Was Anatolia Key to the Survival of the Byzantine Empire?

[Exarch]

when i look at how strategically placed turkey is geographically, at this moment in time as it's rising, i wonder if anatolia was key to the survival of the byzantine empire, providxing the empire with men, cornfields, real estate for grain and food for feeding armies.

plus anatolia afforded a sort of shield for the capitol at constantinople; if the borders of the empire were as far as antioch...

[Lonck]

Wikipedia seems to think so.

[Slaytaninc]

It's from Wikipedia, so take it as you will. This map shows the situation in 717 during the reign of Leo III:
As you can see, Anatolia was the most cohesive area of the Empire. Now, it was ravaged just like anywhere else. The Byzantines held it during a time when they had much less resources than their Muslim neighbors.

[Dr. Oza]

yes

it was the heartland of the empires resources and manpower, especially after the loss of egypt, north africa nad the m.e.

when anatolia was gone, the byzies days were numbered

[Slaytaninc]

Nevermind.

[hellheaven1987]

The answer is yes, case close.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

yes

it was the heartland of the empires resources and manpower, especially after the loss of egypt, north africa nad the m.e.

when anatolia was gone, the byzies days were numbered

I do not agree with that completely. I would rather say that when someone managed to unite most of the various lords, sultans, chieftains of Anatolia the days of the empire were numbered. As it happened when the Ottomans did it.

[Stavroforos]

Indeed, Anatolia was also the largest area for tax revenue after the lost of the Levant, which is why the Byzantines were much more keen on getting Anatolian lands back through the Crusaders than they were getting back the Holy Lands.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Yes. The richest cities, and the strongest and most populous 'themata' of the Empire were situated there. The Eastern Asia Minor was the key to the Empire's defenses.

[Exarch]

question: why then wasnt the balkans considered as important?
not as fertile? not warm enough?

[neoptolemos]

question: why then wasnt the balkans considered as important?
not as fertile? not warm enough?

Both balkans and Anatolia are mostly mountainous areas.Anatolia though has a large plateau,actually it is characteried by it.
Balkans on the other hand have lesser plains (In Greek peninsula there are the ones of Macedonia,Thrace and Thessaly).
Anatolia was also a major stockrasing area,populated by a large Greek population and a lot of Hellinized people,it has natural frontiers (sierras) and well establized roads with the capital.
Balkans on the other hand,after the loss of the Danube frontier were easily affected by invasions

[Stavroforos]

question: why then wasnt the balkans considered as important?
not as fertile? not warm enough?

There were few prosperous areas in the Balkans with the exception of Salonika. Also, the Balkans were almost always surrounded by enemies and ravaged by wars, much more commonly than Anatolia was. Normans, Hungarians, Slavs, Huns, Goths, all played their part in destruction, as well as the Ottomans later.

[4th Regiment]

There were few prosperous areas in the Balkans with the exception of Salonika.

Hm...that is why Serbia (for example) had rich mines, producing about a third of European silver, big merchant colonies of Ragusan and Italian merchants, fertile lands (much more fertile than Greece, as you can see by simple drive through country) and was in every sense in pre renaissance period before Ottoman conquest (you have detailed post and bibliography of @Clandestino , as professional historian about this issue)

I do not know about Anatolia 1000 years ago...but now…Few years ago I was traveling from Serbia to Marmaris. It was Moon liked landscape, arid, with barely some cranky trees here and there. Even most arid regions of inland Dalmatia and Montenegro are more fertile... Rich agriculture regions of Serbia in Morava river valley and in Kosovo are gardens of haven compared to this. Comment of all of us travelers were - no wonder Ottomans wonted to expand into Europe, and run away from this

So, my guess Anatolia was important because it had bulk of Greek speaking population in Empire, because Byzantium has turned from Universal to Greek empire. Balkans north from Thessalonica was lost in VI and VII century already.

So, most of Greek speaking population in Anatolia, converted to Islam, and essentially became Turks, which gave additional men poll to Turks in future wars and expansion

[Petar]

question: why then wasnt the balkans considered as important?
not as fertile? not warm enough?

The Balkans were more fertile, Thrace in particular being some of the finest land the Eastern Romans possessed.
But I have to agree the most important were the lands in Asia Minor, not because of their agricultural or trade capabilities but because they were the under their rule throughout their history. Egypt, Syria and the rest of the middle east, the Balkans, Southern Greece, Crimea - all served as stages for conflicts, while Anatolia was the only secure region, not bothered with wars or conflicts (until the seljuks attacked it).

