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 LockedWhat would byzantium have to do to survive?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 12:41
I dont see empires surviving only by their conquests and might - this is evdent in history. One can take another view, and see the fall of Rome beginning with its greatest war - with Judea, in 70 CE.
 
True that Rome prevailed 3 centuries thereafter, but what brought it down? This was because its conquered nations were never happy with the status quo and continuously rebelled. This was by reason of the right to freedoms, which is a philosophical issue of human consciousness - namely Rome's war with Judea was about the right to freedom of belief. No power can supress the freedom factor for long.
 
By subsequence, if any religion relies on a restriction of others of this right of belief, that religion will eventually fall - but the freedom of belief factor will prevail.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5713
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 14:44
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

I dont see empires surviving only by their conquests and might - this is evdent in history. One can take another view, and see the fall of Rome beginning with its greatest war - with Judea, in 70 CE.
 
True that Rome prevailed 3 centuries thereafter, but what brought it down? This was because its conquered nations were never happy with the status quo and continuously rebelled. This was by reason of the right to freedoms, which is a philosophical issue of human consciousness - namely Rome's war with Judea was about the right to freedom of belief. No power can supress the freedom factor for long.
 
By subsequence, if any religion relies on a restriction of others of this right of belief, that religion will eventually fall - but the freedom of belief factor will prevail.


Your proposition is indefensible and I suspect highly self indulgent. In other words you are basically saying the Jews brought down the Roman Empire, which is rubbish.

Judaea was neither the first unhappy and restless province of the Romans, nor the last. Infact it was almost dead halfway between the beginnings of Roman imperial acquisitions and the last of them.

The Romans did eventually cling to a system which became increasingly economically and militarily untenable. It is true they failed to protect civic freedoms and ensure justice in their relams, but this applied to your Romans on the Tiber as much as the Jews on the Temple mount or the villagers on the Seine or the citizens in their Hellenic poleis.

But the only reason the Romans lost control of Judaea was because Orthodox Christians harshly persecuted Monophysites. The Olympian following Romans could deny the Jews as much religious, political and economic freedom as they deemed fit. They had their fundamentals in order in the first century AD, so if a bunch of Jews were denied their freedom and suffered it made no difference to imperial survival.
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 362
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 01:04
yes I am exactly reffering to Edward Gibbon as do I strongly agree with him. I also believe that the Byzantine empire failed to modernize and look forward instead they kept thinking about the good old days and the Imperial pomp that was prevalent in Roman society lingered on in the Byzantine empire. There are several examples of countries that failed to modernize like the Ottoman Empire.

Edited by Sun Tzu - 30-Sep-2008 at 01:06
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 01:57
Quote   I also believe that the Byzantine empire failed to modernize and look forward instead they kept thinking about the good old days and the Imperial pomp that was prevalent in Roman society lingered on in the Byzantine empire. 
 
Byzantine emulated Rome, only it took those corrupt doctrines to much greater levels. Rome's decree of heresy became magnified to Nazi like proportions, and culminated in the mass murders of more peoples than Rome, or anyone else in history. The Rake and interrogation replaced the cross, exchanging the divine roman emperor with a divine, manufactured jew. This brought down Rome, and says the same for its follow-up regime. 99.9% of of today's christians' ancestors were enforced in their beliefs - there was no choice here. Anyone who rejected divine Ceasar became targeted - then this mantle passed on to the christian deity. Read some history.
 
When freedom of belief is flaunted - it tends to reverse itself on the perpertrators - ultimately.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 03:18
Quote The Romans did eventually cling to a system which became increasingly economically and militarily untenable.
 
Such traits were commonplace to all nations, rulers, conquerors and history, and does not measure as a unique factoring impact. The rebellions against Rome were the same as the rebellions against Byzantine, in principle: we see various divisions within the follow-up christianity, resultant from an exclusive, controlling power of belief via the church as with Rome. Mighty Rome became Roman Catholic.
 
