Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

  1. #1

    Default The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    A few years ago i read the three volums of the Byzantine history by J.J.Norwich. It is written in classical tradition, which means that he is looking at the people in charge, rather than looking out for structures and processes like the more recents aproches in historytelling would handle it.

    One point was really striking. Norwich wrote that the Battle of Manzikert was neither so desastrous nor pivotal than one may think. The looses were heavy, but effordable and even the negotiated peace was more than moderate. They would have to cede a part of Armenia, something they just annexed a few years ago in a matter which made the most Armenians their enemies anyway. The Turks at the time of the engagement wanted actually to conquer Egypt to wipe out the Shiacaliphate and Alp Arslan was already at Aleppo when Romanos Diogenes marched in to Armenia. Even afterwards Egypt was the ultimate goal of the Turks until the Sucessor of Romanos broke the treaty and continued to harass the Turks in a situation were the Army needed recovering. Only than it was possible to take Anatolia.

    Norwich states that the way to Manzikert was no random occasion, but a process started after the death of Basil II. In his opinion it was a fight between the military and the bureaucrats for power which resulted in that scenario. In the center was the kingmaker Michael Psellos, an incredible sophisticated man who is responsible for reetablishing the great university of Konstantinople once again, which made it a centre of study in the world. However his faction thought that a strong military is more dangerous, because of coup d'etats than a strong one which was able to defend the borders. In their theory it would be wise to have a strong, state controled economy which could pay enemies of and even more better use them as mercenaries in the future. Had Basil II the Bulgarslayer, who marked a highpoint of byzantine history, a strong greek army, his sucessors used more and more mercenaries and weaked that way the military influence within the empire. The result was a reduction of central power in military terms and an increase of power in economic questions. However without a strong imperial army, the military aristocracy like the Dukoi and Comnenoi started to build up their own private armies and eventually did what the Bureaucrats wanted to avoid. They took power. Isaac I. was an able general who could have reformed the state, but he failed, since he had only the support of the military and the bureaucrats especially, Michael Psellos, hated him for beeing an emperor they didn't put on the throne.

    I've found Norwichs argumentation plausible and found it fascinating how strongly those people thought about state theories and how a government should work at it's best. Also that those people responsible were actually some of the most sophisticated minds of their time. You often have Andronicos Dukas as a simple traitor who fled in an opportunistic way in the "most pivotal battle", but their intentions are actually a lot more complex than that.

    I would like to hear more voices on that matter and i would be also interested in further book suggestions. Norwich is great, but possibly also a bit outdated. Since i don't have time to read just "any" book on the matter i would prefer books someread already read and accounted as "great"

    Proud to be a real Prussian.

  2. #2
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,418

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    The looses were heavy, but effordable
    Well, they were heavy because of who died, not how many.

    The varangian guard was basically destroyed and a portion of the heavy cavalry, but these all together mount up to as few as 2000.

    Everyone else just packed up and left the Emperor stranded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    and even the negotiated peace was more than moderate. They would have to cede a part of Armenia, something they just annexed a few years ago in a matter which made the most Armenians their enemies anyway.
    Is this the agreement between Romanos and Arslan?
    Because both died just months after the battle and it is understandable that an agreement between two dead people, one of which was not even liked by the successor, would be argued as being valid.



    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    The Turks at the time of the engagement wanted actually to conquer Egypt to wipe out the Shiacaliphate and Alp Arslan was already at Aleppo when Romanos Diogenes marched in to Armenia. Even afterwards Egypt was the ultimate goal of the Turks until the Sucessor of Romanos broke the treaty and continued to harass the Turks in a situation were the Army needed recovering. Only than it was possible to take Anatolia.
    Oh, so you are speaking of the actions before the battle of Manzikert?

    Or are you?


