Print Page | Close Window

Arabians at Constantinople

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=683
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 07:49
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Arabians at Constantinople
Posted By: Kubrat
Subject: Arabians at Constantinople
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 12:03
The Saviours of Europe

    During the year 717 A.D., more than 80,000 Arab soldiers marched towards the Byzantine capital of Constantinople.  When they learned about this, the Byzantines sent an envoy to ask for help from the Bulgarian Han Tervel.  He agreed to the request, realizing that if Constantinople fell, it would lead to Bulgaria being open to attacks from this dangerous enemy.  Han Tervel sent the requested army, and thus, required the Arabs besieging Constantinople to fight on two fronts - against the defenders from the city and against the Bulgarian cavalry, which incessantly raided them.  Very soon, the leader of the Arab army, Maslama (? I translated this from Bulgarian, don't know if this is right), was convinced that the Bulgarians were a dangerous foe.  He ordered a deep trench to be dug, in order to protect his soldiers from surprise attacks.  They also dug the same trench facing the the city of Constantinople.  In this way, the besieging Arab army became themselves besieged.  The winter came.  A shortage of food made some of the Arabians to eat corpses of their fellow warriors, and others ate small stones to aleviate their hunger.  In spite of their situation, the Arabs did not surrender.  
    Michael Siriiski, a Byzantine Chronicler (? I translated this from Bulgarian, don't know if this is right) wrote:
    "...The Arabians were attacked by land and by the citizens of the city, and by the Bulgarians, also through the sea by the Byzantine ships... The Bulgarians attacked the Arabians and they hew them down; the latter feared the Bulgarians more than the Byzantines.  From the behind the Arabians were vexed with a greater misfortune than from the Byzantines in the city.  The winter came, but the Arabians feared to surrender; first from their ruler, second from the sea, and third from the Bulgarians.  Then the whirlwind of death grabbed them..."
    They made it to the spring, and tried to launch a surprise attack on the Bulgarians to cut through their defensive line.  But in this deciding conflict, Han Tervel's warriors crushed the Arab army, which lost more than 20,000 men.  The survivors barely made it to their ships and sailed away in defeat.
    Han Tervel became one of the most loved rulers in Europe at that time.  Decades after his death, poets wrote ballads to glorify Han Tervel.

______

Some sources:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=22270&messageid=1038497811 - http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=22270&mes sageid=1038497811

http://www.kutriguri.com/index.html - http://www.kutriguri.com/index.html

What do you guys think?

Edit:  Whoops, should probably be Saracens, not Arabs.


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare



Replies:
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 13:38
Nice story, I do find it difficult to believe that the Eastern Empire could be in that problem that soon, but stranger things have happened in history.

-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 14:07
Well, actually, Constantinople was also besieged by the Avars in 623 AD, with about 80,000 men too, and only 12,000 Byzantines defeding the city, and they won.

-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Evildoer
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 15:05
They were actually besieged 12 times.


Posted By: Ptolemy
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2004 at 12:48
I believe in that war, the arabs attacked with a navy too (I might be thinking of a different war). Byzantines used Greek fire to decimate the Arab navy. The Remainder of the navy was forced to retreat (it might have been due to the fact that a lot of the Arab navy was Christian).


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2004 at 21:11
Yes, that should be in the story too.  Bulgarians weren't really advanced in the art of naval warfare.  Although I did read that in one of the capture Byzantine cities Bulgarians found 'crates' (don't remember the term there) of Greek Fire.  Don't think they actually used it though, or told anyone else about it.

-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Evildoer
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 01:20

Greek fire was a devilish weapon. The fire burned in contact with water (!! thus especially useful against ships) and could only be extinguished with sand!

No offense but I keep seeing Kubrat's Coat of Arms as a plate with orange-red-coloured food on it... lol



Posted By: Berosus
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 05:25
It's funny how the Danube Bulgars were concerned about the possibility of an Arab invasion of their territory; maybe that's why they became Christians after 800 A.D.  By contrast, the Volga Bulgars, who were never threatened from the south (except maybe by the Khazars), accepted Islam wholeheartedly in 922.

