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
Penelope View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1044
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 07:28

The "first trade war" which in fact, was actually the beginning a a series of wars, had begun during the end of the Eastern Roman Emperor Leo The Wise's reign, versus Czar Simeon The Great of Bulgaria. The Czar had systematically ended up occupying most of Greece, reaching Constantinople and stopping at Athens. Some say that the conflict itself could have been avoided if Leo hadnt turned back the Czar's embassey, however, we must also keep in mind that the Czar ultimatly wanted to capture Constantinople itself. So there is a good possibility that a war wouldve occured no matter what.



Edited by Penelope - 24-Dec-2008 at 07:36
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 16:24
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

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.
 I would like to expand on that line of thought. It would of been even better not lose the battle of Yarmuk and let the Islamic armies have any chance for those lands in the first place. They weren't Arab to begin with.Smile

 Maybe Egypt could of been let go, as the Copts seemed to welcome a relief from the orthodox overlords but AFAIK the Aramaic tribes of the Levant were happy enough within Roman  boundaries.
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: 24-Dec-2008 at 19:27
The problem of many historians is that they sum up all the conquest of Syria in one battle, Yarmouk and think that if Arabs were defeated they will never try again.
 
This is wrong. In Muta 7 years before Yarmouk Arabs were defeated, if it wasn't for Khalid's dexterity they would have been annihilated. Yet they came back the next year, and the year after and continued untill they won Syria. In Iraq there were also some early masscres not just defeats, The battle of the bridge for example, yet that didn't stop them. Remember that most Syrian cities fell, then they were abandoned and then retaken again. the campaining in Syria began in 11 AH and continued for 6 long years until the final conquest.
 
Arab conquests was a tide coming. Nothing would have stopped it.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 13:57
yeah i know it more than one battle (I had a bit of tongue in that cheek) and yes for sure they would be back. The way they fought was pretty amazing so its not like they would shrug their shoulders and go back and never been heard of since

  The stars lined up for the Arabs with stuff that they were not in control of. You have a decline of the E Romans at that point in time, which has as much do to about internal factors, wars with the Iranians , disease etc etc.

My statement was more along the general line of holding on to the orthodox lands in  our east and not losing like in Yarmuk , basically not being weak when the Arabs were on the war path.  If the E Romans (hec the Romans) and Iranians didnt slam each other for so long it would of been different. Nothing is so certain and a peace treaty of sorts on more even terms would  have been a nicer 'what if'.

So maybe then for my own answer it would be a peace treaty with the Sassanids and keep the levant and anadolia.Smile
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: 28-Dec-2008 at 14:40

Hello Leo

I think you can look at the Arab conquests in the general world view of Barbarian or more correctly Nomadic invasions. The Gauls, the Germanics, the Huns, the Mongols, the Manchu and the Arabs were all nomadic people on the borders of great empires and they ended them or encrouched on their territory. Arab differ from these with one important thing. It was a united effort by and established semi-state. Unlike those Nomads who virtually distroyed anything in their path, except maybe the Manchu, Arabs came in a systematic way, they kept the status quo on the ground at first, prevented settling or mass land confiscations and kept the land to their original inhabitants and quickly urbanised. In just one decade after the conquests the economics of the conquered lands were as they were or even better than they were before the conquest as tax figures show.
 
Al-Jassas
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.