    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    Norwich states that the way to Manzikert was no random occasion, but a process started after the death of Basil II. In his opinion it was a fight between the military and the bureaucrats for power which resulted in that scenario. In the center was the kingmaker Michael Psellos, an incredible sophisticated man who is responsible for reetablishing the great university of Konstantinople once again, which made it a centre of study in the world. However his faction thought that a strong military is more dangerous, because of coup d'etats than a strong one which was able to defend the borders. In their theory it would be wise to have a strong, state controled economy which could pay enemies of and even more better use them as mercenaries in the future. Had Basil II the Bulgarslayer, who marked a highpoint of byzantine history, a strong greek army, his sucessors used more and more mercenaries and weaked that way the military influence within the empire. The result was a reduction of central power in military terms and an increase of power in economic questions. However without a strong imperial army, the military aristocracy like the Dukoi and Comnenoi started to build up their own private armies and eventually did what the Bureaucrats wanted to avoid. They took power. Isaac I. was an able general who could have reformed the state, but he failed, since he had only the support of the military and the bureaucrats especially, Michael Psellos, hated him for beeing an emperor they didn't put on the throne.
    I only see "bureaucrats" as a codeword for corrupt hyenas.

    Perhaps Norwich is right, but the "crats" were obviously wrong, which was proven time and time again, that, until the age of proper democracy, a powerful single ruler with an efficient hierarchy and a powerful military was a far better choice than a bunch of rich pompous polititians intriguing and backstabbing each other all year long in the senate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aemilius Lepidus View Post
    I've found Norwichs argumentation plausible and found it fascinating how strongly those people thought about state theories and how a government should work at it's best. Also that those people responsible were actually some of the most sophisticated minds of their time. You often have Andronicos Dukas as a simple traitor who fled in an opportunistic way in the "most pivotal battle", but their intentions are actually a lot more complex than that.
    All in all, I side with the tyrant.

    ...and, in a very cynical manner, replace your words of "sophisticated minds" and "complex intentions" with greed, incompetence and a lust for more power.

    There was never, not a single instance in Roman history, where a powerful senate of politicians instead of a powerful tyrant/Emperor was the better choice.

    Norwich's arguments are very plausible, as intrigue and the everlasting strife of power for the influence over the Empire was an...everlasting theme well until 1453.

  3. #3

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Quote Originally Posted by +Marius+ View Post
    Oh, so you are speaking of the actions before the battle of Manzikert?

    Or are you?
    Alp Arslan expedition at the time of Manzikert was supposed to raid Armenia and then move on Southwards to Syria against the Fatimids, which is the path he followed anyway.


    As for Marcus, in a way Norwith is correct focusing on the role of emperors because they were autocratic absolute powers, the role of emperors in weakening the empire after Basil's II reign is significant but goes quite a lot before Manzikert

    For starters Konstatinos Monomachos and Doukas stopped funding Armenian militias. Now there is a reason Romans set their border in Armenia and that's because it's a natural fortress and if you have the support of the locals it's unlikely an enemy army can go through untouched. A very realistic comparison is that of Seljuk expedition against Georgia (which is right North of Armenia and has a similar terrain) after Manzikert. They did 3 within a century, all with massive armies, all ended up embushed and destroyed by Georgians. Further relevance of the potential of the Armenian militias is the fact that after Manzikert, they migrated to Cilicia and formed an independent Kingdom there, lasting centuries thanks to the defensive possibilities of the area.
    Basil II had fully understood their potential, the 2 Konstantinos did not.
    Kinda why general-emperors were overall better than intellectual ones.

    Further stupidity of ''intellectuals'' continued right after Manzikert. As you pointed out, Alp Arslan had already moved on to Syria after the battle and Romanos Diogenes hadn't moved. The Doukas family decided to have Romanos arrested and deny the validity of the peace treaty he had made with Alp Arslan, which was nothing more than an expensive ransom. That opened the way for Turkomans raiding Anatolia.

    In the meanwhile, a Norman company led by Roussel de Balliol, that had fought for Romanos at Manzikert, tried to carve out their own land in central Anatolia, and the intellectual stupidity stroke again because first they failed to defeat him and actually had some of the Doukas members captured by him, then they hired Suleiman Seljuk to take him out in exchange for further land transfers.

    In short, what Norwich rightfully points out is that the consequences of Manzikert itself were limited, the mismanagement of Psellos and his handpicked emperor Michael is what caused the entirety of the damage of the land loss. They opened the floodgate and in a few years Turks had reached the Bosphorus.

  4. #4
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,418

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    In the meanwhile, a Norman company led by Roussel de Balliol, that had fought for Romanos at Manzikert, tried to carve out their own land in central Anatolia, and the intellectual stupidity stroke again because first they failed to defeat him and actually had some of the Doukas members captured by him, then they hired Suleiman Seljuk to take him out in exchange for further land transfers.
    Well, by the time the Seljuks were called, the Normans were long gone, this was just their former leader (re-released from captivity)Roussel with a Roman force under a Roman pretender that assumed control by that point.

