Fall of Constantinople...?

[abd alharryya]

In anyone's campaign, have the AI controlled Turks ever been succussful in taking out the Byzantines, or even being a dominant force at all?

[k_161]

Almost everytime in my campaigns after a few jihads ofc .

[Hurricane]

I've never seen the Turks take it in my two campaigns. On my English campaign I think Venice took it over before I took it off of Venice, and in my Venice campaign it was one of the first settlements I took, it's been mine all campaign so far (200+ turns) and the Turks haven't bothered to take Nicea (sp?) off of Byzantine, even though Byzantine is really weak.

[Marcus Furius Camillus]

They took it after they called a jihad in my Scottish campaign. Rather quickly too, around 50 turns or something.

[abd alharryya]

Indeed, I was just making sure, I have done a english campaign on medium and french campaign on hard, and both times they have have failed.

My current campaign is with Russia, and i know the Turks will fail, becuase Constantinope will fall to me!

[John I Tzimisces]

The only way the Turks should be able to defeat the byzantines is if the Venitians or other crusaders give the Byzantines a hard time, and, you know, sack the city 150 years before the Turks got even close. Because, after the battle of manzikert, the byzantines were right on the way to reclaiming all of their lost territory under the Comnenoi...ahem.

[Grifman]

The only way the Turks should be able to defeat the byzantines is if the Venitians or other crusaders give the Byzantines a hard time, and, you know, sack the city 150 years before the Turks got even close. Because, after the battle of manzikert, the byzantines were right on the way to reclaiming all of their lost territory under the Comnenoi...ahem.

No, not really. The empire went through a number of years of civil war after Manzikert, which allowed the Turks to take most of Asia Minor. Alexius was in bad shape which was why he pleaded for a crusade to begin with. The Turks had most/all of Asia Minor and their capital was Nicea, just across from Constantinople. The crusading army assisted Alexius in taking the city, defeated the Turks a couple of more times, and thusly allowed Alexius to retake many of the coastal areas of Asia Minor. But the Normans defeated him badly at Dyrrachium in Epirus and it was probably only the death of their leader that saved Alexius.

John his son was more interested in reclaiming Antioch and got the crusaders there to acknowledge his authority. But he did little to retake the core of Asia Minor. Manual, his son, was all over the place, sending forces to Italy, Egypt, and intervening in Hungry. He ignored the Turks in Asia Minor and was badly defeated when he finally decide to do something about it at Myriocephalon.

The Byzants never came close to retaking Asia Minor, much less Armenia, the Euphrates frontier, etc.

[John I Tzimisces]

No, not really. The empire went through a number of years of civil war after Manzikert, which allowed the Turks to take most of Asia Minor. Alexius was in bad shape which was why he pleaded for a crusade to begin with. The Turks had most/all of Asia Minor and their capital was Nicea, just across from Constantinople. The crusading army assisted Alexius in taking the city, defeated the Turks a couple of more times, and thusly allowed Alexius to retake many of the coastal areas of Asia Minor. But the Normans defeated him badly at Dyrrachium in Epirus and it was probably only the death of their leader that saved Alexius.

John his son was more interested in reclaiming Antioch and got the crusaders there to acknowledge his authority. But he did little to retake the core of Asia Minor. Manual, his son, was all over the place, sending forces to Italy, Egypt, and intervening in Hungry. He ignored the Turks in Asia Minor and was badly defeated when he finally decide to do something about it at Myriocephalon.

The Byzants never came close to retaking Asia Minor, much less Armenia, the Euphrates frontier, etc.

Considering the Byzantines went from their smallest territorial extent yet (in 1081) to


100 years later, I'd say they were doing well for themselves, had the Angeloi proven not to be diplomatic and administrative fools (leading rather directly to the fourth crusades little diversion), the Byzantines could have been well on their way to defeating a very ununified turkish foe. The Byzantine position was very strong in the decades prior to 1204. Also, considering after Manuel's defeat, he still managed to capture territory from Asia Minor (after the Turks treacherously failed to carry out the terms of a treaty they presented him with, causing all these problems to begin with)

[Andronicus Comnenus]

Considering the Byzantines went from their smallest territorial extent yet (in 1081) to 100 years later, I'd say they were doing well for themselves, had the Angeloi proven not to be diplomatic and administrative fools (leading rather directly to the fourth crusades little diversion), the Byzantines could have been well on their way to defeating a very ununified turkish foe. The Byzantine position was very strong in the decades prior to 1204. Also, considering after Manuel's defeat, he still managed to capture territory from Asia Minor (after the Turks treacherously failed to carry out the terms of a treaty they presented him with, causing all these problems to begin with)

How much of that was actual control though? I notice Antioch is included despite the fact that Byzantium didn't have direct control over the province. Its also a little unfair to entirely blame the Angeloi for the diversion of the Fourth Crusade - Manuel's rather short sighted policy towards the west was pretty damaging. Though he reaped the benefits of appearing pro-Western, he made promises which he couldn't keep and would inevitably damage the relations between his successors and the West (and that's before my namesake decided to massacre the Latin population of Constantinople and do away with Renier of Montferrat!)

Edit: Oh yes, in my game as Byzantium the Turks didn't even last to 1100 - I managed to them into one gigantic all-or-nothing encounter. The Sultan was then taken down in a shower of missiles and his entire army put to death! (not a very byzantine way of going about things, i know!)

[Otherside]

they took it in my campagian and were a deadly force till the mongols

[CynicalMagician]

In my English game and in my Danish game the Turks got rocked by the Byzantines because I wasn't there to check them. When I played Sicily and took Greece/Constantinople from Byzantium the Turks are now the power to beat.

[aorz]

yeah same here, the byzantines were the second best, well third if you count the mongols. i was the best and we never really bothered eachother as i was england. but yeah they basically destroyed the turks down to one settlement

[Flavius]

The Turks hold all of Asia Minor in my English Campaign, although all the Byzatines have is Greece because the Hungarians sacked Constantinople and the Venetians were destroyed.

[dearmad]

they took it in mine without any stupid crusaders sacking it for them first, too.

[Varam]

In my campaigns the Turks have never taken it in except when I played as them.

However, the Moors have taken it by Jihad in both my Denmark and French games.

[Revan The Great]

The Moors? Wow.

[Lunar4]

Egypt managed to take it from me (Venetians) by Jihad in my first game. I got it back within a few turns though

[stemix]

In my campain as ERE, there is no chance Constantinople to be taken from Turks or by any other faction ever.
But it would be very nice if the game could offer us the last battle in 5/29/1453 between Byzantines and Turks. It would be epic.