - 24-Mar-2007 at 20:53
.
Back to Top
Athanasios View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 547
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Athanasios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 23:25
Originally posted by Anton
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It seems you didn't read the thread carefully. Starving exhausted Arabians seemed to be starving and exhausted due to Bulgarian cavalry.  As for not critical you never know. This is for historical amusement forum. </DIV>
<DIV>[QUOTE Anton
 
It seems you didn't read the thread carefully. Starving exhausted Arabians seemed to be starving and exhausted due to Bulgarian cavalry.  As for not critical you never know. This is for historical amusement forum.
[QUOTE wrote:

 
 
Thats an opportunity to start a topic in historical amusement section by yourself. You don't have good relationships with military subjects do you?
 
Quote  
I'll tell you: Nationalist comments based on historical propaganda,
 
Did I miss something or you didn't try to post any facts and suggestions to support your idea?  Besides, I don't understand how could Italian poet from 16th century be affected by modern nationalism in Bulgarian historical scholars. Ouch
 
Quote
You don't understand or you don't want to understand...
Quote
a method wich is abandoned from E.U. nations many decades before...Wink
LOLLOLLOL Read something from Anastasia Karakasidou (your copatriot) about archeological education in Greece and then tell me more about abandoned nationalism in EU countries.
 
No, i want to read something which is closest to my interests. Is Karakasidou in yours?Wink
Is she maybe a fund of arguments for youLOL?
I'm sure that there is an corresponding "Karakasidou" i your countryShocked but i'm not expecting from you to have a discussion like this...
 
 
 
Quote  
LOL
3.000 years of recordered history , i have many more important victories to rememberWink. If you read more carefully, you'll see that i don't overlook the Bulgarian aid, i just don't think that it had a key role for the solve of the siege.
 
I am wondering why are you, who is so uninterested in episodes common for Bulgarian and Greek history, always participate in the discussion. LOL 
 
Quote
 
Because i can't stand reading inaccuracies...is it a coincidence that when i participate in discussions like this i see every time the same personsLOL?
 
[QUOTE]
The Roman army was capable enough to win the Arabs for a second time, but their bellicose neighbours were willing to help, so Romans took this advantage so why to argue about?
 
 
 
A kind of historical amusement topic -- "what would happen if Bulgars didn't come to help the Romans". 700 years later they (and Serbs) refused to help Romans to financially support Roman navy. 
 
I'm wasting my time to explain you twice what i'm sayingSleepy...
 
700 years later bulgars and serbs just didn't exist...so, it wasn't a "historical amusement" subject for them ...
 
Back to the topic?
 
 

Back to Top
Liudovik_Nemski View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Liudovik_Nemski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 02:29
Athanasios here is what a byzantine scholar Michael from Syria wrote:

"Then the whole army of the Arabs was positioned on the western coast against the Golden Gates. He [Maslama] ordered that a ditch be made around the camp - one between it and the city and another one behind them [the Arabs], from the side of the Bulgars. From the left and from the right the camp was abut upon the sea, in which were the ships, loaded with an army - from ten thousand of Arabs and Egyptian soldiers, - them he placed at the sea to fight the Roman ships; he sent a 20 000 strong army to guard the camp against the Bulgars; and he placed that much from the Syrians.

The Arabs were attacked by land both by the people from the city [Constantinople] and by the Bulgars, and in the sea - by the Roman ships, and on the other side of the sea [on the coast of Asia Minor] by the Roman vanguard. They couldn't get out of the camp to a distance greater than two miles, while they were forced to search for wheat. The Bulgars attacked the Arabs and slew them;
those latter [the Arabs> feared the Bulgars more than they feared the besieged Romans. The winter came, but the Arabs were afraid of retreating: first - because of their king, second - because of the sea and third - because of the Bulgars.The wind of death grabbed them. Maslama lied to them, as he was saying that soon reinforcements from their king would arrive. The Romans were besieged, but the Arabs were no better than them. The hunger oppressed them so much that they were eating the corpses of the dead, each other's faeces and filths. They were forced to exterminate themselves, so that they could eat. One modius of wheat was worth then ten denarii. They were looking for small rocks, they were eating them to satisfy their hunger. They ate the rubbish from their ships."