    ...and yes, with that sole fit of incompetence, they basically created the Sultanate of Rum, not only inviting Seljuks to fight, but actually inviting them to settle there(done by the said pretender after the Seljuks switched sides).

    Ugh.


    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    In short, what Norwich rightfully points out is that the consequences of Manzikert itself were limited, the mismanagement of Psellos and his handpicked emperor Michael is what caused the entirety of the damage of the land loss. They opened the floodgate and in a few years Turks had reached the Bosphorus.
    Absolutely, they could have kept the entirety of Anatolia even after Manzikert, but the biggest issue was the treason of Romanos at the battle itself, which could have just as easily ended up as a Roman victory.

  5. #5

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    That too, I forgot to add that of the list.

    The thing about Manzikert is that:
    - it could have been prevented by keeping Armenian militias
    - it could have been won if the Doukas didn't betray Romanos at the battle
    - the damage could have been greatly contained to just money or just Armenia

    One ought to ask what was going on in Psellos mind (under the assumption that Michael Doukas was just a puppet).


    edit: I'm assuming he completely misunderstood the nature of Seljuks power and still considered the Abbasid Caliphs the political leadership of Sunni Muslims, since that's what they had been used to for 4 centuries.
    Last edited by Basil II the B.S; February 21, 2016 at 03:36 PM.

  6. #6
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Just a note on Norwich, I find his histories dull populist garbage. He flits from ruler to ruler like a ladies magazine flits from Oscar winner to betrayed celebrity wife, and his analysis is trite and bland. The notion Basil II did something wrong that caused Manzikert/the fall of Anatolia is rear-vision history: Basil II firmly established ERE rule over a wide area with a well established armies and managed for a while to restrain the encroachment of the dynatoi onto the lands of the soldier farmers who were the backbone of the Thematic armies.

    Manzikert was a battle of apocalyptic significance for the presence of Hellenic/Roman culture in Asia. The failure of the Emperor to prevent the advance and establishment of Seljuq nomads in Anatolia led to a swift collapse of the only large rural population of Christian Hellenes in Asia, and the largest source of manpower for the Thematic armies. Instead of a turbulent border zone toward Armenia and Mesopotamia with a protected hinterland only occasionally raided, now nomads burst the dam and roamed the whole region at will, leaving a few cities like diminishing islands. It destroyed the cornerstone of the system built up painstakingly from Heraclius to Basil II.

    Al, in all it was a military and political catastrophe that the dynatoi of eastern Anatolia would betray their emperor, and it was also a PR nightmare as Roman invincibility had been proven false. Manzikert was the death of Hellenic Asia, as Myriokephalon was the death of the hope it (or anything to replace it) could be rebuilt.

    Quote Originally Posted by +Marius+ View Post
    ...

    There was never, not a single instance in Roman history, where a powerful senate of politicians instead of a powerful tyrant/Emperor was the better choice....
    Lucius Junius Brutus surely disagrees with you. The Roman Empire was built from a single city state to a world spanning empire by a Senate, so I guess it depends on how you define "better". Typically the senate spent more time sending men to slaughter non-Romans, whereas tyrants and Emperors would often come to power over the bodies of their compatriots and spend their reigns keeping their fellow Romans down. It was a rare Consul that shut the doors of the temple of Janus, and a rarer Emperor who killed more Barbaroi than subjects.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  7. #7
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,418

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    To think, that if they just kept their cool for another two decades or so, the entirety of the war experienced Seljuk horde would be inevitably annihilated in the mountains of Georgia and the whole political scene would just re-enter the status quo...

    Just so, utterly incompetent.

    ...they actually gave the city of Nicaea to the Turks at one point.

    That is what happens when you have strong politicians instead of a single ruling family with the right to rule given by God instead of a senate.

    That is the one thing the Catholics got right in the Middle Ages, they understood that even a bad king is better than a bunch of good "kings" fighting for the throne(that is, if you are lucky enough that even they are good).


