Byzantine wank

[Faeelin]

well, they were "good" muslims.

apparently, even today, there are more books published in Greece (in Greek) annually than in  Arabic globally. mass illiteracy, censorship and an undeveloped book industry still contributes to this centuries old distrust.

I'd be interested to see the stats for other Muslim countries.

Anyway, feh. The Byzantines sucked, and deserved 1204. 1453, of course, replaced the decaying Byzantine state which couldn't maintain Constantinople with a tolerant, pluralistic Ottoman Empire.

[Valmy]

now to cast down some purple rain, I also think that if you remove Otto dominance from the region, 15th century Byz is just another Genoese satellite. I think global cultural contributions would be limited.

Politically it was insignificant and economically it was a basketcase, but culturally it was vibrant and significant.

[Valmy]

Anyway, feh. The Byzantines sucked, and deserved 1204. 1453, of course, replaced the decaying Byzantine state which couldn't maintain Constantinople with a tolerant, pluralistic Ottoman Empire.

Wow it "sucked" and "deserved" stuff eh?  Thank you for your insightful contribution.

[Valmy]

But all in all the little article that's "insane".  The author states that there's so much in Byzantine history you can always find something to like, then a couple of lines of idle speculation about what a surviving Byzantium might be like.

The only thing that is insane is the anti-Western, anti-Slavic, anti-Turkish tone of it that seems to imply the guy thinks the Byzantine Empire was some sort of oasis of brilliance among a sea of evil.

Sort of like Faeelin's post which goes the other direction.

[Barrister]

now to cast down some purple rain, I also think that if you remove Otto dominance from the region, 15th century Byz is just another Genoese satellite. I think global cultural contributions would be limited.

Well yes it depends in part on where the "point of divergance" occurs that allows this fictional modern byzantium to exist.  No Manzikert, and thus positing a very large and powerful Byzantium throughout both modern-day Greece and Anatolia?  No 4th Crusade, and thus a smallish but viable nation centered on the Bosphorus and Aegean?  Or no 1453, and thus a continuing city-state?

But don't downplay too much the contributions a city-state can have.  Florence, Milan, Venice all had very significant cultural impact right up to their incorporation into Italy.  Probably some German city-states too, but I've been reading up on Italian history.

[garbon]

Yes, I should have added that the impetus for this was posters upset that the Byzantines tend to completely collapse in CK before 1100.

Although since that didn't happen in real life, I can only assume that the feeling has to do with what happened to the Byzantines after 1204.

[Barrister]

Yes, I should have added that the impetus for this was posters upset that the Byzantines tend to completly collapse before 1100.

Meh.  I love CK an awful lot but no one can deny its broken, and Byzantium perhaps worse than most.

[Valmy]

Yes, I should have added that the impetus for this was posters upset that the Byzantines tend to completely collapse in CK before 1100.

Although since that didn't happen in real life, I can only assume that the feeling has to do with what happened to the Byzantines after 1204.

Well it kinda sorta almost did.

It is better than the alternative of having a massive Byzantine Empire kicking Muslims around.  Really the game should have started at the date the Pope called for the First Crusade.

[garbon]

Well it kinda sorta almost did.

Which was my response in the thread.

[Faeelin]

Anyway, feh. The Byzantines sucked, and deserved 1204. 1453, of course, replaced the decaying Byzantine state which couldn't maintain Constantinople with a tolerant, pluralistic Ottoman Empire.

Wow it "sucked" and "deserved" stuff eh?  Thank you for your insightful contribution.

I stand by it. By the 15th century the Empire was a feudal principality whose economy was dominated by Italian merchants.

Before then, it was a religious state who expressed a fanaticism and intolerance that the Ottoman Empire never displayed. Well. Before the whole Armenian thing, which is a bit different than Medieval religious dynamics.

[garbon]

Meh.  I love CK an awful lot but no one can deny its broken, and Byzantium perhaps worse than most.

Meh. I think it is just an example of what happens when you want to create a historically inspired sandbox game but don't really implement any initial historical conditions, constraints and motivations.  And that's generally been an issue with P'dox games but doubly one with CK as there were a lot of novel mechanisms that were implemented without being fully thought out.

Still a lovely, flawed gem.

[Barrister]

I stand by it. By the 15th century the Empire was a feudal principality whose economy was dominated by Italian merchants.

Before then, it was a religious state who expressed a fanaticism and intolerance that the Ottoman Empire never displayed. Well. Before the whole Armenian thing, which is a bit different than Medieval religious dynamics.

While I certainly have my own particular cast of historical heroes and villains, even I can acknowledge that that's complete sentimentality speaking and that rationally you can't ascribe any such terms as "deserved" when discussing pre-modern states.

[Valmy]

I stand by it. By the 15th century the Empire was a feudal principality whose economy was dominated by Italian merchants.

Before then, it was a religious state who expressed a fanaticism and intolerance that the Ottoman Empire never displayed. Well. Before the whole Armenian thing, which is a bit different than Medieval religious dynamics.

Um...the Ottoman Empire was a feudal principality dominated by first Slaves and then hereditary Pashas into the 19th century.  You are excusing that State for being feudal in the 19th century while ripping one for being worthless for being feudal during the actual Middle Ages?  Hilarious.

As for being religiously fanatical and intolerant...I beg to differ it was either of those things by the standards of the time.  It was the fact the Byzantines had a Mosque in Constatinople which was one of the primary factors in their 1204 disaster (if you recall the huge fire that swept through the city was started when the Western Crusaders burnt the Mosque down).  Yet it was because of their intolerance that they deserved 1204?

It seems like you hate the Byzantines for not being a modern Liberal state when they were neither.  They were a medieval state for godsake man.  Why don't you trash Plantagenet England for the same and say therefore England should never have existed?  Because that would make as much logical sense.

[garbon]

They deserved 1204 because they were weak.

[Valmy]

They deserved 1204 because they were weak.

That is true.