A comparison of sorts: John Tzimisces and Selim I Yavuz

John Tzimisces ruled over the Byzantine Empire (Romania) within the period of its medieval apex. He inherited arguably the most powerful army in the Mediterranean basin from his successors. The state was flourishing during a period of apparent demographic boom, and the military accomplishments of his reign reflect not only a state at the height of its military power, but also a climax in terms of population and economy. Simply put, John's military accomplishments mark him as one of the greatest of Byzantine Emperors. He conquered eastern Bulgaria, defeated and humbled a would-be Russian conqueror, and invaded Syria and Palestine with such force that contemporaries probably imagined a Roman army would reenter Jerusalem imminently.

Selim I Yavuz was an Ottoman Sultan of apparently equal military prowess, his victories include smashing a Persian army at Chaldiran in 1514. Following this, Selim was able to accomplish with an empire roughly equal in size to what John Tsimisces (and his successor, Basil II) ruled over: the conquest of Egypt. This stupendous, Empire forging conquest of Egypt had probably been contemplated with futility by many Byzantine Emperors, and yet Selim Yavuz accomplished just that in lightning campaign. Following a series of heavy victories for the Ottoman forces, Egypt was reintegrated into a Levantine world for the first time since the Byzantines lost it in the 7th century.


So my question is basically this: did late 10th century Byzantium (pic below) have military parity with the early 16th century Ottoman Empire?

This singular idea has been driving me up the wall lately. If John had lived longer, or perhaps, if Basil II hadn't held back the Byzantine army at Antioch, could it have accomplished similar deeds to what Selim gained?

(Byzantium of John Tzimisces)



(Ottoman Empire of Selim I Yavuz, roughly 1500ad)
 
I don't think John could accomplish what Selim had done.

1. By way of Chaldiran in 1514, Selim made sure Persia wouldn't invade OE while he dealt with Egypt. John wouldn't be able to do this...

2. Selim conquered Egypt by doing the one thing no other OE Sultan after him could do: he forced his army to winter in Syria, instead of returning to Constantinople. Could John do this with his army while,

3. The Bulgars are still dangerously staring at his open back...

Now, Basil II MIGHT be able to do this, but I must digress...back then armies are raised for only ONE campaign season only.
 
Now, Basil II MIGHT be able to do this, but I must digress...back then armies are raised for only ONE campaign season only.

Not quite. If I recall, in John's other eastern campaigns of the period, he simply kept his armies going and going, since there was no real need to disband them for wintertime.

Now, as for Egypt, at this stage the Fatimids are still relatively active and newly established, so I think that an outright conquest is unlikely. Still, if John holds power for a few more years (let's say he doesn't die in 976, but Basil still rises up to depose him in about 985), then the Muslim world is in line for a real hammering. The Abbasids at this time are miserably weak; so John might stand a reasonable chance of even reaching Baghdad itself. Though outright annexation is near impossible, I see Byzantine raids attacking even the capital itself.

So, we might see an extended East Roman Empire that occupies Palestine, Syria, and large chunks of northern Mesopotamia. But, as happens in my timeline (shameless bump!), I can't see the Byzantines holding on to all of this easily; it's just too indefensible. Basil II will be tied up defending all of John I's legacy, and if things do go pear shaped following Basil's death, the Empire is quite likely to lose these outlying provinces.
 
Not quite. If I recall, in John's other eastern campaigns of the period, he simply kept his armies going and going, since there was no real need to disband them for wintertime.

Now, as for Egypt, at this stage the Fatimids are still relatively active and newly established, so I think that an outright conquest is unlikely. Still, if John holds power for a few more years (let's say he doesn't die in 976, but Basil still rises up to depose him in about 985), then the Muslim world is in line for a real hammering. The Abbasids at this time are miserably weak; so John might stand a reasonable chance of even reaching Baghdad itself. Though outright annexation is near impossible, I see Byzantine raids attacking even the capital itself.

So, we might see an extended East Roman Empire that occupies Palestine, Syria, and large chunks of northern Mesopotamia. But, as happens in my timeline (shameless bump!), I can't see the Byzantines holding on to all of this easily; it's just too indefensible. Basil II will be tied up defending all of John I's legacy, and if things do go pear shaped following Basil's death, the Empire is quite likely to lose these outlying provinces.

