Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

What would byzantium have to do to survive?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What would byzantium have to do to survive?
    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
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 16:24
Originally posted by Al Jassas

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
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  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
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  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
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  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
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jan-2010 at 19:09
If one accepts that the so called Eastern Empire eventually adopted Greek, then its end was written, and it was written in Greek!
That is one of the reasons that I think that popular or consensual history has it wrong! That is mankind has always chased the "setting sun/son!"

And, as it turned out, it was the West, to which every ancient power eventually bowed to!
Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jan-2010 at 15:01
Just what happened in the Italian / Roman world that allowed an incursion of Arabs into Rome proper? Do any of you think that these Arabs actually sacked the Temple of Rome, which we today call the Vatican?

Did, Rome's walls protect the Lateran?

Were all Romans of those times cowards? Or were they gone? Was Rome basically deserted at that time?
Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Ollios View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22-Feb-2011
Location: Diyar-ı Rum
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1130
  Quote Ollios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2013 at 04:51
It would be combination of Hong Kong and Vatican (economic&religious center)
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2013 at 18:33
It really depends upon just which Rome was being discussed.

One really needs to understand that the Fomenko thesis is that there exists overlapping chronologies/histories that displace some events into the distant past. Some of these "overlaps" involve more than 1,800 years. And, because of this, the same basic history is oft thrown back into a world of which we know nothing else of.

Of course one has to understand that Fomenko and company, consider that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all budded at about the same time in the past, and that time was in medieval times.

The Fomenko group places no belief in the list of Popes as now promoted by the church. They also believe that there was no great city in Italy now called Rome before Medieval times, and the same for Jerusalem in Israel. Even Russia is credited by having a city called Rome in the Middle Ages, and that its great age is also fake, it is considered as was Rome in Italy to be a Medieval creation.

Most everything we call Ancient History today was created by Italian humanists, such as Scaliger and Petavius.

Just a few things I thought you'd like to know.

Regards,
Ron

Edited by opuslola - 14-Dec-2013 at 18:51
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.