was it a coincidence that after the greek kingdom lost control of Armenia everything went to shit? the last dynasty to fix shit after a crisis was the Laskarids (100% armenian) lets look at the facts:
>Justin (Justinians) = Dalmatian >Heraclius (Heraclians) = Armenian >Leo III (Isaurians) = Syrian >Basil I (Macedonians) = Armenian >Alexios I (Komnenians) = Armenian >Theodore I (Lascarids) = Armenian
now lets look at Greek dynasties >Doukids >Angeloi >Palaiologos
I bet you don’t know that Constantinople was around a 1/3 Armenian till the Armenian genocide either huh? lmao. Also the elite was almost entirely Anatolian after the old Thraco-Roman one were wiped out by the Justinian plague and subsequent Greek chimpouts
holy based. don't forget Leo V (defeated Krum or his successor at Mesembria after the disaster at Pliska, caused by the greekoid Nikiphoros). Also John I tzimiskes.
I (Macedonians) = Armenian
The dynasty which came from Provincial Macedon is Armenian?
There's several points where different paths could have been taken. Here's a couple:
Battle of Manzikert. Had Romanos IV Diogenes not been betrayed by the Doukas family over and over, or perhaps had he avoided battle, the Turks could have been held at bay. The battle itself wasn't the problem, but the fact that the nobility preferred to turn on each other than face the Seljuks. Manzikert itself was overblown; the empire was still remarkably strong after and the Komnenian restoration proves this. However, the Komnenoi never resolved the succession problem.
The succession after Manuel Komnenos. Had Manuel been succeeded by a capable ruler and not a minor, Andronikos would not have been able to coup the government, avoiding the Massacre of the Latins, and thus the Fourth Crusade.
The Byzantine system ultimately relied too much on strong, competent leadership at the very top. When there were weak emperors, the empire was very weak in spite of its highly urban, educated and large population. In spite of its longevity, it was often unstable and prone to the depredations of the nobility, which often schemed for more power at the expense of the state. The nobility were only loyal to themselves, not the Roman state.
Manuel could have been succeeded by Bela III of Hungary, whom he adopted and later disinherited upon the birth of his son Alexios. Imagine the Kingdom of Hungary and the Byzantine Empire in personal union under Bela III, who proved to be a capable ruler. He would have a hell of a time moron wrangling the nobility in both countries, though, but it would have been kino.
>Manuel could have been succeeded by Bela III of Hungary
That would have never happened. Foreign rule would be utterly unacceptable to Byzantine elites, they would just end up choosing to elect a native man over anybody else. The only time foreign rule was accepted by the majority was in conquest by the Latin Empire which relied on local cooperation and as soon as it ended in 1227 so did the Empire.
Byzos went apeshit to the Manuel kid was saw as too "latin" because of his western mother and his francophilia; and he was a litterally descendant of Alexios born in the city. They would had NEVER accepted a foreigner catholic on the throne. Never.
This, the Byzantines saw the Muslims as no more of a foreign threat as they did the Catholics and is why in the end they went out with a whimper. Byzantium was ran more akin to a middle eastern despotate than of the western feudal states where all the intrigue was in the capital and the countryside had to dance to the current tune being sang by the Constantinople mob much like how the Arabs became decadent and weak having to cater to the Caliph surounded by his harem and local advisors in Baghdad unmoved by the Turks setting fire to his realm
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Byzantium was ran more akin to a middle eastern despotate than of the western feudal states
Do you literally not know what the Carolingian Empire was. Do you think there was no such thing as Royal control in Western Europe?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The Carolingians were literally ran the exact opposite of the Byzantiums, they were beyond decentralized and petty war lords had most of the power and these lords held total sway on who succeeded the throne. The Byzantines on the otherhand didnt even have true private ownership for both the plebs and nobles which led to weak military traditions and no incentive to be productive but milk the land for as much as it was worth since your heirs would not be garunteed this land. The Byzantines were far more akin to the despots of the Muslim world than the decentralized Catholics by a wide margin and this is what led them to decline so wildly compared to the west. It wasnt till the corrupt society of both the Arabs and Greeks were shaken by the Turks did progress resume and even then they fell to the exact same corruption of the imperial court.
>don't hire the French to fight your wars and especially Italians for your navy
That would've been enough. It's amazing that they survived for so long with all of their frickups.
