- 25 Mar 2010 18:52
#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.