-------------
Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 18:23
Edit:  Post out of order...


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2004 at 10:07
Originally posted by Berosus

It's funny how the Danube Bulgars were concerned about the possibility of an Arab invasion of their territory; maybe that's why they became Christians after 800 A.D.  By contrast, the Volga Bulgars, who were never threatened from the south (except maybe by the Khazars), accepted Islam wholeheartedly in 922.


Well, the reason the Danube Bulgar(ian)s converted to Christianity was the fact that they were not plainly Bulgars, but also Slavs, Thracian remnants, etc.  Knias Boris I made the decision to convert the country to Christianity in hopes of unifying those different elements, even though up to that point I don't think there are any mentionings of dissent because of the different religions.  And it would make no sense for them to convert to Islam or Judaism, because then the whole wrath of Europe would be upon them... 

As for the Volga Bulgars, I have no clue as to why they converted...  does someone here know?

Edit:  I hope you don't get hungry and try to eat it, Evildoer

Edit2:  I vaguely recall reading that a missionary of Islam travelled to Volga Bulgaria and somehow convinced them to convert.  The other strange part is how Kieven Rus had the choice to convert to either, with Volga Bulgaria being Islamic to the east, and Danube Bulgaria and Byzantium being Christian to the South.


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2004 at 18:26

other strange part is how Kieven Rus had the choice to convert to either,

I heard they went with Christianity because of Islam's ban on alcohol.



-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Evildoer
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2004 at 18:41
Me too. In the same book, it also said that the splendour of Constantinople took the Rus by surprise.


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2004 at 17:32
Oh yeah, that explains it.  Russians would never let religion deny them their alcohol .

-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Berosus
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2004 at 04:53
Well, one thing I learned about the Russians that has been consistent all through their history is that a Russian with nothing to do will get drunk!

-------------
Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker


Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2004 at 11:34

Aint that a fact!!!!!!

Some cultures have sciences to show, Russia has vodka.



-------------
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...


Posted By: ihsan
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2004 at 14:55

The Khan of Volga Bulgars was somehow interested on Islam so he asked the Abbāsid caliph to send him an envoy to teach his people Islam and to help them built Islamic structures. So, similar to the convertion of the Kievan Rus, the Volga Bulgars converted with the order of their rulers.



-------------
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2004 at 18:40

Same thing in Danube Bulgaria, Knias Boris converted the entire country to Christianity.

Wasn't it the same with the Roman Empire?  The emperor made the decision and even though there were already people devoted to the Christian faith, most weren't?



-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2004 at 19:57
yeah, it's always like that. Constantine the great was the emperor.

-------------


Posted By: Ptolemy
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 19:26
There is a thread in the HeavenGames history forum about the population of Christians in the empire.


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2004 at 19:41
yeah, it's always like that. Constantine the great was the emperor.


Except for 12,000 Australians who have converted to the Force religion from Star Wars .  Are they still around?

But anyways, do you guys want me to post more little articles like that?  They aren't copy and pasted either, so this is from the Bulgarian perspective as Yiannis would say 

-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: ihsan
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2004 at 11:42
Ok, of course

-------------
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Christscrusader
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2004 at 00:35

I believe the MAIn reason for the vurtual fall of the Byzantine Greek east is the sack of constantinople by the crusaders. The city was pillaged and it was a pitiful example of Christian vs Christian. I wonder how the West trys to clear that one up with the Eastern Church, no wonder the divisions are so deep.



Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2004 at 00:38
eh, money and plunder is a sufficent explanation for why anyon does anything.

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2004 at 10:14

 I wonder how the West trys to clear that one up with the Eastern Church

By acknowledging and apologizing for their mistake, the only thing they can do.



-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2004 at 20:56
Yeah, I agree with Christscrusader.

-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Christscrusader
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2004 at 20:34
Noone else gona add to anytin?

