Who do you blame for the fall of Byzantium?

[AnthoniusII]

Its nature's law. What is born must die.
It happens not only for living creatures but empires too.
No exeption.

[Constantius]

After RTW, MedII is probably my favourite TW game and yet I have very little interest in the Medieval period. The hook that keeps me coming back, time after time, is my passion for the idea that was Rome! An idea that had a tangible physical presence for over two thousand years. It started with Romulus and ended with Constantine XI Dragasēs Palaiologos: it doesn't matter what mod it is, I always play as Rome and strive to restore and maintain the Pax Romana.

!

I couldn't of put it better, if I tried. That's exactly what I do. As for reasons for falling, to numerous to count. Sadly one of the main reasons, whether we talk of 476, 1204 or 1453 are civil wars

[NEPTUNO]

Turks.

[hekk]

Its nature's law. What is born must die.
It happens not only for living creatures but empires too.
No exeption.

But the identity of the Greeks are not dead, at least. Unlike their many past adversaries.

I personally think that the Fourth Crusade was one of the most shameful moments in Western history. The moment the Crusaders turned their back on the Byzantines, by seizing Cyprus, was the moment they started to wound their own cause.

While the many rebellions of the Byzantine Empire and incompetent emperors and empresses are noted, the Fourth Crusade utterly split the Empire. It undoubtedly left the Byzantine Empire a much more viable target for the Turks. The fact that some Byzantine successors actually managed to recapture Constantinople and a great deal of the Frankish territories, is amazing in itself. Yet a short-lived glory, unfortunately.

The early theological conflicts between the Greek church and other off-shoots, and that of the oriental churches didn't help much either.

But the fall of Byzantium wasn't just all bad. It jump-started the Renaissance in Italy, and the Western World would have been very different if not for it.

But meh, if I could rewrite history, I would have gone to try and save the original Western Roman Empire. Bloody Vandals and Goths, go loot somewhere else.

[WaffleZ]

Myself.

I KNEW I shouldn't have moved my army out of the city. orz

[Hunyadi Mátyás]

The Muslims

[Constantius]

The Muslims

What about 1204?

[Hunyadi Mátyás]

What about 1204?

And the Crusaders

[Torvus]

I blame Jesus. If the armies of the Byzantines still had the iron discipline of the Legions (spawned from their pagan religion), then they would never have fallen. Neither would the western Empire have fallen either.

[Max_cerc]

Obviously it would not be possible to give a simple answer, and all of the factors cited in the question have played some sort of role at least at some point.

My personal insight corresponds to the theory by JJ Norwich, according to whom we can clearly distinguish two moments whose effects led to the fall of Constantinopolis: Manzikert (1079) and the Latin Empire of te East (1204).

Let's look at each of them more closesly.

1) Romaos IV Diogenes was not a bad emperor; the situation he had inherited from the previous emperors (especially beacuse of Leo Monomachos) was not perfect, but the eastern borders still looked secure. Alp Arslan, sultan of the seljuk turks had no plan for an Invasion of Anatolia, he just wanted to overthrow the Arabs in Syria and Mesopotamia. Nonetheless he fought against the Empire because of the strategic value of Armenia, which would be a perfect starting point for the invasion of Baghdad. Manzikert, in Armenia, was a fotified position of some importance, but not a stronghold. When Romanos led his army to Armenia, some unfortunate circumstances of logistic nature stole him half of his men, still wintering in Trebisonda (Pontus), while he could count mainly on mercenary troopers from the Slavian countries and France, and on the support of general Andronicos Doukas. The battle was not supposed to be an epic fight, and the byzantine troopers, more numerous and well equipped, would have almost certainly won unless Doukas decided to betray his Basileus and flee with all his soldiers just while the Franks were about to be defeated by the Turks and routed.
Romanos was captured, but trated with great respect and generosity. He ate every day at the sultan's table and was released after a week, signing some moderate peace conditions, basically implying only the loss of Manzikert. He never managed to get back to power, because Doukas's betrail resulted in a civil war won by the general.
It took the the Turks three years to understand that Anatolia was now an easy and virtually undefended prey. The civil war had seriously weaked the political of military power of Constantinopolis for good.
The loss of most of Anatolia was just the beginning of the fall.

2) I'll deal with the other topic as soon as I have some time. Comments are welcome

[Constantius]

The biggest and most odvious was the loss of Egypt ! from that point the economy never recovered.

[MIDN Mainolfi]

I haven't gone through all 10 pages of comments, but I'm sure I'm not saying anything unique, but I love discussing history.

Everything that has been mentioned so far that I have read, the economy, the crusades, incompetence, disease, etc. are a united front for the final fall of the Byzantine Empire. I don't think that it's entirely fair to ask somone a single defining cause for it's collapse, every "calamity" wore it down more and more, and like everything else, it can only take so much before it topples. I believe that it would be more prudent to blame abstract ideas such as history, fortune, etc.

History has it's niches, it's rules, it's prefered way of doing things. I believe that Rome officially becoming an empire was the beginning of it's demise. It eventually led to the split, which led to them both dying off on their own. History gave the Empire some glimpses of hope, but if you look at it entirely, it almost seems like history gave birth to Rome so it could make the ultimate tumble. It was built to fail.

[Cvetko]

Constantinople fell 558 years ago and it's still occupied...
RiP Roman empire

[Giacomo Colonna]

its strange, nobody had blamed Italians!

I'm wondering if someone quantified the money lost by the Greeks, caused by the unfair italian monopoles


Its my view but, I'm convinced then Dandolo is comparable to Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars.
Manipulator, old, half-blind...
Latins barons were just children at side.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[The Noble Lord]

Well, few days ago was exactly 588 years since the fall of Constantinople in 1453. It is quiet a mark, and for the record I blame sack of 1204 and Byzantine Anatolian land magnates (the powerful) for the final fall of the empire in 1453!

[byzantineklibanophori]

I blame the Zionists, everyone does!

[Giacomo Colonna]

ah...interesting, so you Strategos, you're convinced then a "Jew Kabbale" had orchestrated the fall of the Empire?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

smoking thesis

[byzantineklibanophori]

No, not really. Im just echoing the sentiment if this age in blaming Jews. Haha. Actually, my old posts in this thread blamed the Crusaders. I wont rehash it again. Just thought id some light relief

[AnthoniusII]

The facts are clear:
1) When you live in a hostile enviroment with extended borders and some much money that works as tamptetion to others you do not disable your army despite your fears of a rebelion.
2) When you have such a rich country you do not "sell" your trade to others just to have some easy coin for your self.
3) When you have such a powerfull army you seak the means and the way to keep it powerfull in the future and do not relay on God to save you.
4) When you are a leader of an empire or a country or a nation you must seak the way to keep people and army with your side and you must inspire them to fight if there is going to be such need.
5) You do not have two standards in the laws of yours because that way the poore and weak wont help you when you will need them because simply rich people will change side to keep their riches no matter if that side is enemy's side!


These are the primary fact of the Empire's fall.

[The Noble Lord]

simply rich people will change side to keep their riches no matter if that side is enemy's side!

So true, all of your points are in place but this resonates with reality on the terrain during that time so much. So many Greek and Balkan nobles and noble families became Ottoman in order to keep their holdings and privileges. Just remember Evrenos Bey and Zaganos Pasha among many, then you have entire Balkan royal and noble lines becoming Ottoman elite so that they would continue as the feudal lords.