I hadn't seen a real one in a while.
QuoteThey certainly were oppressive and often incredibly narrow minded jerks with a love for cruel and unusual punishments, however, if you look at them from a modern perspective then their economical and technological status makes them popular. Sort of like, if I was to be a medieval ruler, I would want to be the Emperor of Byzantium because he's got all the cool stuff and the money. They also were an interesting blend of rationality on one side (technology, urbanism, taking no shit from the pope) and total obscurantism on the other side (fanatical monks, obscure theological disputes paralyzing the state for decades, knee-jerk rejection of everything Latin). The weird mix of rationality and obscurantism, of imperialistic might and total civil war, allows you to go and make for yourself the image that you want to have of the Byzantines.
Also you can't argue with the fact that after their fall, southeastern Europe went into pretty much 600 years of shit. First Latin "crusaders" who give a shit about local customs and just milk the place for money and taxes, then a succession of weak Slavic kingdoms that produced one good king and then fell apart again, and then of course the Turks who pretty much turned the Christian Balkan peoples into history-less helots. Between the 15th and 19th century, Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek history pretty much has nothing to tell except for "the turks did this to us, then they did that, some of us fled here, others there".
You can't help wondering, what if Byzantium survived as ain independent major state into the renaissance? The way things went, you today have Russia as champion of orthodox / eastern Christianity but Russia missed out on most aspects of "modernity" (renaissance, enlightenment, human rights, etc) until the 20th century. You could see Byzantium as the one that never got a chance to be the champion but who could have done an immensely better job at spreading civilization and what we (in Christian Europe) understand as modernity.
Byzantium was a badass medieval state and all but I fail to see what would have been so great about it living on into the modern era. Could it really have been better as a center of culture than the Ottoman Empire? Doubtful.
Anyway what was that insanity from? The EU boards?
QuoteRussia missed out on most aspects of "modernity" (renaissance, enlightenment, human rights, etc) until the 23rd century.
:lmfao:
Fixed that.
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2009, 10:17:30 AM
Anyway what was that insanity from? The EU boards?
Yes, a recent post in CK forum.
Sounds like some Liberal Arts major trying to emulate some of the Hahvahd talking heads he heard on TV.
I like the thesis that the "fall" of the Empire (I assume the writer meant "start of the last decline") coincided with some sort of decline of Southeastern Europe - when from around 700 AD to this fall the area declined economically, population wise, and in other ways. The myths of the Urban Byzantine Empire are also here too... it might have been so in 600 AD, but not in 1000 AD.
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2009, 10:17:30 AM
Byzantium was a badass medieval state and all but I fail to see what would have been so great about it living on into the modern era. Could it really have been better as a center of culture than the Ottoman Empire? Doubtful.
Anyway what was that insanity from? The EU boards?
Now on the one hand if it had lived on into the really modern era (today) it would have eventually morphed into a Greek nation-state. With almost certainty a much larger nation-state than current Greece, but a nation-state no less.
Would it have been a better center of culture - well yes? It's hard to argue that up until the end it was an important center or learning, culture, and the arts, right up to 1453. Hell I've read the thesis that the scholars of Constantinople that fled post-1453 that really spurred the Renaissance.
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 scholars that went West helped Greek scholarship immensely, but they did not spur the Renaissance. I think that the Renaissance scholars living a century before would take a little umbrage at this...
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 10:49:45 AM
Would it have been a better center of culture - well yes? It's hard to argue that up until the end it was an important center or learning, culture, and the arts, right up to 1453. Hell I've read the thesis that the scholars of Constantinople that fled post-1453 that really spurred the Renaissance.
Actually the last 100 years of the Empire, culture wise, were in many respects it's brightest.
I think that, ironically, had to do with the fertilization that living besides lots of foreigners (Western Crusaders and Italian merchants on one hand and Turkish invaders on the other) provided.
Quote from: PDH on May 28, 2009, 10:55:27 AM
The scholars that went West helped Greek scholarship immensely, but they did not spur the Renaissance. I think that the Renaissance scholars living a century before would take a little umbrage at this...
