AHC: Create a stable political system for the Byzantine Empire

Funny how every time they rose up they talked about wanting to take Constantinople. Almost like they wanted to be the true Romans.

The title of the Bulgarian tsars were for a long time Emperor of the Bulgarians and sometimes Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Romans when did conquered some lands with large Greek inhabitation.As for wanting to take Constantinople,everybody wanted to do that.Even the Turks did.Taking Constantinople and claiming to be the Emperor of the Romans gave a ruler some sort of claim to be the universal ruler.
 

Spengler

Banned
Yeah it did. Helped when said Bulgarians or later Serbs had their beurocracy learning greek, and based their systems of government after Rome. Maybe because they wanted to be Romans.
 
Yeah it did. Helped when said Bulgarians or later Serbs had their beurocracy learning greek, and based their systems of government after Rome. Maybe because they wanted to be Romans.

They were learning Greek,but that doesn't mean they think they are Romans.The Japanese bureaucracy also learned Chinese and based their government system on the Tang Dynasty,that doesn't mean they think they are Chinese.That's the point I'm trying to distinguish here.The Bulgarians and the Japanese were willing to adopt the practices of another culture,but they were far from willing to consider themselves the same people as their mentors.A successful assimilation would result in a conquered people thinking they were part of the people of the conquerors all along.E.g. Look at the people of Southern China,much of Southern China was conquered during Han Dynasty.Most people in Southern China thinks that they were Chinese all along despite most likely having ancestors that were from Nanyue,Baiyue etc etc.
 
I guess we have different gauges on assimilation.

There's really no point in having people learn your language,military and government systems unless you want them to think they are the same people as yours--otherwise all you are doing is making a stronger potential enemy.
 
As others have stated, the Byzantine Empire was a remarkably durable state. Certainly there were ways in which specific episodes of instability or specific civil wars could have been avoided, but given the limited resources of a pre-modern state I consider them to have done remarkably well.

As for "assimilation," I don't consider the Byzantines to have "failed" in any remarkable respect. Ethnicity is not written on the hearts of men - it is a created thing. One must be taught to be Bulgarian, Greek, or "Roman." Being a pre-modern state, the Byzantine Empire did not have the capacity to teach a culture wholly out of existence as is now possible with modern bureaucracy, education, and media. No doubt things would have been easier if Basil II could have marched his Imperial Scholastic Corps into the public schools of 11th century Bulgaria to teach everyone how to be a good Roman and make sure nobody spoke a word of Bulgarian during school hours before sending them home to watch "The Adventures of Young Constantine" on the TV (broadcast entirely in Greek). It seems to me that for a pre-modern society they did a very good job of using ethnic minorities in service to the state and investing them in the imperial project - just look at the outsize role the Armenians played in the empire's long history.

In any case, focusing on the "assimilation failure" angle is too blinkered and arguably puts too much importance on proto-nationalism. The Second Bulgarian Empire, for instance, began as a tax revolt, was started by men who had been refused the imperial grants they wanted, and would have been stillborn had it not been for the massive intervention of foreign military forces. Why choose "failure to assimilate Bulgarians/Vlachs" as the cause of that rather than, say, "failure to secure the borders against the Cumans" or "failure to maintain a manageable tax burden on the people" or "failure to properly satisfy applicants for imperial grants?"
 
As others have stated, the Byzantine Empire was a remarkably durable state. Certainly there were ways in which specific episodes of instability or specific civil wars could have been avoided, but given the limited resources of a pre-modern state I consider them to have done remarkably well.

As for "assimilation," I don't consider the Byzantines to have "failed" in any remarkable respect. Ethnicity is not written on the hearts of men - it is a created thing. One must be taught to be Bulgarian, Greek, or "Roman." Being a pre-modern state, the Byzantine Empire did not have the capacity to teach a culture wholly out of existence as is now possible with modern bureaucracy, education, and media. No doubt things would have been easier if Basil II could have marched his Imperial Scholastic Corps into the public schools of 11th century Bulgaria to teach everyone how to be a good Roman and make sure nobody spoke a word of Bulgarian during school hours before sending them home to watch "The Adventures of Young Constantine" on the TV (broadcast entirely in Greek). It seems to me that for a pre-modern society they did a very good job of using ethnic minorities in service to the state and investing them in the imperial project - just look at the outsize role the Armenians played in the empire's long history.

