Basil's heir community timeline

No, the horse archer was completely invincible. That's what I said, if you read what I wrote, and I'm sticking to it.

I didn't say they couldn't be beaten, I said it's virtually impossible to win a decisive victory against them, because they have immense superiority in mobility and can just flee.

As for your emperors, I don't think any of them but John were exceptional, and even he obviously wasn't that good at politics since he was assassinated by a eunuch.

Just because Basil eventually prevailed doesn't make him good. It took him what, 25 years to defeat Bulgaria? John would have done it in two. The colossal amount of time and resources Basil expended to defeat a vastly inferior enemy do not speak well for his skills, and not producing an heir is just ridiculous. He didn't even try. Even if he was not into women, he could still have put out long enough to have a child. Even a daughter would have done.

The horse archer was something of a superweapon in its day, but it was by no means invincible. In fact, not only are the Byzantines familiar with horse archers and how to beat them, but horse archers were in fact an integral part of the Byzantine military at this point (the 'false retreat' tactic the Mongols used so successfully a few centuries in the future was par for the course in Byzantium).



You mean like Nikephoros II Phokas -> John I Tzimiskes -> Basil II :p

This is a period where Byzantium is having the luck of exceptional leadership. Who knows what sort of Emperors would have followed if Basil had manned up and done his human duty.
 
No, the horse archer was completely invincible. That's what I said, if you read what I wrote, and I'm sticking to it.

I didn't say they couldn't be beaten, I said it's virtually impossible to win a decisive victory against them, because they have immense superiority in mobility and can just flee.

As for your emperors, I don't think any of them but John were exceptional, and even he obviously wasn't that good at politics since he was assassinated by a eunuch.

Just because Basil eventually prevailed doesn't make him good. It took him what, 25 years to defeat Bulgaria? John would have done it in two. The colossal amount of time and resources Basil expended to defeat a vastly inferior enemy do not speak well for his skills, and not producing an heir is just ridiculous. He didn't even try. Even if he was not into women, he could still have put out long enough to have a child. Even a daughter would have done.

I don't think you are being entirely fair to Basil. He's obviously less of a soldier than John or Nikephoros, but consider that despite 25 years of continuous warfare, he was able to at the same time bolster the Eastern defenses, expand the landowning middle class, and leave his successors with a full treasury. He's obviously an excellent administrator. And Bulgaria was destroyed at the height of its Golden Age while led by superb leaders of their own. Plenty of commanders have destroyed enemies in the midst of civil disturbance or general decay, but what Basil did is like the Romans conquering not squabbling and decadent Diadochi but Alexander himself in the Macedonian Wars.

As to an heir, Basil was apparently a womanizer in his youth, but had some of religious revelation causing him to live like a monk and devote all his time to administering the empire. Taking dedication to the extent of abstaining from women is a bit too extreme, and its not too hard to imagine the revelation being just a little less earthshaking. We might end with with a slightly less dedicated Basil, but one with a son.

The thing is, Basil successor needn't be a genius at either administration or war. Until the arrival of the Turks and Normans, the Empire has no significant threats, and its traditional enemies are destroyed or in a state of terminal decay. If Basil's successors are even slightly less incompetent, they could certainly have chipped chunks out of the Arabs. Even if the successors are incompetent, if they hadn't been of the city faction, the Byzantine military would have been in vastly better shape for when a competent emperor shows up and can find an use for it.
 
I think he's really overrated.

I don't think you are being entirely fair to Basil. He's obviously less of a soldier than John or Nikephoros, but consider that despite 25 years of continuous warfare, he was able to at the same time bolster the Eastern defenses, expand the landowning middle class, and leave his successors with a full treasury. He's obviously an excellent administrator. And Bulgaria was destroyed at the height of its Golden Age while led by superb leaders of their own. Plenty of commanders have destroyed enemies in the midst of civil disturbance or general decay, but what Basil did is like the Romans conquering not squabbling and decadent Diadochi but Alexander himself in the Macedonian Wars.

As to an heir, Basil was apparently a womanizer in his youth, but had some of religious revelation causing him to live like a monk and devote all his time to administering the empire. Taking dedication to the extent of abstaining from women is a bit too extreme, and its not too hard to imagine the revelation being just a little less earthshaking. We might end with with a slightly less dedicated Basil, but one with a son.

The thing is, Basil successor needn't be a genius at either administration or war. Until the arrival of the Turks and Normans, the Empire has no significant threats, and its traditional enemies are destroyed or in a state of terminal decay. If Basil's successors are even slightly less incompetent, they could certainly have chipped chunks out of the Arabs. Even if the successors are incompetent, if they hadn't been of the city faction, the Byzantine military would have been in vastly better shape for when a competent emperor shows up and can find an use for it.
 
No, the horse archer was completely invincible. That's what I said, if you read what I wrote, and I'm sticking to it.

I didn't say they couldn't be beaten, I said it's virtually impossible to win a decisive victory against them, because they have immense superiority in mobility and can just flee.

