If the Crusaders had not sacked Constantinople... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

End of Roman society, feudalism, rise of religious power, beginnings of the nation-state, renaissance (476 - 1492 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13352017
Say that the Catholics did not sack Constantinople, but instead legitimately took the fight to the Turks with their Christian brothers. Would the Eastern Roman Empire have survived longer? Would the Byzantines have been able to somehow subjugate the Bulgarians, retain alliances with the Serbs, and reclaim Macedonia, among other territories? Osman probably would not have gained prominence, and the Turks would have remained divided in their Seljuk Sultanates.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13352406
The Byzantine Empire was in terminal decline even before it was sacked. It merely accelerated the process.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13352922
Exactly, it got sacked because it was in demise. The Byzantines initially invited the crusaders. Talk about bad guests. :lol:
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13352925
Moral: if you're weak but incredibly rich, don't invite mercenaries in to defend you. The fuckers will take over. Just ask the British Romano-Celts about the Saxons. :lol:
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13352952
:lol:

Use of mercenaries was quite common in the middle ages. And it was practicle because of the lack of standing armies. Using foreign mercenaries was not so smart though.
User avatar
By noemon
#13353415
The Byzantine empire was neither on decline(especially terminal), nor did she invite the mercenaries in.

The period right before the Latin sack is called the Komnenian Restoration in terms of borders(consolidated with the utter annihilation of the Pechenegs, victories against Turks, Normans and Hungarians), the Byzantine Renaissance in term of culture and the crusaders were invited by a usurper to depose the Emperor.

Funny is your certainty(both of yours) with which you produce statements as if you are writing the history yourselves when in fact you are just talking out of your arses.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13353442
I guess we have a Byzantine "nationalist" here. :lol:
User avatar
By noemon
#13353447
It is no secret that you do have a Greek nationalist here, that means crap though when it comes to my well-known historical knowledge and I wouldn't go that way if I were you.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13353456
Illegitimaty of power is also a sign of the demise power. 8)
But usurper or not, the fact remains that an appeal was made for the help of Christians in the west. And before the Byzantines had invited the Turks in their wars against the Bulgarians. Their source of power was mostly outplaying the neighbouring players against eachother. That hardly contends for the return of their Empire.

And the Komnenian restoration failed long before the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders.
User avatar
By noemon
#13353463
You keep on talking out of your arse. Just admit that you made a mistake, its no shame.

Diplomacy and alliances are not an indication of decline but relative weakness against other more glorious epochs.
The fact is not that an appeal for help was made, the fact is that an appeal for the deposition of the Emperor was made.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13353470
Diplomacy and alliances are not an indication of decline but relative weakness against other more glorious epochs.

:lol: Euphemism at its best. That relative weakness proved to be permanent.
User avatar
By noemon
#13353474
It's pointless really which is a shame, I am pretty sure that your historical knowledge on Byzantium does not amount to anything more than creative imagination rationalized accompanied by quick Google searches. And I'm also pretty sure(it's quite obvious actually) that you were not even aware of the situation surrounding the arrival of the crusaders, at all, which is the only laughable fact in here.

That relative weakness became permanent after the Sack of the city by the crusaders, not before.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13353478
That relative weakness became permanent after the Sack of the city by the crusaders, not before.
Good, so now you agree with my statement that the Byzantine Empire was in decline before the sack of Constantinople. ;)
User avatar
By noemon
#13353480
Don't act like a child please...

Decline against the epoch of Justinian some 6 centuries ago?Surely.
Decline against the historical period preceding the Komnenian restoration? Its daft to even suggest this, otherwise it wouldn't be called a restoration.

So, no the Byzantine Empire was not in decline before the Sack, she was in the ascendant. At best you could argue that the decline started a little earlier with the political vacuum created due to the fall of the Komnenoi dynasty. That though was a naturally common feature of Byzantine(and everyone else's as well) politics throughout its existence and by no means a terminal problem(.ie a political vacuum) that would not have been overcome.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13353506
Decline against the historical period preceding the Komnenian restoration? Its daft to even suggest this, otherwise it wouldn't be called a restoration.
By that logic, it is draft to suggest the Cold War took also place in Cuba because it's warm there.

So, no the Byzantine Empire was not in decline before the Sack, she was in the ascendant.
So it should be: War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength and Byzantine decline is Ascendence. :hmm:
User avatar
By noemon
#13353516
:?:

How can a State that has just increased its borders and soundly defeated various enemies be in decline? Compared to what it was immediately before that, the Byzantine Empire is in the ascendant, compared to what it was 6 centuries ago it is in decline.

Ofc its daft to suggest so and I don't even get your desperate analogies.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13353535
The point I made was that the Komnenian restoration is just a convention of naming a period in the history of the Byzantine Empire. It cannot be used as a means of interpreting an absolute value.

The Byzantine Empire was in decline before the restoration period and also when the restoration period ended but before the sack of Constantiniple, thus it is valid to claim that the Byzantine Empire was in decline long before the sack of Constantinople.
User avatar
By noemon
#13353545
Being in decline, is not a term we just throw around and pray that the shtick sticks.

You cannot use it abstractly to externalize your creative imagination but always in relation to something else. Your pedantism here is not appreciated.

The Komnenian restoration is not merely a historical meme, but a valid historical stage preceding the sack of the City in which the Empire consolidated her borders and strength and does by not means constitute decline(by any stretch of the term), not even in the wildest dreams of caught red-handed historical ignoramuses.

The Cold vs Warm is a failed analogy due to context, "restoration" does not refer to an other context but to the one in debate.

Are we serious discussing this?
By Aekos
#13353724
For Cookie Monster's sake -

The Eastern Roman Empire, like all empires, underwent a cycle of territorial "decline" and rise throughout its history. There was a period of time after Justinian when nearly 2/3 of the empire was lost to the Muslims. Then, under the Macedonian dynasty, it rose yet again, controlling most of the Balkans and Southern Italy, as well as almost all of modern Turkey. Muslim invasions decreased the territory yet again to the Balkan Peninsula. Then the Komnenos took over, and reconquered Turkey and parts of the Levant. The Komnenos clearly represented a rising empire - Manuel I nearly reconquered Southern Italy, had it not been for a drunken general he could've possibly done it. He also sent a promising but unsuccessful campaign to Egypt - does this sound like a declining empire?

Had Manuel I had better luck, or had his (Western) allies been as loyal, you would've had a Christian reconquest of Egypt. That means that territory lost for hundreds of years would have been reclaimed for the Roman Empire. The empire was on the rise, and the Westerners were fearful. Could they allow this incredibly rich state to thrive and regain the glory of the Romans? With Western help, or at least complacency, the Byzantines could have very well restored the entire eastern portion of the empire lost to the heathen. But no, the Latins were too greedy. The Sack of Constantinople may have served the Latins in the short run, but it gave the Turks the upper hand.

I just wish that the Turks would have conquered Italy, too.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]