In any case, focusing on the "assimilation failure" angle is too blinkered and arguably puts too much importance on proto-nationalism. The Second Bulgarian Empire, for instance, began as a tax revolt, was started by men who had been refused the imperial grants they wanted, and would have been stillborn had it not been for the massive intervention of foreign military forces. Why choose "failure to assimilate Bulgarians/Vlachs" as the cause of that rather than, say, "failure to secure the borders against the Cumans" or "failure to maintain a manageable tax burden on the people" or "failure to properly satisfy applicants for imperial grants?"
So how do you explain why the Classical Roman Empire was able to Romanise it's subjects quite effectively?Evidently,the ERE has lost it's ability to assimilate people of different ethnicity as effectively as it was able to in it's past.

Arguably,the auxiliary corps of the classical Empire was a form of 'school' where non-citizens were taught the language,Romanized and then given citizenship.

The soft power of the Roman Empire has definitely gone down dramatically from the days of Trajan.
 
Last edited:
So how do you explain why the Classical Roman Empire was able to Romanise it's subjects quite effectively?Evidently,the ERE has lost it's ability to assimilate people of different ethnicity as effectively as it was able to in it's past.

A good question, and not one I have a ready answer for.

When it comes to the Bulgarians specifically, it's probably worth noting that the time frame in which Constantinople controlled all of "Bulgaria" south of the Danube was relatively short, the less-than-two-centuries between the two Bulgarian empires (1018-1185). For comparison, how "Romanized" was, say, Gaul c. 100 AD?

(That isn't a rhetorical question, I actually don't know)
 
A good question, and not one I have a ready answer for.

When it comes to the Bulgarians specifically, it's probably worth noting that the time frame in which Constantinople controlled all of "Bulgaria" south of the Danube was relatively short, the less-than-two-centuries between the two Bulgarian empires (1018-1185). For comparison, how "Romanized" was, say, Gaul c. 100 AD?

(That isn't a rhetorical question, I actually don't know)
IIRC,Gaul was fairly Romanized by 100 AD.
 
A good question, and not one I have a ready answer for.

When it comes to the Bulgarians specifically, it's probably worth noting that the time frame in which Constantinople controlled all of "Bulgaria" south of the Danube was relatively short, the less-than-two-centuries between the two Bulgarian empires (1018-1185). For comparison, how "Romanized" was, say, Gaul c. 100 AD?

(That isn't a rhetorical question, I actually don't know)

References to trilingualism in Gaul were made as early as the first century BC, so by 100 AD it was probably quite Romanized.

I think the reason the Byzantines didn't Hellenize Bulgaria is because they were distracted by fighting the Turks and Latins the whole period. There were no extra troops to settle in Bulgaria to make Romanized settlements.

Also Cyrillic had already been invented and the Bulgarian language had become the common liturgical language in Bulgaria (along with Old Church Slavonic), strengthening the literary culture.
 
References to trilingualism in Gaul were made as early as the first century BC, so by 100 AD it was probably quite Romanized.

I think the reason the Byzantines didn't Hellenize Bulgaria is because they were distracted by fighting the Turks and Latins the whole period. There were no extra troops to settle in Bulgaria to make Romanized settlements.

Also Cyrillic had already been invented and the Bulgarian language had become the common liturgical language in Bulgaria (along with Old Church Slavonic), strengthening the literary culture.
I have a feeling(personal speculation only) that a decline in soft power had something to do with that as well.While the ERE was still able to construct engineering marvels,I have a feeling(again,pure speculation) that by the 1000s,countries around the ERE was already well developed to the point where they were no longer as awed by the ERE as they were by the Roman Empire in the 100s.

I think it's the same deal with why the USA's the number one destination for migrants,it's because people are fascinated by it's culture(Hollywood etc) and technological advances.
 
Last edited:
How much do the constantly rebelling vassals in Bulgaria, Serbia etc. really differ from Roman governors and officials constantly rebelling against their own empire? The ERE of this period seems to have had a huge problem with central authority in general, not (just) with assimilation. Plenty of foreigners did fully or partially assimilate and serve the Empire. And plenty of Romans/Greeks rebelled, seceded or worked against it in various ways.
 
