Second Siege of Constantinople

Originally posted by Anton         nor for this 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.                            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:

Originally posted by 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     Thats an opportunity to start a topic in historical amusement section by yourself. You don't have good relationships with military subjects do you?     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.   You don't understand or you don't want to understand... a method wich is abandoned from E.U. nations many decades before...  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? Is she maybe a fund of arguments for you? I'm sure that there is an corresponding "Karakasidou" i your country but i'm not expecting from you to have a discussion like this...         3.000 years of recordered history , i have many more important victories to remember. 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.       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 persons?   [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.

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!

Originally posted by Athanasios     You don't understand or you don't want to understand...

Originally posted by Burdokva 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?

Originally posted by NikeBG First, there is no evidence, suggesting that the Emperor has sent ambassadors to ask for help from Tervel.

Originally posted by Athanasios Anton i just concider Andronicus Emmanuil more important than her... What does mrs.Karakasidou says about Sesklo and Dimini settlements?

Originally posted by NikeBG - 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.