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Lucius Junius Brutus surely disagrees with you.
    You mean the dude whose only contact with rule was a city state smaller than the city municipality that I live in?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Manzikert was a battle of apocalyptic significance for the presence of Hellenic/Roman culture in Asia.
    The battle, or the political decisions and internal intrigue/strife that came after it?
    Last edited by +Marius+; February 21, 2016 at 04:00 PM.

  8. #8
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Quote Originally Posted by +Marius+ View Post
    To think, that if they just kept their cool for another two decades or so, the entirety of the war experienced Seljuk horde would be inevitably annihilated in the mountains of Georgia and the whole political scene would just re-enter the status quo...

    Just they actually gave the city of Nicaea to the Turks at one point
    so, utterly incompetent.
    Yes the priorities and decisions of the players around Zoe to Romanus reflect a very different mindset to the court of basil II or ourselves. I suppose (mere idle supposition on my part) that few people saw the Roman state for what it was, a human construct in a changing world. I guess people bought the idea that the Roman Empire = Christendom, and the Emperor really was God's legate on earth. This view seems to persist into the last decades before 1453 when the actions and petty victories of puissant emperors are celebrated like the conquests of Basil and Alexander. When an empire has persisted past living memory and the origins have disappeared into the mists of time one could be forgiven for thinking (like the chicken in Bertrand Russel's example) that the current state of affairs will continue because it always has, not because of concentrated human effort.

    Like bankers of Wall street who game the system ever closer to destruction for a few bucks, the courtiers, bureaucrats and dynatoi of the ERE were happy to drive the Imperial car toward the cliff because it hadn't fallen over the edge before.

    Quote Originally Posted by +Marius+ View Post
    ...That is what happens when you have strong politicians instead of a single ruling family with the right to rule given by God instead of a senate.

    That is the one thing the Catholics got right in the Middle Ages, they understood that even a bad king is better than a bunch of good "kings" fighting for the throne(that is, if you are lucky enough that even they are good).
    Certainly the office of Dictator was the early Republic's admission that one head is better than many in certain crises.

    Quote Originally Posted by +Marius+ View Post
    You mean the dude whose only contact with rule was a city state smaller than the city municipality that I live in?
    I was of course speaking rhetorically, Brutus was not the solitary founder of anything as such, he symbolises the Republics hatred of monarchy as an institution. I do argue that for much of Roman history shared rule in synonymous with public weal for Romans: Republican Rome's struggles were terrifying for their enemies, but once someone became Roman the Senate worked for them more than against them.

    Quote Originally Posted by +Marius+ View Post
    The battle, or the political decisions and internal intrigue/strife that came after it?
    I think I pretty much agree with you: its all the above, plus the lead up. Some battles are symptoms of underlying situations, like worms around an infected wound: they don't cause the wound, they just show how bad it is.

    Some battle however lead to a decision which fundamentally change the underlying situation. Manzikert certainly is affected by underlying factors such as the decision to defund the Akritae, the destruction of Armenia as a buffer state, and the detachment of a lot of the court from life outside the capital. The decision of military families from Anatolia to seize the throne was a newish development: emperors had come from the Army (that is the tagma), or from the bureaucracy or wealthy City families and occasionally from the military aristocracy, but after Zoe's corrupt reign they were to a man foisted on the Empire by military families intent on enriching their own as a first priority. Any sense of a ruler with a balanced experienced of court and city life as well as the experience of a wealthy military lord vanished, and the poor social (eg settling Franks and other pronoia basically uprooting the ERE system in favour of protofeudalism) and economic acts (eg Venetian tax exemptions) of the Komnenoi and later dynasties reflects this.

    So the damage was being done, the old military system uprooted in favour of something like feudalism, although under Romanus this was just beginning with the increase of the dynatoi. Did this mean inevitable defeats and the loss of Anatolia to the Turks? I would argue not, as feudalised states in the West proved somewhat stable. The Frankish Kingdoms and copycat neighbours persisted enough to form modern nation states, there's no reason a feudalised ERE couldn't survive in the east as something more than a ghost.

    The battle itself displayed problems a fedal olord could expect: divided forces with varying levels of commitment and porofessionalism, the possibility of betrayal by sizeable sections of the army, and the direct threat to the ruler who had to be present to ensure order.