That's actually not really true. Horse archers can be beaten, but only under specific circumstances, mainly ones limiting their mobility. However, if that can be achieved, using either geography (canyons, forests, swamps, etc), or by multiple forces in a flanking maneuver, they can be anhilated, as horse archers do not do well in close combat. Examples would include the battle of Digori, Battle of Azaz, and the Battle of Levounion.
 
That's actually not really true. Horse archers can be beaten, but only under specific circumstances, mainly ones limiting their mobility. However, if that can be achieved, using either geography (canyons, forests, swamps, etc), or by multiple forces in a flanking maneuver, they can be anhilated, as horse archers do not do well in close combat. Examples would include the battle of Digori, Battle of Azaz, and the Battle of Levounion.

I said "virtually", and those are not the best examples. Azaz was a teeny battle with a few thousand on both sides, and at Levounion the Byzantines had a larger force of allied horse-archers than the size of the enemy army, which was surprised in camp - and was hundreds of miles inside Byzantine borders. If on the offensive, Byzantine armies are going to have the opposite handicap. I've never heard of the battle of Digori and I couldn't find any references.
 
I also think you're not giving Basil II enough credit. As previously stated, Bulgaria was NOT a pushover in the early 11th century. They were a very wealthy and powerful kingdom, one that was rightfully feared. His ability to not only defeat them, but destroy them, speaks volumes about his ability.

The fact that he also managed to do with while not exhausting the Empire's treasury is also an impressive feat, not to mention his strengthening of the eastern border. Basil II had his work cut out for him, and I believe he did a marvelous job.

As to the conquest of the Levant, it really isn't that impossible of a task. If the Byzantines were to win a Manzikert-like battle, either badly defeating Alp Arslan or killing him, then he or his heir would have an even harder time keeping order in the lands of the Seljuk Turks, who would see this as an opportunity to rebel against a "weak" ruler.

This would basically leave them once again with no major enemies. While it does seem, and well frankly is I admit a wankish scenario, it is by no means ASB now that I think about it, at least not the Levant. The Byzantines during the best of times dreamed of restoring the Roman Empire's borders to it's fullest. While this would be an absurd objective at this point, they would still desire to reclaim some of their lost pre-Muslim territory when they could, and the Levant is a fairly good land to have with it's coastal ports.
 
Compared to the Byzantine Empire at it's height, Bulgaria was a piddling little barbarian principality. In population, military manpower, wealth, tactical system, every possible measure, the empire was vastly superior.

John conquered half of it in one campaign. Basil accomplished what he did because his reign was extremely long, not because he had outstanding ability.

Conquering the Levant is not in the cards. First of all, if it took Basil 25 years to deal with Bulgaria, what would happen against a REAL enemy? Second, the Levant is populated by Muslims, which are not ever going to accept Byzantine rule. The best that could be hoped for would be a few strategic acquisitions, like the aforementioned Tripoli.

I have never understood the Basil worship. A plodding, unimaginative ruler.

I also think you're not giving Basil II enough credit. As previously stated, Bulgaria was NOT a pushover in the early 11th century. They were a very wealthy and powerful kingdom, one that was rightfully feared. His ability to not only defeat them, but destroy them, speaks volumes about his ability.

The fact that he also managed to do with while not exhausting the Empire's treasury is also an impressive feat, not to mention his strengthening of the eastern border. Basil II had his work cut out for him, and I believe he did a marvelous job.

As to the conquest of the Levant, it really isn't that impossible of a task. If the Byzantines were to win a Manzikert-like battle, either badly defeating Alp Arslan or killing him, then he or his heir would have an even harder time keeping order in the lands of the Seljuk Turks, who would see this as an opportunity to rebel against a "weak" ruler.

This would basically leave them once again with no major enemies. While it does seem, and well frankly is I admit a wankish scenario, it is by no means ASB now that I think about it, at least not the Levant. The Byzantines during the best of times dreamed of restoring the Roman Empire's borders to it's fullest. While this would be an absurd objective at this point, they would still desire to reclaim some of their lost pre-Muslim territory when they could, and the Levant is a fairly good land to have with it's coastal ports.
 
Compared to the Byzantine Empire at it's height, Bulgaria was a piddling little barbarian principality. In population, military manpower, wealth, tactical system, every possible measure, the empire was vastly superior.

John conquered half of it in one campaign. Basil accomplished what he did because his reign was extremely long, not because he had outstanding ability.

Conquering the Levant is not in the cards. First of all, if it took Basil 25 years to deal with Bulgaria, what would happen against a REAL enemy? Second, the Levant is populated by Muslims, which are not ever going to accept Byzantine rule. The best that could be hoped for would be a few strategic acquisitions, like the aforementioned Tripoli.

I have never understood the Basil worship. A plodding, unimaginative ruler.

John does not conquer Bulgaria though. He conquers Eastern Bulgaria, and so does Basil with equal effortlessness. John defeats the Rus though; and Basil defeats that Bulgars, to whom the Byzantines have such a ridiculous tradition of losing it defies belief.

First of all there is a serious question about how much time Basil actually spends campaigning in Bulgaria. We actually do not know. Historians have assumed that in the periods when we do not know what is happening (eg 1004-1014) that Basil is in Buglaria. This really might not be the case.