Most conquered nations were indeed upset of the taxes, but Rome allowed her empire each to worship their own dieties - as long as taxes were paid and none challenged Rome's supremity. Then in 10 BCE, depraved Caligula assumed himself divine, and issued a decree of mandated death by crucifixion against the new doctrine of Heresy: one could follow their own diety, provided they also worshipped Caligula alongside - this was no issue for the Polytheist nations, but it became an issue for one small miniscule province.
 
The decree of Heresy, though made official, was never conducted by Herod, who was appointed King of Judea - because he knew it would never work with one particular peoples, different from the rest in this regard - an historical fact with numerous precedence. This changed when Nero became king, and Herod was long dead.
 
Rome's greatest war was with Judea - by period of time, human toll and destruction [Josephus]. Byzantine suppressed this event, as can be seen in reaction of it today: over 1 million perished in this war, and its not even mentioned in the Gospels or Europe's educational history - presumbly for the assumed notion this nation was dead and overtaken by Byzantine, or not to be given any credits or place in history - the term 'fullfilled' [passe; dead] was invented here.
 
That Rome's decree would be challenged by Judea was a given, with historical precedence with numerous empires before [Greece, Babylon, Egypt, etc], and the conquered nations sent their delegates to witness this destruction - this event, though small in its assumed scope, became an achille's heel for Rome. Something different occured in this war - the Judeans did not ask for better work hours or lower taxes or the ceasing of Rome's corrupt generals who trebled the official tax rates; instead, they rejected the decree to worship a Roman image in their temple - a factor which impinged on Rome's status throughout her empire.
 
The Hellenist Greeks were upfront in pushing this factor with Rome - backed by Greece's own longstanding wars and enmity with the Jews. The Roman war began in Cesaera, in 68 CE, by the Greeks complaining to Nero about the Jews refusing to sacrifice in Nero's name: 50,000 Jews were massacred in this event, and this lead to the war in 70 CE. 
 
The then world knew well of one nation's longstanding belief in an invisable God, which was a great anomoly to the nations, specially to Rome: it was tolerated, but later became a turbulent issue. This syndrome directly impacts on the right of belief, a consciousness factor, and secondly, the premise was inculacated into the nations that if a small nation like Judea could engage mighty Rome in such a protracted war - with no surrender - then they also could try their luck. Rebellians continued in far greater measure after this unique event in history. This may appear as a small event, but in the big picture, but for this small event, namely if it did not occur and there was no war - there may not have been Christianity, Islam, Palestine or the Mosque in Jerusalem today. Modern History as we see it today came from this point.


Edited by IamJoseph - 30-Sep-2008 at 03:24
Back to Top
saskganesh View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 26-May-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote saskganesh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2008 at 07:36
... don't outsource your naval arm.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5713
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 03:50
Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

Such traits were commonplace to all nations, rulers, conquerors and history, and does not measure as a unique factoring impact.
 
So? The fact that it wasn't unique doesn't mean it isn't important. Lots of nations also reached a point where they became too conservative and uncompetitive, but that doesn't diminish the fact that Rome also collapsed because of it.
 
Quote The rebellions against Rome were the same as the rebellions against Byzantine, in principle: we see various divisions within the follow-up christianity, resultant from an exclusive, controlling power of belief via the church as with Rome.
 
You are simplifying the situation and suggesting that rebellions had only one cause: religious persecution. This is simply incorrect. An unstable political structure which encouraged generals to revolt, overtaxation of the provinces to fund imperial largesse also fomented rebellion. Also the failure of the imperial armies to protect provincials encouraged the provincials to take on that responsibility themselves. These are just a few of the many factors which encouraged rebellion in the Roman/Byzantine Empire.
 
Quote Most conquered nations were indeed upset of the taxes, but Rome allowed her empire each to worship their own dieties - as long as taxes were paid and none challenged Rome's supremity.
 
Usually the case. Though you should mention the Romans took energetic steps to wipe out the Druid religion in the British Isles.
 
Quote Then in 10 BCE, depraved Caligula assumed himself divine, and issued a decree of mandated death by crucifixion against the new doctrine of Heresy: one could follow their own diety, provided they also worshipped Caligula alongside - this was no issue for the Polytheist nations, but it became an issue for one small miniscule province.
 