    A successful battle shores up the Emperor's rule, he acquires personal glory and the army becomes used to victory and obedience. Submission from a Turkish ruler does not ensure Turkic tribesmen don't flood in, but it may create a vassal to help oppose them or divert them. Rule is maintained by the presence of the emperor and his subordinates in the same way rule is destroyed by his capture. Resources are not paralysed, the feudalised portion of the army remains in residence and doesn't flee, the system continues to work somewhat.

    The capture of the Emperor was devastating to a centralised and militarised monarchy: the only mechanism for replacing him as ruler was a coup, leading to more fighting when he was released. The flight of local rulers to the West where they could ignore their lost lands and continue their self destructive plotting 9assuming the Empire would strike back "because it always had" meant local leadership was as absent as central leadership. The Hellenised farmers of Anatolia were abandoned by their leaders and lords to the horsemen of the east by one great defeat.

    I think Manzikert is one of the very few battles that makes it onto the "top 10-20-100 battles in history" lists that really did change the course of events flowing down to the present day.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  9. #9
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,418

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    The battle itself displayed problems a fedal olord could expect: divided forces with varying levels of commitment and porofessionalism, the possibility of betrayal by sizeable sections of the army, and the direct threat to the ruler who had to be present to ensure order.
    I would not make that connection.

    Sure, a feudal army could have issues with discipline and actions within the battlefield during a battle, but actual treason was very rare when it came to armies mustered by the king himself.

    The issue was that the nobles would remain under that king or his successor in 99% of the cases regardless of whether the king won or lost, thus, treason was made nearly completely illogical.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    The capture of the Emperor was devastating to a centralised and militarised monarchy: the only mechanism for replacing him as ruler was a coup, leading to more fighting when he was released.
    Yes, and this is where the Western Monarchies are in a far, far superior position as coups are nearly completely impossible as they are utterly illegal.

    If a king is captured or killed, only his offspring or first kin can be put on the throne, there is no powerstruggle at the top as nobody else even has the legal authority to sit at the top.

    Unlike in the Empire, where anybody, anyone, even a man born a simple peasant, can become Emperor, the feudal monarchies simply prevented such drastic(and often devastating) changes of power as the worst that could happen is a fight between two sons of a king or two nephews of that same king, something that is well within the same line of politics and something that will cause barely any change in the political landscape of the country.


    Of course, I am not stating that there were no problems or power struggles, there were obviously kingmakers here and there.

    But the possible actions of those kingmakers in the West, were severely limited in comparison.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I think Manzikert is one of the very few battles that makes it onto the "top 10-20-100 battles in history" lists that really did change the course of events flowing down to the present day.
    I agree.

    The moment a battle can produce "what if" scenarios/discussions that include such large swaps of land, its importance cannot be denied.
    Last edited by +Marius+; February 21, 2016 at 07:27 PM.

  10. #10
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Umm... the 11th century Roman army was the most highly trained professional fighting force in the world. It was not a feudal army.

    Poor leadership will bring ruin to any army, period.

  11. #11
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius View Post
    Umm... the 11th century Roman army was the most highly trained professional fighting force in the world. It was not a feudal army.
    You are quite right the ERE at Manzikert was not a feudal army, but the presence of substantial personal followings among major landholders, seemingly at the expense of thematic troops indicates a social change to the composition of forces that leads toward feudalism, hence my use of the term "protofuedalism". Under Alexios Komnenos the process proceeded apace.

    You would be wrong to say the army at Manzikert was the same as the one Basil Bulgarslayer stormed from the Danube to the Caucases with. Two generations and a succession of poor leaders had changed everything.

    In the course of the 11th century the ERE army changing constantly. The financial retrenchment under Zoe affected the availability of akritae the eastern border regions. The move toward Frankish mercenaries was a distinct change from the practice of Basil II. the size of the field army at Manzikert was substantially smaller than the large forces led by Basil II, perhaps half the size: this may reflect operational requirements, but more likely it represents diminished manpower as landholding shifts from thematic farmer-soldiers to dynatoi landlords.

    Romanus marshalled a number of forces at Manzikert, ranging from the Varangians, some tagma and thematic troops as well as personal followings of dynatoi (hence the term protofeudal) and (for want of a better word) "vassals" such as Armenian and Georgian lords. He was subject to the sort of reliance on loyalty from overmighty subjects that plagued Frankish rulers (eg Richard III betrayed at Bosworth by some Scot, the Capetians plagued by Burgundian and English traitors for over a century).

