Serious Byzantine vs. Fatimid war after 1000

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Basileus Giorgios

That's just not true. To use another example, why did Heraclius make the conscious decision to entirely strip the Balkans of troops in an attempt to shore up the defences of Egypt in the seventh century. Save for Mesopotamia, Egypt really has no equal for wealth in the pre-modern Mediterranean world.

Conscious yes?erroneous?also yes,unless you believe that whatever Heraclius did was a 'panakeia' which I don't believe you do!It had been the policy of the emperors in proto-Byzantine period and a lot later to try and maintain the Eastern provinces well protected by stripping the Balcan north and western frontiers whereas the most devastating raids and movement of tribes came from the North and as the western countries were formed into states and started raiding the western parts and Italy,the empire was heavily committed in the East...I will not go into details I think you know;...

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by cimon

Conscious yes?erroneous?also yes,unless you believe that whatever Heraclius did was a 'panakeia' which I don't believe you do!It had been the policy of the emperors in proto-Byzantine period and a lot later to try and maintain the Eastern provinces well protected by stripping the Balcan north and western frontiers whereas the most devastating raids and movement of tribes came from the North and as the western countries were formed into states and started raiding the western parts and Italy,the empire was heavily committed in the East...I will not go into details I think you know;...

I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly. My fundamental point is that the East- Cilicia, Syria, Cyprus, Palestine and Egypt will always be more economically important to the ERE than the comparatively poor Balkans ever could be. The region is much, much less agriculturally productive, it has few major trade routes, and next to no big pilgrimage sites. Rural life was in decline in the region from the fourth century onwards, and the entire medieval history of the Balkan peninsula is one of invasion and war. It's difficult to see how this can be put off- the region faces onto the Eurasian steppe, after all.

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Basileus Giorgios

I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly. My fundamental point is that the East- Cilicia, Syria, Cyprus, Palestine and Egypt will always be more economically important to the ERE than the comparatively poor Balkans ever could be. The region is much, much less agriculturally productive, it has few major trade routes, and next to no big pilgrimage sites. Rural life was in decline in the region from the fourth century onwards, and the entire medieval history of the Balkan peninsula is one of invasion and war. It's difficult to see how this can be put off- the region faces onto the Eurasian steppe, after all.

The southern Balcans BG is one of the three of four most strategic locations on earth;it connects three continents and and its sea routes dominate access to Africa Europe and Asia from the ancient times(see importance of Constantinople);it has been the opinion of strategists for very long judging and from the events in the aerea;the fact that is so strategically important is also the reason of how many tribes that later formed nations tried to enter or raid the aerea since the great migrations of the fourth century;that was mainly the reason of the importance of the Danube as its natural barrier.If The line of Danube was well protected rural life in the Balcans would have been at its peak.The Roman emperors liked to have their country villas in the Balcans(exampleiocletian etc) but they never fortified enough the Danube to protect the region.
The Middle East contains extensive forms of desert in many places and Egypt has good production in the Nile Delta but extensive desert west and east of the Delta as well as in the south and deserts are unproductive; palestine is a poor soil area and libanon is limited;Messopotamia is better favoured,but that was only partially and at times under Roman rule.Romans were not sea people but the sea can be more productive than the land because apart from food it boosts commerce which was by far safer than travelling by land;Eastern Mediterranean was richer than Europe not because it had greater agricultural production,but because it had very advanced commerce and Industry whose products were safely transported by ships.You pay a lot of attention to agricultural production and you don't pay attention to the fact that Rome's decline and fall was essentially the fact that it remained an agrarian society unable to promote
other forms of development since it would be contrary to the interests of the latifundia owners,so was also medieval Europe and was backward for hundreds of years.