-------------
Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc


Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2004 at 01:24

Originally posted by Christscrusader

Noone else gona add to anytin?

 

No, you have us covered



-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: Christscrusader
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2004 at 19:26
Goodie,

-------------
Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc


Posted By: Ptolemy
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2004 at 22:52

I believe the MAIn reason for the vurtual fall of the Byzantine Greek east is the sack of constantinople by the crusaders. The city was pillaged and it was a pitiful example of Christian vs Christian. I wonder how the West trys to clear that one up with the Eastern Church, no wonder the divisions are so deep.

The fall of the thematic system which preceded that event preobably has more to do with the fall of Constantinople (both times). I would like to see what the crusaders could have thrown against Basil II.



Posted By: Christscrusader
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2004 at 23:15
Explain yourself

-------------
Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2004 at 13:32
well, simply said, Byzantium had to recruit a lot of mercenaries to keep itself a major player after the national thematic troops decreased drastically in performance after Basil II.

-------------


Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 22-Nov-2004 at 01:26

The Thematic scheme collapsed when the small farmers that were the backbone of the army, began to collapse economically. As a result they started selling their land to big landowners (Dynatoi = strong ones) and became serfs to them (some sort of feudalism. There were some attempts by a few emperors to reverse this trend but without success. If you search for "dynatoi" you'll find a lot of information on this interesting matter.

 



-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: Kubrat
Date Posted: 22-Nov-2004 at 17:12
Really?  That's interesting because much the same thing was happening in Bulgaria at the same time.  That and the division of the country into 3 kingdoms.


-------------
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-William Shakespeare


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 21:15
The thematic system that was subsumed by the landowners divereted power from the central government. the peasant farmers owed military service not to the state but to the rich landowners. hence the rebellions of bardas sclerus and bardas phocas and then the usurpations of nicephorus phocas and john tzimickes. all these four men were related by marriage.


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 23:17
Finally someone who agrees that the thematic system was the backbone of Byzantium! Byzantium basically had to find a way of making itself a viable state once it was deprived of its place of universalism in the world. When the Great Migrations died down Byzantium lost its source of military power: the mercenaries. With the loss of Syria and Egypt to the Persians and then the Arabs it needed a way of funding a large army capable of defending a nation which lay inbetween two major invasion routes and which would forever be neighbours with large, powerful and organised nations. The response was the theme, a district within the empire governed by a man with supreme civil and military authority which was responsible for providing a quota of professional troops from a massive class of small-holding peasants who provided their own arms and armor and submitted themselves for training and service. The system worked brilliantly, although Byzantium collected only one tenth of the revenue in taxation that the Abassid Caliphate did in the early 8th century it was still on the whole very successful in defending itself. Byzantium transformed itself from a prostrate, weak entity which was badly depopulated into a superpower once more. From the 9th century onwards there is massive creativity, expansion etc coming from this nation. The thematic system often allowed Byzantium to field large professional armies which were very cost effective. In the 10th century the army was sustainably maintained at 120,000 men distributed through the Empire, while more soldiers could quickly be called up readily armed for emergencies. By contrast the German Emperor at that time could raise only 40,000 men and these refused to serve for sustained campaigns or long periods. When the government allowed legislation to slip and the Dynatoi to become powerful it destroyed the two most important organs of the Byzantine Empire: its source of income and its source of military manpower. The destruction of the small-holding peasant achieved that. And so began the decline that need not have occured.

-------------


Posted By: Jazz
Date Posted: 07-May-2005 at 01:26
Originally posted by Constantine XI

..... When the government allowed legislation to slip and the Dynatoi to become powerful it destroyed the two most important organs of the Byzantine Empire: its source of income and its source of military manpower. The destruction of the small-holding peasant achieved that. And so began the decline that need not have occured.


Nice - but looking back, what could have been done to prevent this decline?


