John's reign saw Roman forces range pretty far south into the Levant at times. Is at least a temporary recapture of Jerusalem possible? And if so, how long could the Romans hold onto their reconquests?
John's reign saw Roman forces range pretty far south into the Levant at times. Is at least a temporary recapture of Jerusalem possible? And if so, how long could the Romans hold onto their reconquests?
What the others have said. Jerusalem can be taken quite easily- John had no problem taking Damascus, for example. Whether there'll be the political will to hold it though is another matter- I suspect he'd probably ransom the Holy City back to the Fatimids.
That doesn't sound like a move that would be terribly popular with the Rhomanian people, does it?![]()
That doesn't sound like a move that would be terribly popular with the Rhomanian people, does it?![]()
He had already conquered Bulgaria.Yes, but only if effort is put into it - effort at the expense of Bulgaria.
Please explain.Elfwine said:How long? Until the system rots as OTL, if things go well on that front.
Actually, Byzantine chroniclers didn't have a particularly long memory in that regard. A guy I know is working on getting an article published that focuses on this very point: there's basically no evidence that Byzantine historians considered the reconquest of Kilikia, Syria, and Armenia in the tenth century to have been a reconquest.I doubt they'd be particularly bothered. As far as Imperial ideology went, Jerusalem would be retaken in due course anyway.
He had already conquered Bulgaria.
The period between 1025 and 1071 when the Byzantine/Rhomanian empire is going from the titan of the East to emperors more worried about military coups and cutting the costs of said army (for whatever reason/s) than the frontiers.Please explain.