Realistically they would just need to continuously get lucky because their political system and ideological philosophy meant the state was very prone to civil wars which foreigners could exploit, and kept them from forming any meaningful positive diplomatic ties to other states so they were constantly surrounded by powers hoping to pounce on their moment of weakness. Basically everything has to go right for them up until industrialization/the concept of the Westphalian nation state when major shifts in technology and thinking can keep them going indefinitely.
Have the Seljuks conquer them swiftly in the first war. This would have made the Turks be assimilated by the Greeks like the Persians assimilated them because instead of losing land slowly the Turks would be overwhelmed by the Greek horde.
This would result in a Greek empire being reborn while at the sane time the Turks would have larped as Romans to retain authority over this new land. This new Roman empire would mirror the Turkic gunpowder empires greatly of our time and thus would stagnate just as hard because Islam is a corrupting force. But hey atleast Greeks would number around 100 million in this new timeline
I wonder what we would be calling them today? romania? rome? rhomaiion or however the frick thats spelled. probably woudnt be an empire anymore in this day and age, roman republic again? do they actually eventually give up on their roman identity and just become greece?
Romania which was how they called themselves. >do they actually eventually give up on their roman identity and just become greece?
Unlikely since it was caused first by the destruction of the central state by the Latins in 1204 and only appeared in the circles around Nicaea and later in the 19th century with the Greek party, which was the party that got their own state, unlike the Roman party.
No it wouldnt be, also the question was: >what WE would
aka not themselves, we would call them Hellas or Rumalia at best, Romania would be Romania because that’s what the Italians, Spanish and most importantly, the French would call them. The British would never call them Rome and neither would France in a million years, thus leading to a western term in its stead, much like Persia instead of Iran till before ww2
Rumelia till the 1930's, Greek empire there after because of Grecoboo krauts encouraging a name shift
Romania which was how they called themselves. >do they actually eventually give up on their roman identity and just become greece?
Unlikely since it was caused first by the destruction of the central state by the Latins in 1204 and only appeared in the circles around Nicaea and later in the 19th century with the Greek party, which was the party that got their own state, unlike the Roman party.
In truth, the greek identity started to be recovered already in the 1000s thanks to the costant cultural clashes with westeners that called them "greeks".
Eventually, they started using the term to refer to themselves just like protestants did with their name given by catholics. 1204 Just speeded up the processo.
>In truth, the greek identity started to be recovered already in the 1000s thanks to the costant cultural clashes with westeners that called them "greeks".
This is not true in the slightest. There was no account of them thinking of themselves as Greek in the 11th century.
Not to mention the premise is absurd, why would limited cultrual contact somehow change the identity and sense of self of literally millions of people?
>Convert to Catholicism early on >Invest in my navy. Start a Mediterranean trade empire that is able to outcompete Venice and the Italian trade cities. >Push back the Muslims early on with a combined Christian coalition before they become too powerful. Practice détente with certain Muslim states to play them off against one another. Ally with the Mongol Empire and make a serious effort to convert them to Christianity. >Expand into Spain and use it as a springboard to conquer America and the New World >Use my newly-found wealthy wisely to invest in universities, pioneer the scientific method, conquer resource rich territory, educate my population, and improve farming methods to enhance yields. >kickstart an early Industrial Revolution, slowly implement a constitutional monarchy with more liberal reforms that give my people rights, eventually implement a parliamentary system and reduce the power of the nobility through land reform. >Practice Bismarckian politics where I play my enemies against one another so I’m never surrounded. Appease the growing socialist movement with incremental improvements and labor rights so they don’t become militant communists.
And just like that with a millennia of foresight, I’ve saved the Byzantine Empire provided everything goes to plan.
1. land reforms that give non-senators more power
2. make assassinating someone illegal by removing all their siblings' right to their kingdoms upon their death
3. on second thought, remove all or most inheritance-based property and have most productive agricultural land regulated communally or by a joint-stock corporation
4. improved landworking across arcadia and missions north into russia rather than relying on egypt and judea
5. a formal, proper standing army/navy that everyone is required to serve in not just peasants
6. a proper plebiscite with real governing authority
Otherwise it dissolves into feudal kingdoms that fight each other constantly, or ally with the arabs to destroy the whole operation which is what happened. Rome (east and west) did itself in.