-------------
http://www.forums.internationalhockey.net/index.php?/index.php?referrerid=8 - International Hockey Forums


Posted By: giani_82
Date Posted: 07-May-2005 at 08:17
Nothing much really, lying on the crossroad of the two migration waves has engaged the empire in constant wars, besides they lost quite many impornant territories to the west as well - Thracia and Macedonia to say at least. This depleted them of access to valuable riches. Their goal to have a north border on the Danube river was never fully accomplished even though they conquered Bulgaria and preserved their rule for some 200 years at one point. The Danube border was once easily defended by numerous fortifications, and just at the V and VI century slavs, bulgars, avars started invasions on a regular basis. Some of them settled down as Byzantine subjects, but an empire with the reaches of Byzantium is hardly ever unnoticable to their neighbours.


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 08-May-2005 at 20:21


Nice - but looking back, what could have been done to prevent this decline?
[/QUOTE]

Well basically Byzantium needed to continue with its anti-aristocratic legislation, if possible. Limiting the amount of land legally held by one household would be a wise move, while imposing heavier and heavier quotas on the troops to be supplied by a given area of land as a household's amount of land increased would be another. Of course this was a hard system to think up, implement and enforce. Even Basil II cannot be said to have been 100% successful seeing how fast the aristocracy re-emerged after his death, and Basil was not one to be half-assed in doing anything. The sad fact of the matter is that Byzantium faced an unusually large number of threats. Reading Gibbon you see alot of reference to immorality being the cause of their decline. I remember when I was 14 and first became interested in Byzantium simply because of the sound of its name, since then I made it my primary area of study and have found it the most fascinating area of all the histories i have delved into. I think it is simply the case that Byzantium was surrounded by a number of distinctly different nations, some militant and semi-barbaric on the one hand (eg the Pechenegs), while others highly developed and organised (like the Arabs and Persians).  All nations were too distinct to really find much common cause with Byzantium and so any time Byzantium experienced even a short period of weakness (e.g. 602-610) the damage that waiting enemies could cause could undo decades of hard work. Basically that is why I believe Byzantium collapsed, it was a beleaguered state with a sheer mass of distinct external enemies always ready to pounce. How could Byzantium have prevented the collapse of its small holder farming class in the face of the Dynatoi? Basically only through stringent legislation and a good Emperor. I suppose Basil II did have one big failing, he failed to provide a capable heir to the Macedonian dynasty, and with the throne vacant the Dynatoi came to fill the vacuum and in doing so were all too pleased to further erode the state legislation which protected the small holder peasants.



-------------


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2005 at 20:08

Originally posted by Constantine XI

How could Byzantium have prevented the collapse of its small holder farming class in the face of the Dynatoi? Basically only through stringent legislation and a good Emperor. I suppose Basil II did have one big failing, he failed to provide a capable heir to the Macedonian dynasty, and with the throne vacant the Dynatoi came to fill the vacuum and in doing so were all too pleased to further erode the state legislation which protected the small holder peasants.

Good point, if anyone could have stemmed the erosion of the themes and put the Dynatoi in check it early on it would have been Basil II.  Didn't he try to pass what he thought was effective legislation in his law against illegal land sales?  As you know, the growing class of landed magnates were offering huge sums for the lands of the thematic farmers, who were taking the money and running with it.  Basil II tried to reaffirm a law of Romanus I from the year 934, which stipulated that all illegal land sales had to be returned to the thematic farmers without compensation.  I think in the end it was too late, the Dynatoi had a firm stranglehold on land ownership and the central government was too weak to reverse the situation or to establish limitations.  After Basil II, the emperors themselves started to come from the big land-holding families.  He was the last of a dying breed.



-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2005 at 00:57
Originally posted by JanusRook


other strange part is how Kieven Rus had the choice to convert to either,



I heard they went with Christianity because of Islam's ban on alcohol.




That could have been part of it but the story I read was the Rus barbarians were so impressed by the glory of Hagia Sophia that they chose Orthodoxy over Islam, the Roman Catholic faith and, the Jewish religion. remember, they lived in mud huts and the dome structure, of this great church, seemed to reach to the heavens, the paintings of saints, angels and Christ helped I am sure.