I think the Greeks had been interacting with the Italians since 1204 had a large contribution to that...or rather were co-participants. The Greeks had their own renaissance during that era as well just prior to their final collapse.
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2009, 10:17:30 AM
Byzantium was a badass medieval state and all but I fail to see what would have been so great about it living on into the modern era. Could it really have been better as a center of culture than the Ottoman Empire? Doubtful.
I'd be optimistic about that. for one, I doubt the government would have outlawed the printing press.
there would be books in large circulation, and with that, many more possibilities for a healthy public intellectual life.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fantasticfiction.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fc4%2Fc23433.jpg&hash=f7bfb7d10b5d1734c69792360e5eb18be05d134c)
What would Alternative History Belisarius have to say about this?
Quote from: saskganesh on May 28, 2009, 11:33:52 AM
I'd be optimistic about that. for one, I doubt the government would have outlawed the printing press.
there would be books in large circulation, and with that, many more possibilities for a healthy public intellectual life.
Oh right. I had forgotten about that boneheaded move by the Ottoman government.
Edit: but wait didn't that only apply to printing in Arabic letters? Since they were the language of the Holy Quran or something superstitious like that?
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2009, 11:36:17 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 28, 2009, 11:33:52 AM
I'd be optimistic about that. for one, I doubt the government would have outlawed the printing press.
there would be books in large circulation, and with that, many more possibilities for a healthy public intellectual life.
Oh right. I had forgotten about that boneheaded move by the Ottoman government.
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.
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 28, 2009, 11:42:21 AM
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 28, 2009, 11:45:13 AM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 11:45:41 AM
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. :bleeding:
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 10:49:45 AM
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 28, 2009, 11:45:13 AM
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. :blush:
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.
Quote from: garbon on May 28, 2009, 12:10:20 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on May 28, 2009, 12:10:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2009, 12:12:49 PM
Well it kinda sorta almost did.
Which was my response in the thread. :hug:
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2009, 11:49:36 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 11:45:41 AM
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. :bleeding:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 12:12:03 PM
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. :wub:
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 12:20:50 PM
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.
:rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 12:20:50 PM
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.
They deserved 1204 because they were weak.
Quote from: garbon on May 28, 2009, 12:31:46 PM
They deserved 1204 because they were weak.
That is true.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 12:01:26 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 28, 2009, 11:45:13 AM
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. :blush:
sure. but here's the thing. by outsourcing their navy in the 12th century, the Byzantines not only set themselves up for 1204 (which I think is the best point of convergence), but also established themselves as a branch plant for the economy of some other city state. first Venice, then Genoa. culture is fed by a strong economy, but strong economies are also fed by culture. so I think the Florentian, Ventian, Pisan economies would continue to be the leading catalysts for the Renaissance and more impactful than the Byzantine rump.
now, Byz, being in the western orbit, would have a greater, western, infuence on Moscow. however, if the "Empire" had not fallen, would the Russians have been as interested in identifying themselves with the Byzantines? maybe the Russians would have been disgusted by the Byzantine compacts with the Pope and claimed the Byzantine heritage anyway. And as true defenders of the Orthodox church and the true Byzantine state, they would have the extra incentive to liberate Constantinople. And barring the Ottoman navy, and the Ottoman support for Crimean Tartars, they'll get ports (maybe some Genoese ones) on the Sea of Azov a bit quicker.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 12:20:50 PM
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.
:rolleyes:
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.
With everyone but the Byzantines, that's entirely true. More seriously, I just don't get the appeal for the place.
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2009, 12:26:54 PM
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.
I don't know why you're calling the Ottomans a feudal state; the empire was astonishingly centralized in the 15th-17th centuries. Plus, this statement of Suleiman's is sufficiently awesome that he beats every Baesilus.