In 10 BCE Augustus was in power, Caligula had another two generations to wait before wearing the purple. Also deification of the Emperor started with Julius Caesar after his death - yet it took a hundred years before the first truly challenging Jewish revolt began....
 
Quote This changed when Nero became king, and Herod was long dead.
 
More importantly the governors sent to Judaea during Nero's reign were quite corrupt and otherwise complacent, the governors of Gallilee and Judah encouraged bandits to raid the other province. In the end the Syrian Governor had to step in and relieve one from his governorship.
 
Quote Rome's greatest war was with Judea - by period of time, human toll and destruction [Josephus].
 
Laughable. Go study Caesar's invasion of Gaul, or the Second Punic War, or the Sassanid-Byzantine conflict of the early seventh century. That should give you some perspective.
 
Quote Byzantine suppressed this event, as can be seen in reaction of it today: over 1 million perished in this war, and its not even mentioned in the Gospels or Europe's educational history - presumbly for the assumed notion this nation was dead and overtaken by Byzantine, or not to be given any credits or place in history - the term 'fullfilled' [passe; dead] was invented here.
 
No the war got plenty of press. It's just that there were also plenty of other very destructive and more important wars going on at the time, most particularly the Roman Civil war of AD 69. Have a read of Tacitus and you will see plenty of other examples of entire peoples being either totally exterminated or almost exterminated at various places in the Roman Empire and along its borders. The Jewish revolt was a very large one, but it was by no means pre-eminent or special as you claim.
 
Quote That Rome's decree would be challenged by Judea was a given, with historical precedence with numerous empires before [Greece, Babylon, Egypt, etc], and the conquered nations sent their delegates to witness this destruction - this event, though small in its assumed scope, became an achille's heel for Rome. Something different occured in this war - the Judeans did not ask for better work hours or lower taxes or the ceasing of Rome's corrupt generals who trebled the official tax rates; instead, they rejected the decree to worship a Roman image in their temple - a factor which impinged on Rome's status throughout her empire.
 
And after winning the war Rome went on to conquer yet more land, became wealthier, became more powerful and rose to new heights. Hardly the sort of thing one does after being horribly maimed. As it turned out, the foreigners who witnessed the Jewish revolt did not see it as a serious enough threat to Roman Imperial power that they advised their dependent kingdoms to revolt also. The other Roman dependencies and principalities in the east remained loyal.
 
Quote The then world knew well of one nation's longstanding belief in an invisable God, which was a great anomoly to the nations, specially to Rome: it was tolerated, but later became a turbulent issue. This syndrome directly impacts on the right of belief, a consciousness factor, and secondly, the premise was inculacated into the nations that if a small nation like Judea could engage mighty Rome in such a protracted war - with no surrender - then they also could try their luck. Rebellians continued in far greater measure after this unique event in history. This may appear as a small event, but in the big picture, but for this small event, namely if it did not occur and there was no war - there may not have been Christianity, Islam, Palestine or the Mosque in Jerusalem today. Modern History as we see it today came from this point.
 
Here you go again, trying to give the Jews credit for something they clearly are not responsible. You are claiming there is a cause-effect relationship between the Jews revolting and other people revolting, as though a bunch of Hebrews somehow inspired the little guy to stand up to mighty Rome. This is nonesense. No one else revolted when the Jews did because the Jews had their homeland destroyed and were so thoroughly defeated that no other nation wanted to endure such a fate. If anything, the Roman response to the Jewish revolt encouraged the provinces to be more loyal, lest they suffer the fate of the Jews also.


Edited by Constantine XI - 03-Oct-2008 at 05:11
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
capcartoonist View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 50
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote capcartoonist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 07:44
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi Evrenosgazi wrote:

I think that Roman empire lost most of its vital parts with the Islamic conquests. They have retained anatolia, balkans, south Italy, Sicily. The question is which part of the remaining empire would be crucial for her survival. Balkans were demolished with avar, slaic and bulgar invasion(we know that slav tribes even reached morea). Bulgarian kingdom contested in balkan hegemony with roman empire and they were successful for a while. However they regained balkans and ended the first bulgarian kingdom.  My opinion is anatolia, the remaining part  of the empire was the heart of the eastern roman empire. It provided enough money, men, supply to the roman empire for regaining balkans. With the loss of Anatolia no other provinces could take the place of this province. Slowly regression ended with final conquest of constantinople.