I do believe I read this in one of John Julius Norwhich's volumes on the Byzantine Empire.


Posted By: Red_Lord
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2005 at 08:59
What will you say about Simeon I The Great one of the most ruler who siege the Constantinopole.There is very comic fact>In 922 he send a groupe of diplomats to talk with arabian halif to provide his fleet.But the byzantine learn for it and kill diplomats in Antioch.I think that with arabian fleet and about 100 000 bulgarian army Constantinopole cuold be captured.I'm sorry for my bad English

-------------
"The slave is fighting for freedom,free is fighting for perfectness"
Yane Sandanski


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2005 at 06:21

Originally posted by Red_Lord

What will you say about Simeon I The Great one of the most ruler who siege the Constantinopole.There is very comic fact>In 922 he send a groupe of diplomats to talk with arabian halif to provide his fleet.But the byzantine learn for it and kill diplomats in Antioch.I think that with arabian fleet and about 100 000 bulgarian army Constantinopole cuold be captured.I'm sorry for my bad English

Believe me, something like that is impossible to orchestrate. If the Arabs, with all their sophistication and organisation, couldn't take Constantinople then I don't think they would ingenuously just send off their precious navy to be commandeered by a nation as young and with the limited power of the Bulgars.



-------------


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2005 at 06:38

well arabs were not able to take Constantinople in the 7th century but they were able to take it in the 9th century,

below is from the Wikipedia

In military matters, Harun was an excellent soldier and showed this ability at a young age when his father was still caliph. He later commanded an army of 95,000 Arabs and Persians, sent by his father to invade the Eastern Roman Empire, which was then ruled by the Empress Irene. After defeating Irene's famous general, Nicetas, Harun marched his army to Chrysopolis (now Scutari) on the Asiatic coast, opposite Constantinople. He encamped on the heights, in full view of the Roman capital. The Empress saw that the city would certainly be taken by the Muslims. She therefore sent ambassadors to Harun to arrange terms; but he sternly refused to agree to anything except immediate surrender. It is reported that then one of the ambassadors said, "The Empress has heard much of your ability as a general. Though you are her enemy, she admires you as a soldier." These flattering words were pleasing to Harun. He walked to and fro in front of his tent and then spoke again to the ambassadors. "Tell the Empress," he said, "that I will spare Constantinople if she will pay me seventy thousand pieces of gold as a yearly tribute. If the tribute is regularly paid Constantinople shall not be harmed by any Muslim force." The Empress agreed to these terms. She paid the first year's tribute; and soon the great Muslim army set out on its homeward march. The tribute of gold that the Empress Irene agreed to pay Harun was sent regularly for many years. It was always received at Baghdad with great ceremony. The day on which it arrived was made a holiday. The Roman soldiers who came with it entered the gates in procession. Muslim troops also took part in the parade. When the gold had been delivered at the palace, the Roman soldiers were hospitably entertained, and were escorted to the main gate of the city when they set out on their journey back to Constantinople. In AD 802 Nicephorus usurped the throne of the Eastern Empire. He sent ambassadors with a letter to Harun to tell him that the tribute would no longer be paid. The letter contained these words:

"The weak and faint-hearted Irene submitted to pay you tribute. She ought to have made you pay tribute to her. Return to me all that she paid you; else the matter must be settled by the sword."

As soon as Harun had read these words the ambassadors threw a bundle of swords at his feet. The caliph smiled, and drawing his own sword, or scimitar, he cut the Roman swords in two with one stroke without injuring the blade, or even turning the edge of his weapon. Then he dictated a letter to Nicephorus, in which he said:

"Harun-al-Rashid, Commander of the Faithful to Nicephorus, the Roman dog: I have read thy letter. Thou shalt not hear, thou shalt see my reply."