There is simply no comparison between John's army and Selim's. The latter was 500 years later and totally superior in technology.

Selim had another serious advantage in that the Mameluke domains were Muslim, and thus useful. To the Byzantines, this would be a region full of hostile people from which they would gain little benefit.

As far as who was a better military commander, there's just no way to evaluate this - we just don't know enough about the respective contexts.

Both empires has some similar problems. For example, the Ottomans really needed different armies for both frontiers: an army optimized for fighting horse nomads in the east, and an army optimized for fighting gunpowder armed infantry in the West.

It wasn't possible to maintain two armies, so it had to be a compromise between the two while being ideal for neither.

I don't see the Byzantines raiding Baghdad - it's not really practicable due to distance, terrain, and logistics. I also don't see the Muslim world being "hammered". The Byzantines will find virtually no partisans supporting their rule, and virtual unanimity in resisting it, whereas a lot of people in the Mameluke Empire viewed the Ottomans as their only salvation against foreign interlopers.
 
I don't see the Byzantines raiding Baghdad - it's not really practicable due to distance, terrain, and logistics. I also don't see the Muslim world being "hammered". The Byzantines will find virtually no partisans supporting their rule, and virtual unanimity in resisting it, whereas a lot of people in the Mameluke Empire viewed the Ottomans as their only salvation against foreign interlopers.

And yet for much of the later tenth and well into the eleventh century, the Byzantines had a string of Islamic vassals along their frontiers in Syria and Mesopotamia. The late tenth century more or less represents the nadir for Islam prior to the arrival of the Turks and the conquest of Anatolia; the Rum had fully regained their position of the near eastern superpower. Witness the catalogue of defeats suffered by Islamic states at the hands of Constantinople in the tenth century; Crete in 961, Cilicia in 964, Cyprus in 965, and Syria in 969.

A commentator in the Fatimid court, Ibn Hawqal, wrote this.

"The field is left open to the Roman Empire. She has been able to sieze what was previously close to her, and to nurture ambitions that until recently would have been unthinkable".

The Romans could have quite easily siezed control over large portions of a disunited and dispirited Near East, whose population was probably not even majority Muslim yet. Indeed, Abdul, I might even compare it to the Ottoman takeover of the Balkans, filling the vacuum left over by the disasters of the late 12th century.
 
John Tzimisces ruled over the Byzantine Empire (Romania) within the period of its medieval apex. He inherited arguably the most powerful army in the Mediterranean basin from his successors. The state was flourishing during a period of apparent demographic boom, and the military accomplishments of his reign reflect not only a state at the height of its military power, but also a climax in terms of population and economy

I know you're saying it as much for effect as anything else, but the Byzantine economy and demographics peaked in the 13th century, not the 10th. While Tzimisces was definitely one of the greats, his reign did not coincide with the height of Byzantine affluence and prosperity.

Selim had another serious advantage in that the Mameluke domains were Muslim, and thus useful. To the Byzantines, this would be a region full of hostile people from which they would gain little benefit.

To echo Basileus, it's not like Egypt was entirely Muslim at this time. The conquest was, what, three hundred and fifty years old at this point? Large scale conversions have been on-going for only three or less centuries. I don't have a citation but for some reason I'm willing to believe there might have still been a majority or very large minority of Copts still present. I guarantee you that, after three centuries of numerical decline, old battles when it comes to Alexandria versus Constantinople will be easily forgotten, at least for a time.

Not, of course, that John or Basil are likely to enjoy the lucky circumstances that let Selim conquer Egypt so fast. But most of the Levant, probably even including Jerusalem? No doubt, if he got the opportunity. Of course, the butterflies vis western conquests are interesting. How will the shift of focus eastward effect the Byzantine reaction to the arrival of the Normans in southern Italy? Does an increased commitment to the Levant butterfly entirely even attempts at re-taking Sicily? Or does it make it more likely, with an army that is kept at a higher level of mobilization (while a large chunk of the army, the tagmata, were kept mobile the entire year round, the themata returned to their farms every year, and some years simply never fought)?

It's an interesting line of thought. Really any Mediterranean (or East Asian, for that matter) PoD in the 7th-12th century era is interesting, it was a pivotal time in world history. Western European ones, however, are sort of drawn out, the middle ages are really overdone ;)
 
Last edited:
Top