So let us think what would hinder the destruction of the roman empire.
 
1- Protecting anatolia from occupation(major event).  After Manzikert a civil war was really terrible for their vitality. The turks reached aegean sea
2-I think with calling westerners for help was a major mistake. Crusades destructed the empire. May be the romans could fight the turks with much more success and chase the turks(?). 
3- They were really at a disadvantageous position(. Muslims and turks from east, turks and slavs from north, arabs from south , Latins from west. They really stand for centuries against this situation with their skills, quality and warfare.  
4-They needed good reputation in west. May be good relations with papacy.  
 
Anatolia could have been held if Manzikert never happened.
 
However, Byzantine court intrigue guaranteed that Manzikert would have happened sooner or later.  A nation that uses assassination as a means of selecting its leaders is not very stable.
Back to Top
capcartoonist View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 50
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote capcartoonist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 07:48
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by IamJoseph IamJoseph wrote:

I dont see empires surviving only by their conquests and might - this is evdent in history. One can take another view, and see the fall of Rome beginning with its greatest war - with Judea, in 70 CE.
 
True that Rome prevailed 3 centuries thereafter, but what brought it down? This was because its conquered nations were never happy with the status quo and continuously rebelled. This was by reason of the right to freedoms, which is a philosophical issue of human consciousness - namely Rome's war with Judea was about the right to freedom of belief. No power can supress the freedom factor for long.
 
By subsequence, if any religion relies on a restriction of others of this right of belief, that religion will eventually fall - but the freedom of belief factor will prevail.


Your proposition is indefensible and I suspect highly self indulgent. In other words you are basically saying the Jews brought down the Roman Empire, which is rubbish.

Judaea was neither the first unhappy and restless province of the Romans, nor the last. Infact it was almost dead halfway between the beginnings of Roman imperial acquisitions and the last of them.

The Romans did eventually cling to a system which became increasingly economically and militarily untenable. It is true they failed to protect civic freedoms and ensure justice in their relams, but this applied to your Romans on the Tiber as much as the Jews on the Temple mount or the villagers on the Seine or the citizens in their Hellenic poleis.

But the only reason the Romans lost control of Judaea was because Orthodox Christians harshly persecuted Monophysites. The Olympian following Romans could deny the Jews as much religious, political and economic freedom as they deemed fit. They had their fundamentals in order in the first century AD, so if a bunch of Jews were denied their freedom and suffered it made no difference to imperial survival.
 
I would add to that by pointing out that Rome offered benefits to peoples it conquered.  That is one reason Hannibal couldn't get the Greco-Romans of southern Italy to defect en masse -- Rome had been too good to them.
 
The druids were massacred because they opposed the Roman conquest.  If they'd gone over, they'd still be with us.
 
The problem with Judea was that the Jews insisted on being monotheistic and stubborn.  Nothing wrong with that in principle, but it annoyed the hell out of the Romans. 


Edited by capcartoonist - 03-Oct-2008 at 07:50
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 09:24
Quote
So? The fact that it wasn't unique doesn't mean it isn't important. Lots of nations also reached a point where they became too conservative and uncompetitive, but that doesn't diminish the fact that Rome also collapsed because of it.
 
The 'also' [Rome's various brutal means] is not disputed, but the religious factor became the final straw. That this is what caused the destruction of Judea is agreed by all scholars. Londonium was also destroyed by fire, as was Jerusalem, because of Rome's siting the savage Britons worshiped a diety which they sacrificed to with human organs and entrails, in opposition to a Roman Emperor deemed divine.
 
Quote You are simplifying the situation and suggesting that rebellions had only one cause: religious persecution. This is simply incorrect.
 