Harun was as good as his word. He started that day with a large army to punish the emperor. As soon as he reached Roman territory he ravaged the country and took possession of everything valuable that he found. He laid siege to Heraclea, a city on the shores of the Black Sea, and in a week forced it to surrender. Then he sacked the place. Nicephorus was now forced to agree to pay the tribute. Scarcely, however, had the caliph reached his palace in Baghdad when the emperor again refused to pay. Harun, consequently, advanced into the Roman province of Phrygia, in Asia Minor, with an army of 15,000 men. Nicepherus marched against him with 125,000 men. In the battle which followed the emperor was wounded, and 40,000 of his men were killed. After this defeat Nicephorus again promised payment of the tribute, but again failed to keep his promise. Harun now vowed that he would kill the emperor if he should ever lay hands upon him. But as he was getting ready to march once more into the Roman provinces a revolt broke out in one of the cities of his own kingdom; and while on his way to suppress it he died of an illness which had long given him trouble. He is said to be buried in Tus.

 

 



-------------


Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2005 at 06:39

Especially since the Arab fleed was devastated in their previous efforts by the "Greek fire" and the walls of Constantinople proved to be impregnable. At least until artillery was introduced in sieges.



-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2005 at 07:42
Very true, you needed a navy to take Constantinople. Many times a huge army sat impotently outside Constantinople, but no one without a navy ever managed to take it.

-------------


Posted By: Red_Lord
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 07:11
I agree with you.Without navy it's impossible to capture Constantinopole.And I do not said that Bulgars will rule arabs navy.They did not have any expierence with ships.But well-prepared attack of Bulgars and Arabs in 922 might be a disaster for Constantinopole.Look in 922 the situation wasn't so pink for Romeis.The tribes around Bulgaria-Pechenegs Kumans and other were mastered by Simeon.Bulgarian army was just before the walls of the first fortress.And we talk for about 200 000 or more soldiers from +tribes.You have to know that in 917 Bulgarian and Romes army fight in one of the biggest bloodshed in both history.From 70 000 romes only 2000 succeed to escape in Mesemvria.This factor that many of you didn't know.The situation was very critical for Romes.And the killing of Bulgars massanger was a great thing in Romes diplomacy

 



-------------
"The slave is fighting for freedom,free is fighting for perfectness"
Yane Sandanski


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 23:40

It is actually quite interesting you bring up the conflict between Romanus I and Symeon. The truth of the matter was it didn't really matter how many men you threw against the walls, in the end it was a triple wall system which could hold off massive attacks provided the walls were properly manned.

On paper the loss of most of their European possessions and a massive Bulgar army encamped outside Constantinople probably looks pretty bad. The truth is it didn't really have a critical impact on the Byzantines. Their source of strength and power lay in Anatolia, and while Symeon's army was twiddling their thumbs infront of Constantinople Romanus was happily sending off large armies to wage campaigns in Armenia and the Taurus mountains. The fact that the Emperor was quite happy to send the bulk of his forces off on a campaign in the East and simply disregard the Bulgar army as an annoying nuisance gives you some idea of how much of a threat the Bulgars were to Byzantium.



-------------


Posted By: Red_Lord
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 06:42

Well,well you think that "Bulgar army as an annoying nuisance".I will say you that in 917 all seven legions send off against Bulgaria were from Anatolia.Do you know that in 896 there was another war between Symeon and Byzantium known as The Battle At Bulgarofigon.The reason is moving of Bulgars trader from Constantinopole to Solun(Thessalonicky).In this war lost by Byzantines of course all four Balkan legions were disabled to stop Bulgars.They were constrained to reform the four legions in two(the reason is simple they didn't have enough soldiers.I agree with you that the defence of the "Vasilevscity" incredible and without fleet it a imagine to be captured.But you may be don't know that Symeon  studied in Constantinopole and was called "semi-greek".He knew all diplomatic games and his teacher(I didn't remember his name)said:"We produce the perfect emperor but he is not rome."And if you don't know in the period we are talking about Byzantium was ruled by Irina(Roman's mother).She was not very famous with her tactical knolidge and she have never listened to his strategickons.