The byzantines also participated in the defeat to some extent but they didn't have a chance alone against the arabs-at one point during the siege they saw that the Bulgars again began attacking them and confident in their strenght they tried to make a sortie from the city-and guess what they were beaten back by a starving armyLOL and we fighted them alone on land.They prevented the arab fleet from entering the city but there were enough ships which could prevent any transports with food and soldiers from entering Constantinople.How could we explain the fact that most(not all) of the surviving army of 20-25 000 got in their ships?ConfusedTheir fleet was big even in the end of the siege.

Also you said that the Bulgars came voluntarily-wrong.
The byzantines sent ambassadors to ask Tervel to come.


Edited by Liudovik_Nemski - 25-Mar-2007 at 02:44
Back to Top
NikeBG View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 530
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NikeBG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 06:40
First, there is no evidence, suggesting that the Emperor has sent ambassadors to ask for help from Tervel.
Second, the Byzantines attempted several times to break the siege, not just once.
Third, the Byzantine navy did indeed play a serious role, although most ship were actually sunk in a storm during the Arab retreat.

For me, there are three main factors in the defense of the Great City at that time:
1. The great walls of the City
2. The Byzantine navy
3. The Bulgar army

Without any of those, history could've been different. I'll try to explain why I think so:
1. Without the walls - well, we all know that the Walls of Constantinople were pretty much the Walls of whole Byzantium. An Empire, depending mainly on one singe city, and if that city falls, the whole Empire falls. Fortunately, the city has fallen only two times (1204 and 1453).
2. The fleet - we all also know that the City could hardly be taken without a besieging fleet (the Bulgarians know that very well, from our own experience). And to stop the besieging fleet, the Byzantines had to make great use of their own fleet (and Greek fire) as well. If there was no fleet to opose the Arab fleet and harass it's supplies, well, let's say the situation of the besieged would be at least three times worse.
3. The Bulgars - without the Bulgars to strike in the Arab's back, the Arabs could've easily dispersed in Thrace and resupply without much problem. Thus, even if the Byzantine navy would stop all their supplies, the Arabs could've easily held out through the winter and await new reinforcements. Not to mention that if they managed to hold off several Byzantine counter-attacks while they were starving and fighting on two fronts, you don't need to be a genius to guess how well they would fair if they weren't starving and were fighting on only one front. But, if that would happen, then we're entering the "if" zone...

P.S. "700 years later bulgars and serbs just didn't exist" - the most silliest statement from a person, who "isn't" a "nationalist in Europe". Mind you, perhaps we flew to the Moon and Mars at that time and returned to Earth only a few centuries ago? And, of course, the good Greeks have always existed the same, maybe even before the appearance of the human kind! You know what, I was a bit worried of the rising nationalism in Bulgaria the last few years. But seeing you and some other Greek members here (not all though; if I might say, some are indeed worthy to carry the name of the ancient Hellenes), I'm a bit less worried, since it seems that nationalism already has well established and refined roots in countries, which have been in the EU long before us. Of course, ultra-nationalism is still a bad thing, even if it's well hidden behined a refined demagogy. But, hopefuly, with time things will improve for everybody!
Back to Top
Burdokva View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 17-Jun-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 89
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Burdokva Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 08:26
Quote I'll tell you: Nationalist comments based on historical propaganda, a method wich is abandoned from E.U. nations many decades before...


Just to point something out - you continously state that this is "a nationalistic view" when Tervel was praised by his contemporaries. It is you who is rejecting historical facts based on nationalistic view, etc. you statement is against you.
As it was already pointed out the Arabs could have ressuplied from Thrace had the Bulgars not stopped them. Not only that, if Maslama hadn't been able to take Constantinopole nothing would stand in his way to take Solun/Tessalonika, Odrin/Adrianopole or any other major byzantine city, maybe even cut off the main trade routes of the empire such as Via Egnatia and Via Militaris and create a firm positions for the Arabs on the peninsula. How much time would they then need to take over Constantinopole?
Unity makes Strenght
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 08:32
Originally posted by Athanasios Athanasios wrote:

 
 
You don't understand or you don't want to understand...
 
 
No I don't understand indeed. I am rather sure that most of Bulgarian nation didn't know much about history at 16th century. As well as Greek nation. So, Bulgarian nationalism is not an explanation at all.
 
 
Quote
No, i want to read something which is closest to my interests. Is Karakasidou in yours?Wink
Is she maybe a fund of arguments for youLOL?
I'm sure that there is an corresponding "Karakasidou" i your countryShocked but i'm not expecting from you to have a discussion like this...
Well, yes, nationalism is obvious in Bulgarian historiography but this is common for every country and for every EU country as well. If you want to know more, read her carefully. 