Also, this here is why Spain managed to survive despite being Spain: even when their monarchy completely shit itself and destroyed the empire, Spain still had it's capitalist enterprises that France could easily assume control over and assist against their British rivals. Spain still suffered, but ultimately the national wealth would be preserved long enough for communists to give it to Stalin during their Civil War. This is why all russian-aligned communists need to be killed and why Franco was based to do so. Even most modern spanish leftists admit this now, in the same way they also admit eating their own shit and enjoying it.
This is a question so broad one struggles to even know where to begin, because the Romans had *so many* chances to improve their situation, even after catastrophic defeats, but were continually plagued by one mentally moronic Emperor after another. They really did it to themselves.
Personally? Nothing, it depends on luck amd competent successors dedicated to a goal. You could drive the Turks out of Anatolia, subdue all the South Slavs, reclaim the Levant, and subdue the Normans and Lombards in Sicily and Southern Italy, but if your sons immediately start a civil war when you die, the Slavs revolt, the Normans rebel, your daughter married to the King of Hungary suggests he push her son’s claim to the throne, and then a Turkish warlord conquers Persia and invades Anatolia and the Levant.
The Arabs were poised to expand no matter what, climate change destroyed rhe traditional agricultural heartland of pre Islamic Arabia along Hedjaz and Yemen leaving hundreds of thousands to have too little land to feed themselves, either they invade the Levant and Persia or they invaded the Ethiopians and Somai’s, the former of which had just been expelled from Arabia and undoubtedly caused the reigious extremism that made Islam possible. So no matter what a chimpout of unseen scale was going to happen
As long as the navy is kept strong the empire can survive. It can lose massive amount of territory, suffer through as many civil wars as you like, but as long as Constantinople is untouchable then they will endure. It's no coincidence that the major issues started piling up when they started supplementing their own naval capabilities using the Italian trading republics. As soon as Venice started to gain control of the empire's trade and throw its weight around in the Aegean, it was bound to end in disaster.
no more brother wars
It's quite obvious, just use EU4 pro starts in 1444
show arm*nians their place and not marry their inferior genes, thus not weakening the eastern theme system
why are arm*nians ruining everything they touch?
Very Turkish posts
Armenian is israelite who got lost in church
That's a Georgian expression, how do you know about it
my trans gf told me
was it a coincidence that after the greek kingdom lost control of Armenia everything went to shit? the last dynasty to fix shit after a crisis was the Laskarids (100% armenian) lets look at the facts:
>Justin (Justinians) = Dalmatian
>Heraclius (Heraclians) = Armenian
>Leo III (Isaurians) = Syrian
>Basil I (Macedonians) = Armenian
>Alexios I (Komnenians) = Armenian
>Theodore I (Lascarids) = Armenian
now lets look at Greek dynasties
>Doukids
>Angeloi
>Palaiologos
I (Macedonians) = Armenian
The dynasty which came from Provincial Macedon is Armenian?
>Does he know.vaw
I bet you don’t know that Constantinople was around a 1/3 Armenian till the Armenian genocide either huh? lmao. Also the elite was almost entirely Anatolian after the old Thraco-Roman one were wiped out by the Justinian plague and subsequent Greek chimpouts
holy based. don't forget Leo V (defeated Krum or his successor at Mesembria after the disaster at Pliska, caused by the greekoid Nikiphoros). Also John I tzimiskes.
he had armenian heritage
>he had armenian heritage
I see no reason to believe this
the lascarids and komneians were not armenian in the slightest. and for heraclians its disputed with only their place of origin being roman armenia.
There's several points where different paths could have been taken. Here's a couple:
Battle of Manzikert. Had Romanos IV Diogenes not been betrayed by the Doukas family over and over, or perhaps had he avoided battle, the Turks could have been held at bay. The battle itself wasn't the problem, but the fact that the nobility preferred to turn on each other than face the Seljuks. Manzikert itself was overblown; the empire was still remarkably strong after and the Komnenian restoration proves this. However, the Komnenoi never resolved the succession problem.
The succession after Manuel Komnenos. Had Manuel been succeeded by a capable ruler and not a minor, Andronikos would not have been able to coup the government, avoiding the Massacre of the Latins, and thus the Fourth Crusade.
The Byzantine system ultimately relied too much on strong, competent leadership at the very top. When there were weak emperors, the empire was very weak in spite of its highly urban, educated and large population. In spite of its longevity, it was often unstable and prone to the depredations of the nobility, which often schemed for more power at the expense of the state. The nobility were only loyal to themselves, not the Roman state.