I'm sorry for my bad English(I also don't know the names in English)



-------------
"The slave is fighting for freedom,free is fighting for perfectness"
Yane Sandanski


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 11:19

No I dont believe the Bulgars were a mere annoying nuisance. Personally I think they were a serious, though not fatal, threat which was a thorn in the side of an otherwise successful Empire. But from his actions it appears that Romanus I Lecapenus certainly did not view their encroachments on Byzantium as a terminal threat, he knew well enough real Byzantine power lay in Anatolia. And I was expressing the likely perspective of the Byzantine Emperor, not my own, so please distinguish between the two.

As for you English, please keep posting and interacting with everyone as a foreign language can be very challenging and I am sure with patience you will be using it like a pro . So far you manage to get your point across quite well so keep at it mate.



-------------


Posted By: Red_Lord
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 07:33

The Byzantine empire  likes to many histrorians.Its conception of The Holly Empire impress many people.I'm a Bulgar but I also think that it is one of the greatest empires ever exist.Despite of fact that we were fighting with them almost 600 years I don't want to be vanished by the turks.I want to underline that Byzantia is not Greece.They only use greek as official language and apprehend parts of their culture,it is not the same(like USA and England;Russia and Ukrain;even Australia and England).And to come to capture of K(C)onstantinopole.It's a city that in normal situation can't be captured.When it was taken by turks Byzantia begane from Pera(Golden Horn) and ended to Golden gate in fact the empire was only the city.And with the help of the west Europe(Venice,Genua and Rome) the capital was captured



-------------
"The slave is fighting for freedom,free is fighting for perfectness"
Yane Sandanski


Posted By: The_Last_Byzantine
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2005 at 18:18
Bulgarians never had the power to capture Constantinople.The city could have been captured only after an year of total siege either on land and water.Bulgarians didn't have navy so alone they could do nothing.But even if they have made an alliance with the arabs the byzantine diplomacy would prevent such siege on th city.


Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 11:18

Bulgarians aren't a serious threat, ha? That's what Nicephorus thought and we all know how that ended. (I crack myself up sometimes.) The Bulgarians had a much stronger land force than the Byzantines, all they needed was the arab fleet. As for diplomacy- Symeon was a much better diplomat than any of his Byzantine opponents. He used his diplomatic skills to braek up the Byzantine-engeenered Magyar-Pecheneg anti-Bulgarian coalition. After all, he was a student of patriarch Fotius himself. About him Fotius once said "I have produced the perfect Emperor, but forgot he isn't Greek." The Greeks themselves called him "semi-Greek". So don't count on diplamacy, he beat you in your own game.

Last Byzantine, do you speak Bulgarian? It would be interesting for me to chit-chat with you on the Non-English board.

Regards.



Posted By: The_Last_Byzantine
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 12:05
Yes i speak bulgarian since i was born in Bulgaria


Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 12:24

Just making sure.



Posted By: The_Last_Byzantine
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 12:47
If you have Yahoo Messenger or MSN we could discuss this topic.It is more convinient than in the forum.


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 12:49
Originally posted by Red_Lord

The Byzantine empire  likes to many histrorians.Its conception of The Holly Empire impress many people.I'm a Bulgar but I also think that it is one of the greatest empires ever exist.Despite of fact that we were fighting with them almost 600 years I don't want to be vanished by the turks.I want to underline that Byzantia is not Greece.They only use greek as official language and apprehend parts of their culture,it is not the same

Indeed,the Byzantine Empire was multicultural,but during the last centuries,after the loss of Egypt and Palestine,of Italy and North Africa,the Empire became Hellenic.Even the title of the Byzantine Emperor changed from Imperator Romanorum,caesar,augustus to Vasileus(king) with the accesion of pistos en Christw(Faithfull to God).



-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 13:02
Last Byzantine, what's your ICQ number? Chat is the most convinient means of discussing.


Posted By: The_Last_Byzantine
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 13:44
Unfortunately The_Last_Byzantine is not introduced to ICQ


Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2005 at 13:49
Neither is the Bulgarian, his older brother is the family computer wiz. Oh well, I guess PM will have to do the job.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com