"I am the Slave of God, master of the world, I am Suleyman and my name is read in all the prayers in all the cities of Islam. I am the Shah of Baghdad and Iraq, Caesar of all the lands of Rome, and the Sultan of Egypt. I seized the Hungarian crown and gave it to the least of my slaves. "
The Ottomans rebuilt Constantinople, turning it back into the Queen of Cities. And while Constantinople had a mosque, its record on ruling Muslims in the areas the Byzantines briefly conquered was... not so hot.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 01:19:35 PM
With everyone but the Byzantines, that's entirely true. More seriously, I just don't get the appeal for the place.
:blink:
What's not to get? It's the direct descendent to the Roman Empire right up to 1204, or even 1453. How many other political entities survived in excess of 1000 years like Roma/Constantinople did? Even fairly old nations like France or England have nowhere near the lifespan of Byzantium.
It's politics and history are so deliciously wacky they make for great reading.
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 01:25:13 PM
It's politics and history are so deliciously wacky they make for great reading.
Everyone enjoys a good rousing round of eyeball-gouging. :D
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 01:23:13 PM
"I am the Slave of God, master of the world, I am Suleyman and my name is read in all the prayers in all the cities of Islam. I am the Shah of Baghdad and Iraq, Caesar of all the lands of Rome, and the Sultan of Egypt. I seized the Hungarian crown and gave it to the least of my slaves. "
All that is missing is "look on my works, ye mighty, and dispair". :D
Quote from: Malthus on May 28, 2009, 01:26:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 01:25:13 PM
It's politics and history are so deliciously wacky they make for great reading.
Everyone enjoys a good rousing round of eyeball-gouging. :D
That, and nose-splitting. :D
I like all the different "forms" of castration.
what's not to be fascinated by?
eunuch generals, novel tortures, mechanical thrones, secret weapons, a decadent court, international espionage, a government-dominated economy.
it's like China was in Europe.
For one, Byz would not be saddled with all the backward crap like Egypt, Iraq, and North Africa. If it survived into the 19th century with its borders relatively intact, I would say it would have become a more enlightened version of Russia but with Serbs and Bulgarians causing internal trouble instead of Poles and Balts. It would probably also industrialize earlier and could become a competitor to Britain in Middle Eastern imperialism. Then there's also the question if Habsburg Austria would have developed like it did if it did not have the Turks knocking on its gates for two centuries (actually I suspect the focus would simply move east and Byz would become the new "Austria" in this scenario).
Quote from: Solmyr on May 28, 2009, 01:48:03 PM
It would probably also industrialize earlier and could become a competitor to Britain in Middle Eastern imperialism.
:blink:
Quote from: Solmyr on May 28, 2009, 01:48:03 PM
For one, Byz would not be saddled with all the backward crap like Egypt, Iraq, and North Africa. If it survived into the 19th century with its borders relatively intact, I would say it would have become a more enlightened version of Russia but with Serbs and Bulgarians causing internal trouble instead of Poles and Balts. It would probably also industrialize earlier and could become a competitor to Britain in Middle Eastern imperialism. Then there's also the question if Habsburg Austria would have developed like it did if it did not have the Turks knocking on its gates for two centuries (actually I suspect the focus would simply move east and Byz would become the new "Austria" in this scenario).
Great. Eyeball gouging, nose splitting and castration on an industrial scale. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 01:25:13 PM
What's not to get? It's the direct descendent to the Roman Empire right up to 1204, or even 1453. How many other political entities survived in excess of 1000 years like Roma/Constantinople did?
Hell yes. Almost continuously on the decline, but just the death throes of the Roman Empire lasted 1000 years.
Quote from: Malthus on May 28, 2009, 02:04:01 PM
Great. Eyeball gouging, nose splitting and castration on an industrial scale. ;)
[/quote]
"Do your part, Keep an eye out for Greece!"
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 01:56:54 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 28, 2009, 01:48:03 PM
It would probably also industrialize earlier and could become a competitor to Britain in Middle Eastern imperialism.