[Consul Arrianus]

Originally Posted by cimon

The southern Balcans BG is one of the three of four most strategic locations on earth;it connects three continents and and its sea routes dominate access to Africa Europe and Asia from the ancient times(see importance of Constantinople);it has been the opinion of strategists for very long judging and from the events in the aerea;the fact that is so strategically important is also the reason of how many tribes that later formed nations tried to enter or raid the aerea since the great migrations of the fourth century;that was mainly the reason of the importance of the Danube as its natural barrier.If The line of Danube was well protected rural life in the Balcans would have been at its peak.The Roman emperors liked to have their country villas in the Balcans(exampleiocletian etc) but they never fortified enough the Danube to protect the region.
The Middle East contains extensive forms of desert in many places and Egypt has good production in the Nile Delta but extensive desert west and east of the Delta as well as in the south and deserts are unproductive; palestine is a poor soil area and libanon is limited;Messopotamia is better favoured,but that was only partially and at times under Roman rule.Romans were not sea people but the sea can be more productive than the land because apart from food it boosts commerce which was by far safer than travelling by land;Eastern Mediterranean was richer than Europe not because it had greater agricultural production,but because it had very advanced commerce and Industry whose products were safely transported by ships.You pay a lot of attention to agricultural production and you don't pay attention to the fact that Rome's decline and fall was essentially the fact that it remained an agrarian society unable to promote
other forms of development since it would be contrary to the interests of the latifundia owners,so was also medieval Europe and was backward for hundreds of years.

1.Constantinople isn't such important, the Maramara is it, Constantine could have easily choosen Nicomedia instead of Byzantium

2. I don't think the tribes had a real strategic plan where to settle.

3. After the loss of Egypt the supply of grain of Constantinople was is danger and the population decreased.

4. BTW: The Balkan was one of the first region the Empire lost and noone was willing to invest much resources to regian it, which tells us much about the importance of the Balkan to the Empire.

5. Wasn't Diocletian born in the Balkan? then he just wanted to go home and Split is such a beatifull place.

6. now i will list up the ERE provinces beginning with the most important: 1. Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Balkan. Even after the loss of Egypt and Syria Anatolia was far more important than the Balkan which was nearly completally lost.

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Consul Arrianus

1.Constantinople isn't such important, the Maramara is it, Constantine could have easily choosen Nicomedia instead of Byzantium

2. I don't think the tribes had a real strategic plan where to settle.

3. After the loss of Egypt the supply of grain of Constantinople was is danger and the population decreased.

4. BTW: The Balkan was one of the first region the Empire lost and noone was willing to invest much resources to regian it, which tells us much about the importance of the Balkan to the Empire.

5. Wasn't Diocletian born in the Balkan? then he just wanted to go home and Split is such a beatifull place.

6. now i will list up the ERE provinces beginning with the most important: 1. Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Balkan. Even after the loss of Egypt and Syria Anatolia was far more important than the Balkan which was nearly completally lost.

We have seen that written,it is boring to repeat;the argument is why the Balcans were in such condition,and why tjhe Romans(of Rome) had not the slightest inclination about strategic defence.
The tribes didn't have a plan,or actually they did:go for the richest plunder and soil(if they wanted to settle).
The importance of tese provinces maight or might not be valid if Syria and Egypt belonged to byzantium but they were lost in the seventh century.
because the populations were so opressed by the Orthodox church that they would rather have Arab conquerors than Byzantine masters.
The Balcans were not the first to be lost,but the first to be undefended.
Egypt and Syria were the first to be lost actually and and they were never recovered,not the Balcans.

[Consul Arrianus]

An empire which "had not the slightest inclination about strategic defence" lasted about 2000 years

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Consul Arrianus

An empire which "had not the slightest inclination about strategic defence" lasted about 2000 years

Is that a fact? Rome became an empire in the first century BC and just don't delude yourself in confusing the rich and advanced east to the poor and backward west;never had anything in common...

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Consul Arrianus

An empire which "had not the slightest inclination about strategic defence" lasted about 2000 years

Rome became an empire in the first century BC abd finished in 476 BC.If someone thinks that the rich,populous and advanced East had any ralation to the poor and backward west is under a delusion...