What would the Byzantine Empire have to do to survive?

[hoplite14gr]

Empire ladies and gentlemen Empire! It means ae mix in a boiling pot and someone holding the lid.
Empires are NOT built and maintaineded on tolerance!
Every group could argue his religious or tribla cause to break free and get its autonomy.
Empires to not survive. They simply disintegraded if not dismantled by stronger empires.

The only chance of survival for each group in the Empire on the late 11th early 12th century would be to form aatrong national state supported by a national army. The Lascarides failed that and the Bulgrian and Serb rulers fought for the fenake of becoming Roman emperors!!

If we follow Gibbon the empire survived with Papacy and that not for long.

And the "tolerant" Ottoma empire failed whent its various elements feelled strong enough to chalenge it and make it impossible to to fight its external enemies. In the end enough educated rich Cristian subjects saw better chances for advncement rather that supporting an Islamic ruler.

Kind regards

[marka]

Empire ladies and gentlemen Empire! It means ae mix in a boiling pot and someone holding the lid.
Empires are NOT built and maintaineded on tolerance!
Every group could argue his religious or tribla cause to break free and get its autonomy.
Empires to not survive. They simply disintegraded if not dismantled by stronger empires.

The only chance of survival for each group in the Empire on the late 11th early 12th century would be to form aatrong national state supported by a national army. The Lascarides failed that and the Bulgrian and Serb rulers fought for the fenake of becoming Roman emperors!!

If we follow Gibbon the empire survived with Papacy and that not for long.

And the "tolerant" Ottoma empire failed whent its various elements feelled strong enough to chalenge it and make it impossible to to fight its external enemies. In the end enough educated rich Cristian subjects saw better chances for advncement rather that supporting an Islamic ruler.

Kind regards

true
it would be better to say an empires people are comprised of three groups-the imperialists,the republicans and the silent majority

[hoplite14gr]

A not too avaricious tax collection and effective army will keep the elite and the silent majority in check and convince them that their interest is loyalty to the Emperor. In Byzantine terms this corresponds to the ruling period of effective emperors like Herakleios or Basil II or Alexios Komninos for exmaple.

The exact opposite would prompt every devece element of the empire to seek self determination. Bulgarians, Lombards, even Greeks at times at the time of Konstantine Monomach or Isaak Angellos are examples of that. Add to this lot, the unpaid frontier troops in the East and you understand why the cross of Agia Sophia was substituted with the cresent.

No empire survives. They all rott from within. The Byzantines survived because most rebel leaders dreamed of the throne rather than independence of their peoples.

Kind regards

[Robert Vermaat]

Empires are NOT built and maintaineded on tolerance!
[..]
And the "tolerant" Ottoma empire failed whent its various elements feelled strong enough to chalenge it and make it impossible to to fight its external enemies. In the end enough educated rich Cristian subjects saw better chances for advncement rather that supporting an Islamic ruler.

You are right, but it helps. Being tolerant (whic essentially means that you allow your subject enough self-governance to deal with cultural and religious affairs) helps you with internal strife which otherwise would cost you a lot of money and energy. Being intolerant usually does not help you with internal peace. :twisted:
And yes, the tolerant Ottoman empire failed as well, but not from internal strife. It failed because it lost the ability to innovate, something that existed in the early days (The Romans did not shoot back at the Ottomans with large cannons in 1453!) but which had been lost a long time before the West used machines, printing presses etc. The Turks saw that but decided not to innovate. That failure hindered the development of the state, but it was foreign armies that eventually brought it down. Not Christian subject who chose another ruler. Had it not been for oil in Arabia Pars, the British would not have challenged the Sultan for Syria, and like the Romans before them, the Turks could have been tottering on for a long time to come.

[hoplite14gr]

Ottomans were an empire. They had to balance two religions while Romans(Byzantines) one-in theory at least.
After a time the Cristian subjects felt they couldn't get justice. Failing the internal peace as you said.
Suddenly the Char, the Holy Roman Emperor, or the other Wesrten rulers started becoming attractive
to the Cristian subjects who suddenly remembered the had a Muslim ruler.
Only a failure of the European rulers to agree to a partition saved the Ottoman empire.
Same way as Michael Paleologos was saved because the Angevin and the Hochenstauffen or the Hungarians
coulld not agree who takes what.
Even in our "civilized" times "combined states" rarely have friendly divorces.
Chehoslovakia is the exception confirming the rule.

Kind regards

[marka]

i always thought that religious intolerance and repressive taxation system lay at the heart of the reasons why both egypt and syria fell so easily....after all egypt was economically sound and had on paper at least a significant army.

[hoplite14gr]

i always thought that religious intolerance and repressive taxation system lay at the heart of the reasons why both egypt and syria fell so easily....after all egypt was economically sound and had on paper at least a significant army.

Yes rapacious tax collectors are a good reason to severe ties with an empire.
But it was Byzantine military defeat that made the separation possible at that time.
Had the Byzantines won at Yarmuk they would still drain the provinces and force religious orthodoxy till someone else in the future
destroyed their army and grab the lands.

Remember they kept the Balkans in the 9th 10th cenruries despite suffering military setbacks and having ravenous tax collectors.

Kind regards

[marka]

i always thought that religious intolerance and repressive taxation system lay at the heart of the reasons why both egypt and syria fell so easily....after all egypt was economically sound and had on paper at least a significant army.

Yes rapacious tax collectors are a good reason to severe ties with an empire.
But it was Byzantine military defeat that made the separation possible at that time.
Had the Byzantines won at Yarmuk they would still drain the provinces and force religious orthodoxy till someone else in the future
destroyed their army and grab the lands.

Remember they kept the Balkans in the 9th 10th cenruries despite suffering military setbacks and having ravenous tax collectors.

Kind regards

am i correct in remembering they lost the balkans briefly to both the avars and bulgars?
the arabs would have continued to raid i think-whatever happened at yarmuk or the other battles in the yarmuk campaign

but i doubt even byzantine patriarchs and priests had the nerve to try to convert the various steppe groups in the balkans.

[hoplite14gr]

Hmm... the converted the Bulgars, the Hungarians, the Alans and some of the Pecheneges.
But they still had their asiatic provinces and the Tagmata in Constandinopolis to aid them in their "conversion".
They made the mistake to think that the arabs would be content with ravaging the Persians so they gave the brathing space to grow strong.
In the late 13th century they had let their adminstration civil and military to collapse. Western Cristinity and Islam were strong and formidable and there was not a leader of Basil II caliber. So the empire was the prize. The westrners grubed it first and failed to do something with it. The Ottomans made a better combination of terror and diplomacy and succeeded taking it and then got the "imperial illnesses" and lost it too.

I belive that the "national" idea of the Lascarides failed because it was too advanced for its time.
An I still wonder of the options had William de Hauteville (the Good) came in person in 1187 and succeeded in becoming Rom,an emperos. After all Siculo-Normans dealt successully with catholics, orthodox amd muslims.

Kind regards