:blink:
Yeah, I don't think so either. From what I know of Byzantine economics, there's no way they could have managed that. I don't see industrialization happening at all without a total transformation of state economic policy. Maybe if the Italian merchants they relied so much on could have been able to exploit any expanded territories outside of the normal imperial economic framework or something like that. They were just too inflexible economically to adjust to the changing times.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2009, 02:49:11 PM
Yeah, I don't think so either. From what I know of Byzantine economics, there's no way they could have managed that. I don't see industrialization happening at all without a total transformation of state economic policy. Maybe if the Italian merchants they relied so much on could have been able to exploit any expanded territories outside of the normal imperial economic framework or something like that. They were just too inflexible economically to adjust to the changing times.
We are talking some 600 years of alternate economic development.
My guess is that the Byzantines would be hamstrung by the same problems as the Ottomans, but who knows?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 02:51:19 PM
We are talking some 600 years of alternate economic development.
My guess is that the Byzantines would be hamstrung by the same problems as the Ottomans, but who knows?
Yeah. My indredulity was at the word "probably". Maybs it'd happen that way, but 600+ years of alt-history means there's no such thing as "probably".
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 02:58:07 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 02:51:19 PM
We are talking some 600 years of alternate economic development.
My guess is that the Byzantines would be hamstrung by the same problems as the Ottomans, but who knows?
Yeah. My indredulity was at the word "probably". Maybs it'd happen that way, but 600+ years of alt-history means there's no such thing as "probably".
The way they ran their economy and how it served to prop up their legacy system, creating a self-perpetuating (though highly stable) state makes me think that any change that would make possible the kind of expansion he described would be very difficult to accomplish outside of outright civil war. There would have to be some massive transformational event some time in those 600 years with the side effect of completely changing the economic structure before this could be possible, IMO.
One of the great sins of the internet is the proliferation of the Byzantine fanboy. Without the internet, they are kept in check by jocks and others that would give them atomic wedgies and swirlies. But allowed to communicate over the interwho, their numbers grow beyond their natural limits, without threat of their natural predators.
-From Prof. Monc E. Butt's forthcoming book "How the Internet Ruins Society", Outofmyass Press, 2009
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2009, 03:11:47 PM
One of the great sins of the internet is the proliferation of the Byzantine fanboy. Without the internet, they are kept in check by jocks and others that would give them atomic wedgies and swirlies. But allowed to communicate over the interwho, their numbers grow beyond their natural limits, without threat of their natural predators.
-From Prof. Monc E. Butt's forthcoming book "How the Internet Ruins Society", Outofmyass Press, 2009
Yeah, even the First Crusade pilgrims-in-arms thought they were a bunch of sissies dressing in robes and totally lacking any sort of manliness. :boff:
Well, the fact that basileus Alexis closed the city's door on their nose, refused to supply them of food for a while, and attempted by every and all means to have any land conquered by the Crusaders given back to Byzantium did not help the sheep-buggers, PR-wise.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2009, 03:11:47 PM
-From Prof. Monc E. Butt's forthcoming book "How the Internet Ruins Society", Outofmyass Press, 2009
"One of the greatest reads in the last 2800 years - way better than Socrates."
-PDH, history dude
all Socrates wrote was FAQs anyway. and he needed help.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 28, 2009, 03:50:22 PM
all Socrates wrote was FAQs anyway. and he needed help.
Final Fantasy FAQ's.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2009, 03:06:06 PM
The way they ran their economy and how it served to prop up their legacy system, creating a self-perpetuating (though highly stable) state makes me think that any change that would make possible the kind of expansion he described would be very difficult to accomplish outside of outright civil war. There would have to be some massive transformational event some time in those 600 years with the side effect of completely changing the economic structure before this could be possible, IMO.
I'm actually not so sure of this. Before the 4th Crusade, things were getting... weird is the only way to put it. There were a lot of signs that Byzantium was in the middle of hthe economic boom that you saw in Italy around this time and later. Monemvasia was developing a lot of institutions that seemed very similar to those of Genoa, Venice, and the other Italian city-states, for instance.
When did they relax the rules about professions being hereditary? Or did they?