Modern history was largely written, up to the 1990s, and with notable exceptions such as ImmanuelWallersteins (1974) or EricWolfs (1982) work, as a history of particular nation states or of their relations to each othermostly no longer with the obviously nationalist aim of legitimising a particular nation building project, as has been the case up to World War II, but still deeply influenced by the methodological assumption that it is a particular nation that would provide the constant unit of observation through all historical transformations, the thing whose change history was supposed to describe.This continues to be the dominant perspective in the newly revived historiography, art history and archaeology of many Eastern European academics (Niculescu, 2002), including Greece (cf.Karakasidou 1994).

(Wimmer and Schiller, Arch. Europ. Sociol. XLIII 2, 2002) 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote  
Because i can't stand reading inaccuracies...is it a coincidence that when i participate in discussions like this i see every time the same personsLOL?
 
From you last comments below I see you started to correct inaccuracies. However it is just another point of view.
 
 


Edited by Anton - 25-Mar-2007 at 19:10
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 08:41
.


Edited by Anton - 25-Mar-2007 at 19:08
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 09:22
Originally posted by Burdokva Burdokva wrote:


Not only that, if Maslama hadn't been able to take Constantinopole nothing would stand in his way to take Solun/Tessalonika, Odrin/Adrianopole or any other major byzantine city, maybe even cut off the main trade routes of the empire such as Via Egnatia and Via Militaris and create a firm positions for the Arabs on the peninsula. How much time would they then need to take over Constantinopole?
 
Could they do like Ottomans -- take over major Balkan cities apart from Constantinople and then take over the later?
.
Back to Top
Athanasios View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 547
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Athanasios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 16:58
Originally posted by Liudovik_Nemski Liudovik_Nemski wrote:

Athanasios here is what a byzantine scholar Michael from Syria wrote:

"Then the whole army of the Arabs was positioned on the western coast against the Golden Gates. He [Maslama] ordered that a ditch be made around the camp - one between it and the city and another one behind them [the Arabs], from the side of the Bulgars. From the left and from the right the camp was abut upon the sea, in which were the ships, loaded with an army - from ten thousand of Arabs and Egyptian soldiers, - them he placed at the sea to fight the Roman ships; he sent a 20 000 strong army to guard the camp against the Bulgars; and he placed that much from the Syrians.

The Arabs were attacked by land both by the people from the city [Constantinople] and by the Bulgars, and in the sea - by the Roman ships, and on the other side of the sea [on the coast of Asia Minor] by the Roman vanguard. They couldn't get out of the camp to a distance greater than two miles, while they were forced to search for wheat. The Bulgars attacked the Arabs and slew them;
those latter [the Arabs> feared the Bulgars more than they feared the besieged Romans. The winter came, but the Arabs were afraid of retreating: first - because of their king, second - because of the sea and third - because of the Bulgars.The wind of death grabbed them. Maslama lied to them, as he was saying that soon reinforcements from their king would arrive. The Romans were besieged, but the Arabs were no better than them. The hunger oppressed them so much that they were eating the corpses of the dead, each other's faeces and filths. They were forced to exterminate themselves, so that they could eat. One modius of wheat was worth then ten denarii. They were looking for small rocks, they were eating them to satisfy their hunger. They ate the rubbish from their ships."
 
Yes, i've read it before somewere else. Chronicles are very interesting indeed.

Originally posted by Liudovik_Nemski Liudovik_Nemski wrote:


The byzantines also participated in the defeat to some extent but they didn't have a chance alone against the arabs-at one point during the siege they saw that the Bulgars again began attacking them and confident in their strenght they tried to make a sortie from the city-and guess what they were beaten back by a starving armyLOL and we fighted them alone on land.
 
This tactic is called "counterattack" , somehow Arabs should have been moved from their camp so that they'd face two fronts: Bulgarian and Byzantine( the besieged force behind the walls), would you find a better way to accomplish your goal with the less(byzantine ) casualties?Anyway, except the varangian guard, the town guard of constantinopole was never the empires pride.
 
Originally posted by Liudovik_Nemski Liudovik_Nemski wrote:


They prevented the arab fleet from entering the city but there were enough ships which could prevent any transports with food and soldiers from entering Constantinople.How could we explain the fact that most(not all) of the surviving army of 20-25 000 got in their ships?ConfusedTheir fleet was big even in the end of the siege.
 