[jo the greek]

The Balkans were more fertile, Thrace in particular being some of the finest land the Eastern Romans possessed.
But I have to agree the most important were the lands in Asia Minor, not because of their agricultural or trade capabilities but because they were the under their rule throughout their history. Egypt, Syria and the rest of the middle east, the Balkans, Southern Greece, Crimea - all served as stages for conflicts, while Anatolia was the only secure region, not bothered with wars or conflicts (until the seljuks attacked it).

Indeed big cultures
rise in plateaus near rivers or good ports.

Thrace was a fertile land and the Anatolia plateau also for cattle etc

but mountains created the warriors or soldiers and preserved a civilization


It seems logic though that losing Anatolia and Izmir control led to a decline

see for example what happens when Empire of Nicea recapture the City.

But i believe that was one the reasons.

Byzantines tended to suffered of various psychotics episodes and losing Anatolia was caused from of this Episodes

[dogukan]

Anatolia was Rome. Most of the investments were done here right?
Lets think of the major cities.

Trebizond+Smyrna+Ceasare-Iconium area+Amasias+Sinope+Nicomedia+Nicea VERSUS what? Thessaloniki+Athens+Epirus+Adrionople? Nothing significant in Peleponessos area.
The Roman towns in Anatolia were much more crowded, rich and diverse(hence more trade)

+Major trade routes in Anatolia
+More population in Anatolia
+surrounded by sea, feels safe. Mountinous Greece part is also safe but it is not easier to develop, build roads...etc
+Eastern influence and trade, very important (by that time)
+Armenians and Georgians as a barrier with others
+More production, more income
+Anatolia is fricking awesome...AWESOME. Be jeolus

If Constantinople was the brain, Anatolia was the heart.
(also interesting info: There are more Roman theatres in Anatolia than in Italy, and more Greek theatres again in Anatolia than in Greece) I cant confirm it right now though, but makes sense.
Both the Greeks, Romans and Greek-Romans invested in Anatolia.
They not only migrated but also Hellenized most of the people. When someone says East Rome to me, the first thing that comes to my mind is Anatolia.

[jo the greek]

Anatolia was Rome. Most of the investments were done here right?
Lets think of the major cities.

Trebizond+Smyrna+Ceasare-Iconium area+Amasias+Sinope+Nicomedia+Nicea VERSUS what? Thessaloniki+Athens+Epirus+Adrionople? Nothing significant in Peleponessos area.
The Roman towns in Anatolia were much more crowded, rich and diverse(hence more trade)

+Major trade routes in Anatolia
+More population in Anatolia
+surrounded by sea, feels safe. Mountinous Greece part is also safe but it is not easier to develop, build roads...etc
+Eastern influence and trade, very important (by that time)
+Armenians and Georgians as a barrier with others
+More production, more income
+Anatolia is fricking awesome...AWESOME. Be jeolus

If Constantinople was the brain, Anatolia was the heart.
(also interesting info: There are more Roman theatres in Anatolia than in Italy, and more Greek theatres again in Anatolia than in Greece) I cant confirm it right now though, but makes sense.
Both the Greeks, Romans and Greek-Romans invested in Anatolia.
They not only migrated but also Hellenized most of the people. When someone says East Rome to me, the first thing that comes to my mind is Anatolia.

LOL you messed things

[Xerrop]

Anatolia was the only large area under their undisputed control for centuries. The Balkans were invaded by Slavs and every now and then a fighting ground against the Bulgars. Look at the picture above in post 3.
If they could have hold the Danube border then the Balkan might have been their second stronghold and also hold some key provinces.

edit: I think the balkan regions lost their importance during the migration period - they were a fighting ground against Germans, Huns and later Slavs. With the many invasions there the towns had been destroyed many times and all the riches of the region might have been lost. Anatolia was secure from all those migrations, so the cities there have prospered instead and even taken refugees of the balkans - even more inhabitants and income in Anatolia and the balkans had been drained out.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

When Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire, the center of the Hellenistic world was moved to the East. Most of the Greek population migrated towards the East, prosperous cities were founded and others already existing cities were reinforced with new populations, trade and culture flourished there.. It becomes easily understood that the traditional ancient Greek lands of Greece and generally the Balkans had lost much of their importance.. This continued through the Medieval Ages..

[MathiasOfAthens]

Also prob easier to hold onto anatolia with its Taurus mountains than the Balkans with its more open valleys and access points.