That alone basically outlawed economic growth while ensuring that the expenses of the state would grow exponentially (the extra sons went in the army). So the state had to constantly divest its land to pay for itself.
If they did ditch that system at some point (I'm not an expert, I don't know), then there might have been hope for them.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 02:51:19 PM
We are talking some 600 years of alternate economic development.
My guess is that the Byzantines would be hamstrung by the same problems as the Ottomans, but who knows?
More Byzantines would have been literate in the 11th Century than Muslims in Turkey around 1850. I pretty seriously doubt that. I don't think they would have developed quite as quickly as the west, but they'd probably catch some of the Renaissance fever and start building on it like the West. Just a guess though. They would not have had the same imperatives as the Ottomans to maintain ethnic disunity in the Balkans, so there might've been some kind of Drang nach Nordern for the Byzantines if they had maintained some kind of stability (say if Basil II didn't kill all the Armenian lords protecting the borderlands).
I think the problems of the Byzantines going forward from a different start of the last millennium would have been the fact that the effectively socialist economy was going to face increasing competition from Italian and various Arab mercantile interests at some point, and maintaining the borders is pretty tough, especially as the Armenians that provided the best 1/5th of the army and lived on the borders were almost as likely to kill Greeks as Muslims.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 01:23:13 PM
I don't know why you're calling the Ottomans a feudal state; the empire was astonishingly centralized in the 15th-17th centuries. Plus, this statement of Suleiman's is sufficiently awesome that he beats every Baesilus.
Um...the military system was based on a Feudal model. The Sipahis were a Feudal cavalry force. The Ottomans had large parts of their Empire that had no allegiance at all to the Sultan beyond supplying ships or troops in time of war.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 28, 2009, 01:19:35 PM
With everyone but the Byzantines, that's entirely true. More seriously, I just don't get the appeal for the place.
It is a Medieval state with intrigue, wars, and other various entertaining things. I guess I do not understand why it is ok to say, find Medieval England or Medieval France appealing but pisses you off to find Medieval Greece appealing. You also have the Byzantines (or at least their ruling Dynasty) close connection to the early Italian Renaissance, the Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire which make them historically interesting.
Medieval England. :wub:
Really...England. :wub:
Quote from: Drakken on May 28, 2009, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2009, 03:11:47 PM
One of the great sins of the internet is the proliferation of the Byzantine fanboy. Without the internet, they are kept in check by jocks and others that would give them atomic wedgies and swirlies. But allowed to communicate over the interwho, their numbers grow beyond their natural limits, without threat of their natural predators.
-From Prof. Monc E. Butt's forthcoming book "How the Internet Ruins Society", Outofmyass Press, 2009
Yeah, even the First Crusade pilgrims-in-arms thought they were a bunch of sissies dressing in robes and totally lacking any sort of manliness. :boff:
Well, the fact that basileus Alexis closed the city's door on their nose, refused to supply them of food for a while, and attempted by every and all means to have any land conquered by the Crusaders given back to Byzantium did not help the sheep-buggers, PR-wise.
I highly doubt Alexius being nice to the First Crusaders would make Byzanteen fanboys less of a scourge on the Internet.
Quote from: garbon on May 28, 2009, 11:56:27 PM
Medieval England. :wub:
Really...England. :wub:
:bowler:
Indeed.
They'd best let me into their country! :angry:
Quote from: Valmy on May 28, 2009, 11:52:05 PM
Um...the military system was based on a Feudal model. The Sipahis were a Feudal cavalry force. The Ottomans had large parts of their Empire that had no allegiance at all to the Sultan beyond supplying ships or troops in time of war. What do you mean by 'astonishingly centralized'?
? The military system was emphatically not based on the feudal model. As evidence of this, I cite its ability to utterly trash the feudal armies of Europe in every substantive engagement well into the 16th (and arguably 17th) century, to the point where Charles V's reaction to the Ottoman force besieging Vienna was to run for the hills.
The Sipahids are only feudal if you think the Byzantine Theamtic system was also feudal. And of course the Janissaries were a standing military force under the government's control.
