alternatehistory.com

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)
Top