Manuel could have been succeeded by Bela III of Hungary, whom he adopted and later disinherited upon the birth of his son Alexios. Imagine the Kingdom of Hungary and the Byzantine Empire in personal union under Bela III, who proved to be a capable ruler. He would have a hell of a time moron wrangling the nobility in both countries, though, but it would have been kino.
>Manuel could have been succeeded by Bela III of Hungary
That would have never happened. Foreign rule would be utterly unacceptable to Byzantine elites, they would just end up choosing to elect a native man over anybody else. The only time foreign rule was accepted by the majority was in conquest by the Latin Empire which relied on local cooperation and as soon as it ended in 1227 so did the Empire.
Byzos went apeshit to the Manuel kid was saw as too "latin" because of his western mother and his francophilia; and he was a litterally descendant of Alexios born in the city. They would had NEVER accepted a foreigner catholic on the throne. Never.
This, the Byzantines saw the Muslims as no more of a foreign threat as they did the Catholics and is why in the end they went out with a whimper. Byzantium was ran more akin to a middle eastern despotate than of the western feudal states where all the intrigue was in the capital and the countryside had to dance to the current tune being sang by the Constantinople mob much like how the Arabs became decadent and weak having to cater to the Caliph surounded by his harem and local advisors in Baghdad unmoved by the Turks setting fire to his realm
>Byzantium was ran more akin to a middle eastern despotate than of the western feudal states
Do you literally not know what the Carolingian Empire was. Do you think there was no such thing as Royal control in Western Europe?
The Carolingians were literally ran the exact opposite of the Byzantiums, they were beyond decentralized and petty war lords had most of the power and these lords held total sway on who succeeded the throne. The Byzantines on the otherhand didnt even have true private ownership for both the plebs and nobles which led to weak military traditions and no incentive to be productive but milk the land for as much as it was worth since your heirs would not be garunteed this land. The Byzantines were far more akin to the despots of the Muslim world than the decentralized Catholics by a wide margin and this is what led them to decline so wildly compared to the west. It wasnt till the corrupt society of both the Arabs and Greeks were shaken by the Turks did progress resume and even then they fell to the exact same corruption of the imperial court.
>don't hire the French to fight your wars and especially Italians for your navy
That would've been enough. It's amazing that they survived for so long with all of their frickups.
Realistically they would just need to continuously get lucky because their political system and ideological philosophy meant the state was very prone to civil wars which foreigners could exploit, and kept them from forming any meaningful positive diplomatic ties to other states so they were constantly surrounded by powers hoping to pounce on their moment of weakness. Basically everything has to go right for them up until industrialization/the concept of the Westphalian nation state when major shifts in technology and thinking can keep them going indefinitely.
Have the Seljuks conquer them swiftly in the first war. This would have made the Turks be assimilated by the Greeks like the Persians assimilated them because instead of losing land slowly the Turks would be overwhelmed by the Greek horde.
This would result in a Greek empire being reborn while at the sane time the Turks would have larped as Romans to retain authority over this new land. This new Roman empire would mirror the Turkic gunpowder empires greatly of our time and thus would stagnate just as hard because Islam is a corrupting force. But hey atleast Greeks would number around 100 million in this new timeline
I wonder what we would be calling them today? romania? rome? rhomaiion or however the frick thats spelled. probably woudnt be an empire anymore in this day and age, roman republic again? do they actually eventually give up on their roman identity and just become greece?
Rumelia till the 1930's, Greek empire there after because of Grecoboo krauts encouraging a name shift
Romania which was how they called themselves.
>do they actually eventually give up on their roman identity and just become greece?
Unlikely since it was caused first by the destruction of the central state by the Latins in 1204 and only appeared in the circles around Nicaea and later in the 19th century with the Greek party, which was the party that got their own state, unlike the Roman party.
They’d be Romania and Romania would be Wallachia.
No it wouldnt be, also the question was:
>what WE would
aka not themselves, we would call them Hellas or Rumalia at best, Romania would be Romania because that’s what the Italians, Spanish and most importantly, the French would call them. The British would never call them Rome and neither would France in a million years, thus leading to a western term in its stead, much like Persia instead of Iran till before ww2
In truth, the greek identity started to be recovered already in the 1000s thanks to the costant cultural clashes with westeners that called them "greeks".