The other factors were tolerated by the Jews, al beit with great disatisfaction, but not sufficient to have an existential war over. The latter occured with Judea, the only nation then being Monotheistic, with the final straw being the decree to house Roman emperor's statues in their temple. Here, all the quarelling Hebrew factions came together to oppose Rome.
 
Quote Usually the case. Though you should mention the Romans took energetic steps to wipe out the Druid religion in the British Isles.
 
This too became a religious war.
 
Quote In 10 BCE Augustus was in power, Caligula had another two generations to wait before wearing the purple. Also deification of the Emperor started with Julius Caesar after his death - ....
 
Yes, I stuffed up a bit in the datings. Caligula, who introduced the decree of heresy, was a few years before Herod, both being pre-christianity and in the previous millinium [BCE].
 
Quote yet it took a hundred years before the first truly challenging Jewish revolt began
 
This was because herod did not activate or apply Caligula's decree, knowing this would cause a great upheaval - which is exactly what occured when the decree was re-established by Nero, by the Greek's promptings.
 
Quote More importantly the governors sent to Judaea during Nero's reign were quite corrupt and otherwise complacent, the governors of Gallilee and Judah encouraged bandits to raid the other province. In the end the Syrian Governor had to step in and relieve one from his governorship.
 
The bandits were those who saw the surrounding towns destroyed, starting with Ceseara [50K Hebrews killed, when they rebelled over pigs sacrificed outside the sysnagogue], in Joppa, the Galilee, Hebron, Acre, etc.  The corruption was endured, till the Heresy decree became fastidious under depraved Nero.
 
Quote Laughable. Go study Caesar's invasion of Gaul, or the Second Punic War, or the Sassanid-Byzantine conflict of the early seventh century. That should give you some perspective.
 
The Gaul wars did not last that long, nor was the human toll anything near that of Judea:
 
 
Quote From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During his Gallic Wars, Julius Caesar invaded Britain twice, in 55 and 54 BC.[1] The first invasion, made late in summer, was either intended as a full invasion (in which case it was unsuccessful - it gained a beachhead on the coast of Kent but achieved little else) or a reconnaissance-in-force expedition. The second was more successful, setting up a friendly king, Mandubracius, and forcing the submission of his rival, Cassivellaunus, although no territory was conquered and held for Rome, but was restored to the allied Trinovantes, along with promised tribute of other tribes in eastern England.

 
The Punic war did not involve the Roman Empire [not yet an Empire] as such, and again was not equivalent in period or human toll. The war with the Jews was far more devasting and longer in period, with a toll of 1.2M in Jerusalem, and another 1.5M beween Caligula and Hadrian.
 
Quote Have a read of Tacitus and you will see plenty of other examples of entire peoples being either totally exterminated or almost exterminated at various places in the Roman Empire and along its borders. The Jewish revolt was a very large one, but it was by no means pre-eminent or special as you claim.
 
No other nation's historical heritage was also attempted to be negated, as with Judea, which under-went a change of name to Palestine. The temple was then the largest structure on earth, five times higher than the sphynx, and its then 2000 year rich booty was the big prize for Rome. This war was varied from all others, being over Monotheism and Polytheism, whereby the Hebrew language and beliefs were absolutely forbidden - reason being this nation's history saw numerous existential wars the past centuries for the same reason, and Rome was fearful the rejection of worshipping Roman images would spread throughout her empire: this was a war of beliefs and consciousness. Judea, the birthplace of Monotheism, was a particular affront for Rome, as with the Greeks and Babylonians before them.
 
Quote As it turned out, the foreigners who witnessed the Jewish revolt did not see it as a serious enough threat to Roman Imperial power that they advised their dependent kingdoms to revolt also. The other Roman dependencies and principalities in the east remained loyal.
 