How much do the constantly rebelling vassals in Bulgaria, Serbia etc. really differ from Roman governors and officials constantly rebelling against their own empire? The ERE of this period seems to have had a huge problem with central authority in general, not (just) with assimilation. Plenty of foreigners did fully or partially assimilate and serve the Empire. And plenty of Romans/Greeks rebelled, seceded or worked against it in various ways.
Generally,when the Romans/Greeks rebelled,they were trying to be emperor.If the Serbians,Armenians,Lombards,Franks,Normans and the Bulgarians rebelled however,they were generally trying to establish a rival state to the ERE.Having foreigners serve the empire wasn't a problem.The problem was with non-Greek populations in parts of the empire which weren't that Hellenised.This made the ERE's conquests short-lived.Not only that,many of the empire's deadliest enemies were the states these rebels founded,e.g. the Second Bulgarian Empire.While there can be some positive elements to civil wars,like bringing more capable leadership to the empire,these secessionist movements were never a benefit to the empire.
 
Last edited:
Generally,when the Romans/Greeks rebelled,they were trying to be emperor.If the Serbians,Armenians,Lombards,Franks,Normans and the Bulgarians rebelled however,they were generally trying to establish a rival state to the ERE.Having foreigners serve the empire wasn't a problem.The problem was with non-Greek populations in parts of the empire which weren't that Hellenised.This made the ERE's conquests short-lived.Not only that,many of the empire's deadliest enemies were the states these rebels founded,e.g. the Second Bulgarian Empire.While there can be some positive elements to civil wars,like bringing more capable leadership to the empire,these secessionist movements were never a benefit to the empire.

There were plenty of Greeks rebelling and fighting against the Empire to carve out their own realms. Leo Sgouros and a gaggle of lesser separatists in the Peloponnese, the Angeloi in Thessaly and Epirus, the Grand Komnenoi in Trebizond, the Gabalas in the Aegean, John Palaiologos in Macedonia...

As for civil wars, they can have positive elements, but in most cases they're outweighed by the negatives.
 
You ministerpereted. I was saying that the cause of Manzikert was the soldier class yeomans being driven to peasentry and into the cities.

The pivot away from landed semi-militia is what brought the Byzantines to their greatest heights. The late Macedonian shift in emphasis from a defensive, localized military-economy to an offensive, expeditionary one was vital to the blossoming that culminated in Basil II.

Plus, I'm becoming less and less convinced the thematic troops were actually yeomanry. If you look at the size of their land grants, they were frequently larger than one family could realistically farm. The thematic land grants end up looking like they establish a class of very small landlords, rather than very smallholding farmers. Especially by the time of the Nicophoran pivot eastward, it seems like thematic landholders were working a small portion of their grant and renting out the rest, if not the whole thing, and enjoying a cash income like micro-barons in Western Europe.
 

Spengler

Banned
They still certainly weakened the main army after the death of Basil II through Brigadoon his policies. Albeit the whole not collecting taxes on large landowners also didn't help.
 
They still certainly weakened the main army after the death of Basil II through Brigadoon his policies. Albeit the whole not collecting taxes on large landowners also didn't help.

I haven't studied the decline there in-depth, but as far as I understand it comes off more as a general administrative decline than a specific problem in the theme system. The themes declined because the over all bureaucracy declined, not because there was a specific issue with the themes. AFAIK, this traces to a series of weak leaders less able to cut away corruption and venality.
 
There were plenty of Greeks rebelling and fighting against the Empire to carve out their own realms. Leo Sgouros and a gaggle of lesser separatists in the Peloponnese, the Angeloi in Thessaly and Epirus, the Grand Komnenoi in Trebizond, the Gabalas in the Aegean, John Palaiologos in Macedonia...

As for civil wars, they can have positive elements, but in most cases they're outweighed by the negatives.
All of that happened after the empire has be destroyed in 1204.

They still certainly weakened the main army after the death of Basil II through Brigadoon his policies. Albeit the whole not collecting taxes on large landowners also didn't help.

That's a major problem,another problem was the amount of pensions and gifts the emperors gave out to buy the loyalties of important individuals.Because emperors after Basil II were generally incompetent,they had to resort to bribery to maintain their rule.It doesn't help either that a lot of these rulers were extravagent spenders as well.One of the emperors basically emptied the treasury Basil accumulated through a church building campaign.
 
First of all, I can't help but note that the periods of the 8th to 11th centuries were when the Byzantines were on the ascendency overall. Being better than that is a tricky proposition.

Second, I suggest that my Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn timeline does fit the requirements of the OP.
 
Top