Who do you blame for the fall of Byzantium?

[char]

The Byzantines themselves ?

The various Islamic Turkish Facions?

The Roman Catholic Church?, the Orthadox Christian Church?, the schism of the Church?

Russia?

Bulgaria?

The general apathy in Western Europe?

Weak Byzantine Army, reliant on mercs?

Weak for the most part Byzantine political leadership?

Poorly performing Byzantine economy?

The theological war of the Iconoclasts?

The burden of Imperial Roman ancestry?

The theory that the death of one epoch spanning empire(Byzantium) spawns another(Ottoman Turkey)?


All of the above?

None of the above?

some of the above?

Id be interested and humbled to consider your thoughts.

[Ataegina]

lack of unity, civil wars .... alot more !

[Gnostiko]

I hate to say it, but I lay the blame solely at the feet of the Romans themselves. That and fortune; I don't think there's ever been a state in history that has suffered so much from 'bad timing' on such an epic scale.
Some topics that annoy me: the weakening of the pre-manzikert army by the bureaucracy, the selfishness of the pronaiarioi, the watering down of the native elements in the army, Manouil Komnenos not keeping Bela III as heir and his abrupt seizure of all venetians and their goods. Of course there are also the endless civil wars

[Awellesley]

I think that what can't be overlooked is the geography. Fighting on two fronts is a long standing military no-no, yet the Byzantines seemed to constantly surrounded by hostiles. The price of success I guess.

[Hobbes.]

Well in Europe we have: Roman tradition mixed with German background aka feudalism.
In Byzantium we have Greek (Hellenistic) tradition and Roman elements. While in the west the slave based society moved on to feudalism the Byzantines could not make the complete passage because of the lack of a German background. They are stuck between to societies and fail to develop their society like the Europeans did. So we cannot blame anyone but the historical past of the Byzantine territory. Then there are some other factors like religion (iconoclasts in South east-the arabs were not very hated in there) and the crusades (see 1204).

[The Noble Lord]

It is not Manzikert, it is not fall of 1453, it is the sack of 1204 that is primarily responsible for the eventual fall of Byzantium!

[Hobbes.]

It is not Manzikert, it is not fall of 1453, it is the sack of 1204 that is primarily responsible for the eventual fall of Byzantium!

Along with the social background. Not forget that. Byzantium was doomed by the time it entered the 11th century. It just stayed behind.

[The Noble Lord]

Along with the social background. Not forget that. Byzantium was doomed by the time it entered the 11th century. It just stayed behind.

I agree with the internal problems and social structure that was in many ways outdated, but if it wasn't for the sack of 1204 the Byzantines would've lasted no doubt until the 20th century. I mean, Ottoman empire lasted very long and and its decline began in 1683 and took 235 years top fall apart. The Byzantines with all their Roman/Greek tradition would've managed to survive, but it was that sack of 1204 that speeded up the end of the empire.

[Baggins]

I agree with the internal problems and social structure that was in many ways outdated, but if it wasn't for the sack of 1204 the Byzantines would've lasted no doubt until the 20th century. I mean, Ottoman empire lasted very long and and its decline began in 1683 and took 235 years top fall apart. The Byzantines with all their Roman/Greek tradition would've managed to survive, but it was that sack of 1204 that speeded up the end of the empire.

I agree.

[Gnostiko]

While the Fourth Crusade was indeed fatal to the Empire, the Romans aren't exactly blameless; the massacre instigated by Andronikos notwithstanding, was Manuel under the impression the Venetians would simply 'let go' what happened to their people in the Empire?

[Treize]

I blame decadent emperors who spent the treasurey on there own comfort.
The good ones improved alot, there hiers raped everything, good one, bad one, in a sort of cyclus.
Add the Venetian crusade and the Pope.

And let's not forget the pronoars and the mercenaries.
They could have kept the Komnenan military AND the tagma's instead of being so reliant on unloyal troops.

[absinthia]

the plague, it seem to have given byzantium an economic(and by that military) blow that it never fully recovered from. this along with a string of unfortunate events that would have required the empire to adapt to more "modern" ways.
the failure to recover might of course be put on the emperors shoulders. on might possibly say that byzantium had been an empire for to long and grown to self assured that it would remain so, like by a law of nature, in stead of consolidating its status.

[vonVince]

There was no fall of Byzantium as such did not exist (perhaps when there was a city state called Byzantium...), only the final fall of Roman Empire.

