A Question About John I Tzimiskes

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?

Yes, but only if effort is put into it - effort at the expense of Bulgaria.

How long? Until the system rots as OTL, if things go well on that front.
 
Could they take Jerusalem? Probably. But keeping it for any real length of time would be a problem and a half unless you butterfly away the rise of the Seljuqs and keep another tribe from simply replacing them.
 
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.
 
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? :eek:
 
That doesn't sound like a move that would be terribly popular with the Rhomanian people, does it? :eek:

Nah not much... But i guess he wouldnt have a choice actually... He couldnt afford to spare troops in Jerusalem while Turks (or any other tribes) would move around Asia Minor...
 
Yes, but only if effort is put into it - effort at the expense of Bulgaria.
He had already conquered Bulgaria.
Elfwine said:
How long? Until the system rots as OTL, if things go well on that front.
Please explain.
I doubt they'd be particularly bothered. As far as Imperial ideology went, Jerusalem would be retaken in due course anyway.
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.
 
He had already conquered Bulgaria.

But keeping it that way would take a certain amount of effort and time - it did break free to bedevil Basil after John's death, which hardly suggests Bulgaria is fully subdued.

Please explain.
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.

If things go well here (Palestine, to use the old Roman name), there's no reason it would be any more vulnerable than anywhere else - but its going to suffer from the policies of that era.
 
Top