Constantinopole had its own "sea defence system" . They prevented the Arab fleet entering the city mainly because of the "Golden Horne" chain. They could not win the Byzantine navy anyway -especially the mass of the fleet wich was gathered in Constantinopole- Arabs were unable to brake it. Thats why they kept their numerous but weak fleet away.
About the survivors... the fleet was replaced by a new one(which carried supplies if i'm correct) so the number of the "survivors " was reproduced somehow. Reduced after their retreat because of the Byzantine fleet chase and a terrible storm after that.
Originally posted by Liudovik_Nemski Liudovik_Nemski wrote:



Also you said that the Bulgars came voluntarily-wrong.
The byzantines sent ambassadors to ask Tervel to come.
 
I suppose that the Byzantine - Bulgarian relationships of this period created a provicional alliance in front of the Arab threat...But i'm quite sure that their aid was not came from "pure feelings" . Don't forget that Tervel took his weight in gold from weak emperor justinian II (all those gifts for "helping" him take back the throne, the titles and of course his daughter )
 
 How many times Bulgarians fought against Arabs by their own? How many times did they won by their own?
 
Facing and winning the Arabs was a routine for Byzantines (eventhough the looses were many)...
 
 
 

Back to Top
Athanasios View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 547
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Athanasios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 17:06
Originally posted by NikeBG NikeBG wrote:

First, there is no evidence, suggesting that the Emperor has sent ambassadors to ask for help from Tervel.
 
When we are talking about Byzantine diplomacy everything is possible.
Anyway ambassadors were send by Emperor JustinianII ,long time before the siege to Tervel , for a different reason ...
 
Originally posted by NikeBG NikeBG wrote:


Second, the Byzantines attempted several times to break the siege, not just once.
Third, the Byzantine navy did indeed play a serious role, although most ship were actually sunk in a storm during the Arab retreat.

For me, there are three main factors in the defense of the Great City at that time:
1. The great walls of the City
2. The Byzantine navy
3. The Bulgar army
 
I'd also put "general winter" in the first position as well.
 
Originally posted by NikeBG NikeBG wrote:



Without any of those, history could've been different. I'll try to explain why I think so:
1. Without the walls - well, we all know that the Walls of Constantinople were pretty much the Walls of whole Byzantium.
 
In periods of crises , yes they were but after the themata system creation army was...
 
 
Originally posted by NikeBG NikeBG wrote:


 An Empire, depending mainly on one singe city, and if that city falls, the whole Empire falls. Fortunately, the city has fallen only two times (1204 and 1453).
What about the Nicaea state, the Trebizond state and the despotate of Hepirus? One thing that i recognize in Byzantium is the clear distinguish btw the Capital and the other regions(culturaly mainly)... thats why so many rebelions, thats why this deeply different culture ( the traders and the scholars from the one hand, the farmer - soldiers from the other). That's why so many ambitious successors of the throne, spawns of noble military families-and not only -took advantage of this unfairness in order to gather armies from the populations of the provinces and turn them against Constantinopole who was synonymous with the central power.
 
Originally posted by NikeBG NikeBG wrote:



2. The fleet - we all also know that the City could hardly be taken without a besieging fleet (the Bulgarians know that very well, from our own experience). And to stop the besieging fleet, the Byzantines had to make great use of their own fleet (and Greek fire) as well. If there was no fleet to opose the Arab fleet and harass it's supplies, well, let's say the situation of the besieged would be at least three times worse.
3. The Bulgars - without the Bulgars to strike in the Arab's back, the Arabs could've easily dispersed in Thrace and resupply without much problem. Thus, even if the Byzantine navy would stop all their supplies, the Arabs could've easily held out through the winter and await new reinforcements. Not to mention that if they managed to hold off several Byzantine counter-attacks while they were starving and fighting on two fronts, you don't need to be a genius to guess how well they would fair if they weren't starving and were fighting on only one front. But, if that would happen, then we're entering the "if" zone...
Eventhough your last line gathers the hole point of your paragraph(....i don't accuse you for that),i've to mention that byzantines won many times  the Arabs in opened field and sea as well,  in normal conditions.
Originally posted by NikeBG NikeBG wrote:


P.S. "700 years later bulgars and serbs just didn't exist" - the most silliest statement from a person, who "isn't" a "nationalist in Europe". Mind you, perhaps we flew to the Moon and Mars at that time and returned to Earth only a few centuries ago? And, of course, the good Greeks have always existed the same, maybe even before the appearance of the human kind! You know what, I was a bit worried of the rising nationalism in Bulgaria the last few years. But seeing you and some other Greek members here (not all though; if I might say, some are indeed worthy to carry the name of the ancient Hellenes), I'm a bit less worried, since it seems that nationalism already has well established and refined roots in countries, which have been in the EU long before us. Of course, ultra-nationalism is still a bad thing, even if it's well hidden behined a refined demagogy. But, hopefuly, with time things will improve for everybody!
 