This war was technically not won by Rome. This war was not about the taxes and corruption by Rome's Prefects, which was a longstanding one for some 200 years. While there was never any expectation of prevailing against Rome, the greatest superpower in recorded history, there was also no surrender - a point not lost by the nations, and the reason Vespasian refused to accept the crown of victory in Rome, being too ashamed the Judeans never accepted his statue for worship despite the final and absolute destruction. The factor here is that sacrifice for Rome's Emperor, as decreed by Nero, was rejected, which was then the ultimate challenge to Rome: it started when a Saciri Hebrew General forbade sacrifice for Rome. After this point, we find a gradual development of christianity, which broke from her mother religion [also for the same reason as with the Roman war], and eventually prevailed over Rome.
 
Quote Here you go again, trying to give the Jews credit for something they clearly are not responsible. You are claiming there is a cause-effect relationship between the Jews revolting and other people revolting, as though a bunch of Hebrews somehow inspired the little guy to stand up to mighty Rome. This is nonesense. No one else revolted when the Jews did because the Jews had their homeland destroyed and were so thoroughly defeated that no other nation wanted to endure such a fate. If anything, the Roman response to the Jewish revolt encouraged the provinces to be more loyal, lest they suffer the fate of the Jews also.
 
Its not nonesense from the pov: no nation challenged Rome on religious grounds; Rome eventually fell by a religious group [christianity]; and the notion of other nations being fearful due to what Rome did to Judea is a mute point: they never had the problem of rejecting images at any time - they were openly and profusely Polytheist, receptive to the deities of Babylon and Greece before Rome. In fact, after 70 CE, the Jews returned with more wars upto 135 CE. The Romans and Greeks caused a double whammy, the Greeks instigating Rome because they never forgot their own wars with the Jews for the same reason.
 
There is no place in history where the war for freedom of belief applies more. And its still going on today, despite its placebos of politics, oil, land, commerse, etc. The address for religious wars made this particular land and peoples history's # 1 trouble spot.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 09:39
Quote
I would add to that by pointing out that Rome offered benefits to peoples it conquered. 
 
This only affirms my premise. Throughout the descriptions of Josephus, a first hand witness to the war in Judea, numerous negotiations and compromises were offered by Rome, including that the Jews show a gesture of allowing a Roman Emperor's statue outside the Temple, in the forecourts. This was rejected. Aside and prior to this war, the Jews held prominent positions in the Roman Empire, and could have done quite well - so they sacrificed everything for their beliefs. Titus himself says so, that the Jews lost their country for naught, and could have saved themsleves anytime with small compromises. There are numerous precedents to this issue in history of this nation, and should not be surprising.
 
 
Quote
 
The problem with Judea was that the Jews insisted on being monotheistic and stubborn.  Nothing wrong with that in principle, but it annoyed the hell out of the Romans. 
 
No other reason - is my point. The premise that Judea could not have prevailed militarilly totally misses the relevence of this history: this was never in doubt.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 12:15
Depending on how far back you are willing to go there are lots of suggestions that could be made. Let's just say we start with Justinian's reign, a time when Byzantium was on sure footing in the eastern Mediterranean, and construct an ideal course of history.

1. Justinian reinstates the Republic by giving back to the Senate its pre-imperial powers. This way Byzantium would avoid having too many its higher offices (the one of emperor in particular) occupied by mediocrities or even fools whose only merit were family connections and nepotism. Like ancient Rome it would still be somewhat of an oligarchy and in no way a complete meritocracy, but more so than the empire.

2. Byzantium does not attempt to reconquer Italy or Iberia. While romantic, Justinian's ambition of reconquering the old heartlands led to a costly and completely unnecessary war with the Goths, whose outcome was the complete occupation of the Italian peninsula by the Lombards. The campaign in Spain was even more futile. The reconquest of Carthage however was necessary, as the Vandals' piracy was a plague in the Mediterranean. Apart from that, Justinian should have focused on consolidating his empire along the Balkan and Middle Eastern border, where the sums that were spent in Italy could have been spent on creating a network of defensive works and pay professional soldiers to man them, in order to prevent future invasions and avoid the crisis in the 7th century.