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius View Post
    Poor leadership will bring ruin to any army, period.
    I quite agree: better and more loyal leadership (at all levels) might have seen a victory at Manzikert. Poor leadership had led to the decay of the once great army. The social changes taking place make it unlikely the "golden era" of the Thematic/Tagmatic army would return, but the new system may have proved enough to sustain the ERE.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  12. #12
    Maiar93's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3,252

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Indeed, the army was very well led on the 11th century. I believe that the changes in the military structure were more planned and necessary, for the empire's strained economy, rather than "aristocracy taking power", though there was some of that there too. This new system, with different generals being able to raise levies in their own areas of responsibility, eventually turned into several well-led, well-equipped and professional field armies defending the borders of the empire (due to almost constant war).
    Predictor of AAR Plot Points and a wannabe forum ninja

  13. #13
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Thank you to the OP for posting this interesting question.

    In the years between 1025 and a struggle between the aristocracy and the civil service played out. Basil II had been a powerful man at the top who defeated the aristoi in civil war and kept them in check. But when he was gone, there was bound to be a backlash. The triumph of the Komnenoi was the triumph of the aristoi. It simultaneously stabilised the state, while also undermining its future prospects for expansion.

    I find it hard to believe that the intellectuals were simultaneously such great minds and yet made such a mess of things. I suspect the real cause was simply underlying, impersonal forces such as agricultural production, the distribution of wealth and the evolution of society. This comes back to your original point about the classical school of history, focused on individuals, versus the modern approach which recognises that people can only operate within the context of the economic, political and social structures that exist in their time, and that in the grand scheme of things, these vast impersonal forces command a lot more weight than mere personal individual decisions.

    So to return to Byzantium, arguably the seeds of ruin were already visible in the reign of Basil II, who spent much of his reign fighting civil wars before finally securing the right to rule. By the time he was done, resistance had been crushed but he stored up pressures and resentments which were bound to burst out into the open again as soon as he was gone. For one man to dominate so completely is never a good thing for stability. Much better for the offices of state to be held by a changing cast of individuals who share their talent with the state, but when the time comes can and will be replaced by fresh recruits.

    The action of the intellectuals, in reducing the size of the army, was a natural reaction to the excesses of the Basil II years and in particular the problem of usurpers and civil war which had been a real problem in the first half of his reign. It was also a symptom that the system was not working very well - the state was struggling to maintain control over its own army. The problem was partly the rise of powerful aristocratic factions in Anatolia, which was greatly increased by the Byzantine successes on the eastern frontier in the period c.900 to c.1025, which resulted in an increase in peace, security, stability and prosperity, allowing the provinces to build up wealth which could then be used to challenge the status quo in Constantinople. This was exacerbated by military success on the eastern frontier, which not only moved further away from Constantinople but also allowed more wealth and loyalty of the soldiers to fall into the hands of powerful military families.

    In summary, Byzantium was changing. The society was evolving as conditions changed. Unfortunately, Byzantine society failed to adjust in a positive or effective way to the shifts caused by Byzantium's own success; this failure led directly to Byzantium's fall. The Seljuk Sultanate of Rum was born directly out of the factions that fought in the Byzantine civil war after 1071. The splintering of Byzantium in that civil war was never reversed - the Komnenoi versus Seljuk wars were arguably simply a continuation of the civil war that was never resolved until the Ottoman beylik grew and eventually reunited Anatolia with Constantinople in 1453.
    Last edited by bigdaddy1204; February 22, 2016 at 08:28 AM.

  14. #14
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Certainly a clearer picture of the dynamic changes experienced across ERE history is emerging to counter the old French convention of a static mummified political relic rigid with anachronism and ceremony.

    There's a lovely book Byzantine Empire by Browning,

    https://books.google.com.au/books?id...achery&f=false

    and he makes a lot of good points, starting with the inappropriate use of the term Byzantine 9which he is forced to use in his book title, probably by the publishers so as not to confuse readers with arcane terms like Basileia Romaion.

    Browning makes it clear that the Roman army changed significantly over the centuries, and period just before and just after Manzikert was one of the more dramatic periods of change.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  15. #15
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    You should also read Timothy Dawson's book By the Emperor's Hand which discusses the massive shift in cultural influences on "Byzantine" dress and court practices both before and after Manzikert.