No, i was terribly missunderstood.Im a bit worried about the nationalism in Balkans too (internal and external). The countries wich belong to E.U. (I mean the countries , states not people like me and you) have abandoned every single topic about politics based in nationalistic policies. The masses of skinhead and ultranationalist parties are an inevitable product of common European policy which with her neoliberal tendencies creates big number οf unemployed and brought to despair persons whο find their opium in the history of their brilliant past. Perhaps it is also the effort of European union to downgrade the role of national states and to upgrade that of "European provinces"...
I don't thing that you really believe that our medieval nations have something to do with the 19century neissance of our national states...
I personally believe that the balkan states (Greece included) are artificial , created just to serve the  "great powers " ambitions in the whole region.
Anyway , i think that it was obvious what i meaned. Medieval Serbs, medieval bulgars( your second empire if im not wrong) and of course medieval Greek states dissapeared for about 500 years , to came back in 19 century and claim the positions of their ancestor-states  boundaries...
It maybe sounds rotten , but it is so gap and useless  thought like you wanna fit in the same coffin like your grandparentOuch. Just doesn't make sense in the age of capitalism and capitalistic flow through geographic regions.
Personally i find it quite stupid but all the others are just politics and military subjects.

Back to Top
Athanasios View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 547
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Athanasios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 18:10
Anton i just concider Andronicus Emmanuil more important than her...
What does mrs.Karakasidou says about Sesklo and Dimini settlements?

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 19:18
Originally posted by Athanasios Athanasios wrote:

Anton i just concider Andronicus Emmanuil more important than her...
What does mrs.Karakasidou says about Sesklo and Dimini settlements?
 
It seems that she says nothing Smile She was pointed here in the discussion about nationalism in historiografies, not for anything else.
.
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
Points: 1921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 20:35
Originally posted by Athanasios Athanasios wrote:

Facing and winning the Arabs was a routine for Byzantines (eventhough the looses were many)...
 
 
I doubt the correctness of this statement...
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Athanasios View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 547
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Athanasios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 22:51
Apologies to the Bulgarian members...
 
Kapikulu, the Arabs of the 8th and 9th centuries were much more serious threat for the Byzantines  than those of the 11th. For example Tzimisces and Phocas have done expansive wars against them and totally defeated them(Crete, Syria) and hold the boundaries for many years until Seljuc's appearance .
 
Abbasids were those who had asked for a peace treaty , not the Byzantines(Likely forced by their inferiocity to face the byz. for a long time war during a "boiling " period of internal affairs )
 
Can you claim that the Umayyad Chaliphate was even stronger than the Abbasid chaliphate (during the period of the byzantine army epopoii)?
I mean can you provide the critical point?
 
 

Back to Top
NikeBG View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 530
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NikeBG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 02:05
Ok, I guess we come to an agreement! :)

Btw, although there are a few things I would like to correct, I'll note only that:
In 705 Tervel received as a reward for getting Justinian II Rinotmet back on the throne the following things:
- Red clothes and gold
- The title of "kessar", second after the basileos at that time, for the first time given to a barbarian/foreigner
- The region of Zagore, the first Bulgar region to the south of the Balkan Mountains, with key points holding the Black Sea coast
- Justinian's daughter was only promised, but Tervel didn't marry her, as in 708 Justinian II attempted to regain by force what he had given as a gift and attacked Bulgaria. Of course, he was defeated and Zagore remained Bulgarian territory, but Tervel's marriage to Justinian's daughter remained only an unfulfilled promise.
Back to Top
Liudovik_Nemski View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Liudovik_Nemski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 07:10
Originally posted by NikeBG NikeBG wrote:


- The region of Zagore, the first Bulgar region to the south of the Balkan Mountains, with key points holding the Black Sea coast


Yeah.It was also very fertile so Tervel did a great job by defending and keeping it.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.266 seconds.