QuoteRecord by what standard? By the standard of feudal Kingdoms? I doubt it. Again I find it hilarious the Ottoman's get a pass and the Byzantines do not. You are simply moving the goal posts around.
Compared to the Ottomans of course, or even contemporary Muslims.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2009, 12:03:07 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 28, 2009, 11:56:27 PM
Medieval England. :wub:
Really...England. :wub:
:bowler:
Indeed.
You're a Francophile. You don't get to idealize England. <_<
Quote from: Faeelin on May 29, 2009, 12:04:18 AM
? The military system was emphatically not based on the feudal model. As evidence of this, I cite its ability to utterly trash the feudal armies of Europe in every substantive engagement well into the 16th (and arguably 17th) century, to the point where Charles V's reaction to the Ottoman force besieging Vienna was to run for the hills.
That simply means it is a good army but it certainly was feudal. The feudal system the Ottoman's ran was excellent because it had a professional core of slave soldiers backing them up. The Europeans all copied this.
I fail to see what being good has to do with being feudal.
QuoteCompared to the Ottomans of course, or even contemporary Muslims.
I was comparing them to other Christian States. Anyway the Dhimmi laws were copied almost verbatem from the Byzantine laws against Jews.
QuoteThe Sipahids are only feudal if you think the Byzantine Theamtic system was also feudal. And of course the Janissaries were a standing military force under the government's control.
Yes I believe I said something about it being a 'slave and fuedal' army earlier.
Just like the Sipahids the Theme system certainly became Feudal over time, with hereditary leaders carving out their power centers. It was a huge and constant problem for both Empires. It was the result of this problem the Byzantines made the idiotic decision to try to rely on a professional mercenary Army. Feudalism was simply unavoidable in that era I think. The problem for the Ottoman's was they were still running this system right up into the 19th century.
Heck even the Janissaries eventually became a hereditary noble class instead of a professional corps.
Today (May 29th) is the day Byzantium died. :cry:
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2009, 12:07:40 AM
You're a Francophile. You don't get to idealize England. <_<
:yes:
You get to surrender repeatedly and quickly, though :)
Quote from: Drakken on May 29, 2009, 12:41:41 AM
Today (May 29th) is the day Byzantium died. :cry:
neat. what cocktails should be mixed?
Quote from: saskganesh on May 29, 2009, 07:41:23 AM
neat. what cocktails should be mixed?
I would suggest the Aegean Sunset. :)
my sister suggested pomegranete martinis
Quote from: Drakken on May 29, 2009, 12:41:41 AM
Today (May 29th) is the day Byzantium died. :cry:
I believe I will grill out and have hotdogs, burgers and lemonade. I will toast the agony of the byzantinetard.
Quote from: Caliga on May 29, 2009, 05:32:19 AM
:yes:
You get to surrender repeatedly and quickly, though :)
Merde!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2009, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 28, 2009, 01:56:54 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 28, 2009, 01:48:03 PM
It would probably also industrialize earlier and could become a competitor to Britain in Middle Eastern imperialism.
:blink:
Yeah, I don't think so either. From what I know of Byzantine economics, there's no way they could have managed that. I don't see industrialization happening at all without a total transformation of state economic policy. Maybe if the Italian merchants they relied so much on could have been able to exploit any expanded territories outside of the normal imperial economic framework or something like that. They were just too inflexible economically to adjust to the changing times.
Well, it depends on the cutoff period of course. After all, if fragmented Germany could unite and industrialize under state control so fast (enough to overtake Britain), why couldn't Byzantium?
I don't think the Reich's control of the economy was nearly as great as the Empire's.
before we go further down this rabbit hole, what were the dynamic factors for German industrialisation and could Byzantinople suitably mimick those?
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 29, 2009, 08:25:42 AM
I believe I will grill out and have hotdogs, burgers and lemonade. I will toast the agony of the byzantinetard.
I will fire up EU3 just to play a game as the Ottomans in 1399. No AAR will follow.