  16. #16

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    I find the arguments put forward in favor of the despotic emperors odd cause it seems the trend of the emperors toward absolute power was gained it at the expense of weakening the realm as a whole. It only ever worked as well as the emperor was at governance. The empire suffered from a series of really bad emperors after the death of Manuel, for example. The issues with weakly enforced laws and balance of power was most apparent in the poorly executed system of succession that fatally drained the Eastern Roman Empire and this problem became greatly exaggerated in the years before and after the battle. Any person of high noble birth with a strong army could declare themselves emperor and have the possibility to succeed. Even the Komnenoi came to power in this exact way. The strong standing armies in the hands of landed gentry were easily exploited because the large, but weak bureaucracy had no real system in place to check the power of the themes with that of the central government. The imperial officials tried but any reforms that might have been supported by the sitting ruler would be quickly overruled by his successor without consequence. The idea to reduce the power of the army was just a desperate attempt to slow down the rate of coups that drained the empire of its resources. As complex as the Byzantine system was it had little legitimate authority, thus really couldn't do anything to limit the scope of the series of failures and abuses by nepotistic rulers. Good example of this was when Alexios and Manuel essentially signed over all maritime control to the Latins. The issues of monopolization and loss of native merchant influence led to the Massacre of the Latins and secured the empire's destruction in the Fourth Crusade. At the very least in the west the imperial senate, even in its reduced prominence, had a lasting political influence on civil administration and it even continued long after the Western empire fell. Seemingly even the feudal states had a more stable system than the Byzantine one.
    Last edited by Admiral Piett; February 22, 2016 at 09:16 PM.
    Heir to Noble Savage in the Imperial House of Wilpuri

  17. #17
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,418

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Piett View Post
    It only ever worked as well as the emperor was at governance.
    Perhaps, now state a single example where a more powerful senate of politicians or group of noble magnates came out to be the better choice.

  18. #18
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Quote Originally Posted by +Marius+ View Post
    Perhaps, now state a single example where a more powerful senate of politicians or group of noble magnates came out to be the better choice.
    Pretty much the entire history of western civilisation.

  19. #19
    +Marius+'s Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Zagreb
    Posts
    2,418

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    That is so utterly incorrect.

    As I asked initially, state a single specific example(prior to the nation states ofc).

  20. #20

    Default Re: The Byzantine Empire from Basil II to Alexios I.

    Quote Originally Posted by +Marius+ View Post
    Perhaps, now state a single example where a more powerful senate of politicians or group of noble magnates came out to be the better choice.
    The only way to name such an example would be to have two separate but identical realms run during the same time, one led by council and another led by a monarch, and see which preforms better. As we obviously can't set up such a test, its impossible to say conclusively which would have made the better choices.
    It gets even fuzzier when you consider that many a noble magnates were allowed to grow powerful because their king allowed it.

    A brilliant single ruler can indeed lift a nation to greatness or salvage an otherwise crippling disaster. Such leaders are not the norm, however, and for every genius you also get the occasional dynastically mandated moron (say, Charles II of Spain). Oligarchies run by council do have a tenancy to turn petty politics into paralyzing internal conflict, but then, monarchies have a tenancy to turn a ruler's fertility problems (whether through being infertile or being too fertile with too many women) into a realm splitting war, and an incompetent ruler with too little presence would often lead to the petty politics taking over anyway.

    Ultimately, a government's long term effectiveness and internal stability is more reliant on historic precedent, geography, culture and downright luck than whether its run by a senate or a king. Medieval Rome's geographic position rendered it more vulnerable than most, due to its tenancy to get involved in wars on all sides, but I wouldn't say their system of government was inherently less stable than a feudal monarchy. Especially since it ended up taking on characteristics of a feudal monarchy, which as it turns out, didn't help its stability much.
    I'd say that what kept their western European equivalents relatively stable was a strong cultural bias against raising an army to topple the king, not some inherent systematic advantage the Catholics had. Rome had a similar bias which made it unthinkable to raise an army to topple the senate, and it took hundreds of years and a drastic change in circumstance from the founding the republic to until Sulla came along for that to change, and even then the bias was strong enough to keep the senate around under diminished power, and restore the senate's rule once Sulla was out of the picture.
    A humble equine consul in service to the people of Rome.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •