What would byzantium have to do to survive?

Originally posted by IamJoseph 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 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.

... don't outsource your naval arm.

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi 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.

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.

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.

Edited by IamJoseph - 03-Oct-2008 at 18:05

If they force their religion to catholic perhaps a small chance to survive.

Originally posted by Count Belisarius What would the Byzantine Empire have to do to survive?

cure the plague

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.