3. Limiting the spread of Islam and the extent of the Arab conquests. Byzantium would already have been well-positioned to deal with the Arab invasions in the 7th century had it followed the previous advice, as not only would they have avoided the exhaustive Persian war but they would also have a set of defensive works to stop them and capable armies in the area. In addition Byzantium should have introduced religious freedom (no longer an impossibility as the emperor is no longer the chosen rules of the Christian god), meaning the Monophysites and other Christian "heretics" in Egypt and the Levant would not have been alienated and tempted by the freedom of worship enjoyed under the Caliph. If possible taxes should also have been lowered, to reduce the lure of lower taxation under Arab rule - this could have been possible if Byzantium had avoided the Persian war. Lastly, if it came to battle Byzantium should not have used Arab troops to fight the Arabs, or fight while braving a sandstorm, like at Yarmuk.

Now we see that Byzantium has already stifled the growth of those problems they faced later on in real history. The civil war between Phocas and Sclerus would not have happened as power rested with the Senate and not influential individuals, meaning they could have presented a united front agains the Bulgars as well as any other group that threated from the north. The Turkish threat in Anatolia would never have materialised as the Caliphate that imported them to the eastern Mediterranean would not have existed in the first place. In extension of that the crusades would never have occurred either, as Jerusalem would still be in Christian hands and there would not have been any need to call for support from the Catholics - meaning no crusader states and no 1204.

I believe we have saved Byzantium here.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1114
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 16:27
That sounds pretty good to me Reggy, who knows? the byzantines might still be here today if they did things rightSmile


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Status: Offline
Points: 296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 18:04
Thus far, all empires have failed to view a big picture for humanity, and thus they have either been binned by history, or are tottering on weak residual foundations today. In the final count, all who reign by exclusive names will disappear, and only an equitable platform of laws will rule humanity.
 
Byzantine emulated the same ways of Rome, and nothing good came of it. Both displayed mass without substance in the big picture. The only way forward for humanity is to examine past wrongs and avoid them in the future. But this has not happened, except with America taking a leap forward via a different path from Europe and Arabia's history. And it worked as a reasonably higher elevationary treshold.


Edited by IamJoseph - 03-Oct-2008 at 18:05
Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 362
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2008 at 00:55
I wonder Joseph out of all the empires which has had the best platform to rule? my guess would be the British empire, but it is now nothing more than an island.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
osmantus View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl

banned

Joined: 22-Nov-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote osmantus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Nov-2008 at 08:07
If they force their religion to catholic perhaps a small chance to survive.
Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1114
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Nov-2008 at 15:06
That is absurd you never survive by forcing religion on someone that was one of the reasons the byzantines fell 


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


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

Joined: 22-Dec-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rmongler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Dec-2008 at 01:27

Originally posted by Count Belisarius Count Belisarius wrote:

What would the Byzantine Empire have to do to survive?  

cure the plague

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Dec-2008 at 19:48
Accept Arab domination over Syria, Egypt and Armenia and do like the Nubians, a long peace treaty and turn to deal with the Bulgar and other slavs.
 
The Arab tide was going to overwhelm the Byzantines sandstorms or not, with local support or not. Syria was extremely far from the main base of the Byzantines, it was a burden since it was on the borders and with a hostile population. The Byzantines wasted a lot of resources trying to reconquere these territories and the subsequent wars which nearly ended their existence. Arabs were pragmatic, they only asked for tribute and rarely refused it. Arabs had enough resources to end the Byzantines once and for all and nearly succeeded more than once. Many times they will stop their campaigns short of total conquest and settle for tribute, many spring and summer campaigns will reach to within 100 km of Constantinople and they had bases and controlled for years areas that were less than 300 km away from the city.
 
When the Turks came however, they weren't as generous. In 10 years after Malazgirt they were in the Marmara region and this time for good. Had the Byzantines sued for peace and rebuilt their empire on more solid ground they might have stopped the Turks but they remained obsessed with retaken what was lost and this was their doom, remember Romanus IV?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Dec-2008 at 17:55
I agree with that speculation. They had a strong military and economy in the Macedonian period, which should have been used to strengthen the thematic system. Especially in Antolia and the Western Balkans where the Opiskan army could not reach fast enough. If they had strengthened their base and kept their army at maximum they could have retained most of their possesions.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  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 0.063 seconds.