Eventually, they started using the term to refer to themselves just like protestants did with their name given by catholics. 1204 Just speeded up the processo.
>In truth, the greek identity started to be recovered already in the 1000s thanks to the costant cultural clashes with westeners that called them "greeks".
This is not true in the slightest. There was no account of them thinking of themselves as Greek in the 11th century.
Not to mention the premise is absurd, why would limited cultrual contact somehow change the identity and sense of self of literally millions of people?
>Convert to Catholicism early on
>Invest in my navy. Start a Mediterranean trade empire that is able to outcompete Venice and the Italian trade cities.
>Push back the Muslims early on with a combined Christian coalition before they become too powerful. Practice détente with certain Muslim states to play them off against one another. Ally with the Mongol Empire and make a serious effort to convert them to Christianity.
>Expand into Spain and use it as a springboard to conquer America and the New World
>Use my newly-found wealthy wisely to invest in universities, pioneer the scientific method, conquer resource rich territory, educate my population, and improve farming methods to enhance yields.
>kickstart an early Industrial Revolution, slowly implement a constitutional monarchy with more liberal reforms that give my people rights, eventually implement a parliamentary system and reduce the power of the nobility through land reform.
>Practice Bismarckian politics where I play my enemies against one another so I’m never surrounded. Appease the growing socialist movement with incremental improvements and labor rights so they don’t become militant communists.
And just like that with a millennia of foresight, I’ve saved the Byzantine Empire provided everything goes to plan.
Just like my paradox games
1. land reforms that give non-senators more power
2. make assassinating someone illegal by removing all their siblings' right to their kingdoms upon their death
3. on second thought, remove all or most inheritance-based property and have most productive agricultural land regulated communally or by a joint-stock corporation
4. improved landworking across arcadia and missions north into russia rather than relying on egypt and judea
5. a formal, proper standing army/navy that everyone is required to serve in not just peasants
6. a proper plebiscite with real governing authority
Otherwise it dissolves into feudal kingdoms that fight each other constantly, or ally with the arabs to destroy the whole operation which is what happened. Rome (east and west) did itself in.
Also, this here is why Spain managed to survive despite being Spain: even when their monarchy completely shit itself and destroyed the empire, Spain still had it's capitalist enterprises that France could easily assume control over and assist against their British rivals. Spain still suffered, but ultimately the national wealth would be preserved long enough for communists to give it to Stalin during their Civil War. This is why all russian-aligned communists need to be killed and why Franco was based to do so. Even most modern spanish leftists admit this now, in the same way they also admit eating their own shit and enjoying it.
This is a question so broad one struggles to even know where to begin, because the Romans had *so many* chances to improve their situation, even after catastrophic defeats, but were continually plagued by one mentally moronic Emperor after another. They really did it to themselves.
Personally? Nothing, it depends on luck amd competent successors dedicated to a goal. You could drive the Turks out of Anatolia, subdue all the South Slavs, reclaim the Levant, and subdue the Normans and Lombards in Sicily and Southern Italy, but if your sons immediately start a civil war when you die, the Slavs revolt, the Normans rebel, your daughter married to the King of Hungary suggests he push her son’s claim to the throne, and then a Turkish warlord conquers Persia and invades Anatolia and the Levant.
Restore the republic.
Kill muhammed in his crib and adopt parthian tactics.
The Arabs were poised to expand no matter what, climate change destroyed rhe traditional agricultural heartland of pre Islamic Arabia along Hedjaz and Yemen leaving hundreds of thousands to have too little land to feed themselves, either they invade the Levant and Persia or they invaded the Ethiopians and Somai’s, the former of which had just been expelled from Arabia and undoubtedly caused the reigious extremism that made Islam possible. So no matter what a chimpout of unseen scale was going to happen
Build a giant wall that protects Anatolia from outside invasions.
As long as the navy is kept strong the empire can survive. It can lose massive amount of territory, suffer through as many civil wars as you like, but as long as Constantinople is untouchable then they will endure. It's no coincidence that the major issues started piling up when they started supplementing their own naval capabilities using the Italian trading republics. As soon as Venice started to gain control of the empire's trade and throw its weight around in the Aegean, it was bound to end in disaster.
Convert to Islam in the 7th century