In any case, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, which outlived its western brother for one thousand years, is complex, more complex than the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Incompetent leadership, religious feuds within and outside the nation, lack of standing armies for many critical periods in the empire's history and several other issues are overall responsible. However, above all I would put the blame on the deadly plague that began during the reign of Emperor Justinian I. Had it not been for this plague, which struck the Roman Empire that was hoping to rebuilt after costly reconquest, and that is estimated to have killed as much as 50 to 60% of Europe's population between 541 and 700, history of the Roman Empire would have been very different.

[Gnostiko]

The notion of the Empire as being 'outdated' is frankly a load of waffle; they weren't 'behind the times', the decline before Manzikert is simply the result of the bureaucracy's triumph over the military faction in the Court's frequent intrigues.

[husker9.2]

I blame the French!

[Herr Lindstrom]

I blame the French!

I dissagree... I blame the Italians. See.. without Italians there would be no roman empire. No roman empire = no western and eastern roman empires. No western and eastern empires = no collapse of the west roman empire.
No collapse of west roman empire = no Byzantine empire.

on top of that if there were no italians there might not have been christianity. And we all know how many problems the church caused... even today for many small childeren. I mean them having to suffer bored out of their minds when they would rather be playing.

Good thing I'm a viking and I'm not much for italians and church BAH! what a load of babble that is! Sunday is the day I raid!

[The Noble Lord]

the decline before Manzikert is simply the result of the bureaucracy's triumph over the military faction in the Court's frequent intrigues.

Very good point, and in his book "Byzantium" one of the best experts on the subject Mr John Julius Norwich says that after the death of Basil the Bulgar Slayer in 1025, the series of weak emperors and rampant bureaucracy which prevailed over military and got it weaker was responsible for Manzikert. At the end, Romanus IV Diogenus could do nothing, he was up against Ducas and Phocas families and bureaucratic apparatus that stuffed the military with the mercenaries.

When awesome new external enemy appeared on the horizon, the Empire was weakest at its most important point and military disaster happened. Those degenerate arch-conspirators, how could they not see that Seljuks are the main enemy, and not the Emperor. Their stupidity and narrow-mindedness in a face of grave danger never ceases to amaze me.

[AnthoniusII]

The funny thing was that the Emperors after the death of Basill II (exept Romanus IV) disbaned the army simply because they were afraid of new rebelions against them...
Even after Matzikert the empire still had around 200000 native and merc troops but their disband offered Seljucks to qonquer asia minor in just 6 years(1074-1079)!!!!

[The Noble Lord]

The funny thing was that the Emperors after the death of Basill II (exept Romanus IV) disbaned the army simply because they were afraid of new rebelions against them...
Even after Matzikert the empire still had around 200000 native and merc troops but their disband offered Seljucks to qonquer asia minor in just 6 years(1074-1079)!!!!

See, that is why you have to be ruthless to the point of being a tyrant sometimes because your worst enemy turned out to be your own people. Basil II should've killed all the "The Powerfull" the magnate landowning families of Anatolia and he should've completely destroyed Ducas and Phocas families. He really should've killed them all, with such a treacherous people you have to be merciless. Now I understand Stalin and why he annihilate everybody that he was even slightly suspicious of, Byzantium needed its own Stalin in period after 1025. Those cretins, they betrayed the Emperor and caused the Empire to collapse just because of their own selfish reasons.
I am just being honest here, all of us in the Balkans had to fight the Turks for almost 400 years until we throw them out just because of that one day in August of 1071.

[AnthoniusII]

See, that is why you have to be ruthless to the point of being a tyrant sometimes because your worst enemy turned out to be your own people. Basil II should've killed all the "The Powerfull" the magnate landowning families of Anatolia and he should've completely destroyed Ducas and Phocas families. He really should've killed them all, with such a treacherous people you have to be merciless. Now I understand Stalin and why he annihilate everybody that he was even slightly suspicious of, Byzantium needed its own Stalin in period after 1025. Those cretins, they betrayed the Emperor and caused the Empire to collapse just because of their own selfish reasons.
I am just being honest here, all of us in the Balkans had to fight the Turks for almost 400 years until we throw them out just because of that one day in August of 1071.

Your post is a good pass for me to show what a player will have to expect in the "The Great Conflicts" mod...
Have you see the "Aristocrats" in the "screenshots and feedback" thread?
If a player(emperor)will make some mistakes then rebalions of those aristocrats(or the powerfull) will become a reality and counter emperors will apear!
Our intention is to show to players how the roman society worked...
As a roman player you will have to defeat several roman armies with any kind of provincial units!You will have to fight with your cavalry against the best anticavalty infantry testing your skills...
I hope that we could show that atmosphear accuratly ...