Basil does fight in the East with the Fatimids, and successfully. And he defeats the Western Empire at Cannae. He can and does take on serious opponents. The rapid reinforment of Antioch in (?)996 is an impressive indication of his mastery of one of the forgotten arts of pre-modern generalship, logistics.

I think the problem is that Basil is not looked at in his own terms. He was not a conqueror and did not set out to be one. His goals centred around internal unity and consolidation. At which he was successful, if in a rather heavy-handed way that was not really sustainable. As none of his successors (except possibly the much maligned Constantine IX) found even short-term solutions to the problem of imperial unity I think Basil does need to be given credit for maintaining the system in his own time.
 
I said "virtually", and those are not the best examples. Azaz was a teeny battle with a few thousand on both sides, and at Levounion the Byzantines had a larger force of allied horse-archers than the size of the enemy army, which was surprised in camp - and was hundreds of miles inside Byzantine borders. If on the offensive, Byzantine armies are going to have the opposite handicap. I've never heard of the battle of Digori and I couldn't find any references.


Excuse me, I misspelled it. It should be "Didgori". Anyway, it's probably the most famous battle in Georgian history. King David the Builder led a greatly outnumbered force against the combined armies of the Seljuk Sultanate and Azerbaijan. He managed to trap them in a canyon, distract them with a raid on their camp, and then completely and utterly annihilate both armies. It broke the power of Azerbaijan and the Seljuks in the Caucasus. That's probably the best example of a traditional army utterly defeating a nomadic one.
 
Excuse me, I misspelled it. It should be "Didgori". Anyway, it's probably the most famous battle in Georgian history. King David the Builder led a greatly outnumbered force against the combined armies of the Seljuk Sultanate and Azerbaijan. He managed to trap them in a canyon, distract them with a raid on their camp, and then completely and utterly annihilate both armies. It broke the power of Azerbaijan and the Seljuks in the Caucasus. That's probably the best example of a traditional army utterly defeating a nomadic one.

Again though, the use of other horse archers was decisive. Also, the numbers in the battle (despite all the nationalist historiography) were very small. Note that 200 warriors were able to wreak havoc in the Seljuk camp - not likely if the army was of 120,000. Also, if it were a major army, the Sultan would have to command, not a subsidiary general.

You really can't just trap a giant army in a canyon. Maybe a detatchment of it... but you're not going to decisively defeat the Seljuks. What Diogenes should have done is continued to fight off raiding forces and concluded the peace agreement that Arp Arslan wanted.

Trying to actually launch an offensive across the Caucasus into Seljuk territory is just suicide.
 
I'm not sure it really matters all that much (for the Caucasians). I'm not sure anyone had any great drive to conquer the Caucasus,

Well, kings like Bagrat IV and David II may not have had a drive to conquer all of the Caucasus, but they certainly had a desire to unify all the Georgian petty states under their rule, and David II actually succeeded in doing this.

I admit that even under queen Tamar, when Medieval Georgia was at its zenith, the Georgians were not particularly interested in conquering and (directly) ruling predominately Muslim lands (which is why eastern Shirvan and several minor emirates were vassalized, even though the Georgians could have conquered them fairly easily if they really wanted to).

However, the Georgian monarchs certainly did have a desire to bring all the Christian lands in the Caucasus under their rule (a good part of western Shirvan was incorporated in the Georgian kingdom on the account of the local inhabitants being predominately Christian), and the Georgians did raid and often vassalize various neighbouring Muslim states. In fact, around 1200, they even briefly vassalized the atabeghlik of Azerbaijan.

..
Without a strong, unified Georgia, the Christian lands in the central Caucasus are going to be a lot more vulnerable to raids and attacks from neighbouring Muslim states and the Qipchaq, and the Muslim states in the eastern and southeastern Caucasus will be stronger than in OTL due to the lack of pressure from Georgia.

And that will affect the religious developments in the eastern Caucasus; the absence of a strong Georgian kingdom (that strongly propagates Orthodoxy among the neighbouring pagans and Muslims) coupled with stronger local Muslim states, could very well result in an earlier Islamization of Daghestan.

In OTL, it was not until after Timur Lenk that Islam became the dominant religion in Daghestan - even after the Ilkhanid period, Georgia had remained powerful enough to have a significant political and religious influence in the eastern Caucasus, and this situation changed only as a result of Timur Lenk's invasions.

and in any case when the Mongols show up it will all be the same.

Not neccesarily.

Even during the Mongol period, Georgia remained more or less united (the Mongols had effectively divided it into two kingdoms by installing an exiled Georgian prince as king of central Georgia), and because of this, king George V didn't have too much trouble with reuniting his kingdom and breaking away from the Il-Khanate.

Had Georgia never been unified prior to the Mongol invasion, then the Mongols would only have used the political divisions in the central Caucasus to their advantage, and it may very well have taken much longer for this region to break away from the Il-Khanate or whatever Mongol state ends up dominating the Caucasus.
 
I have never understood the Basil worship. A plodding, unimaginative ruler.
Mainly because he looks so much better than the people who followed (his fault, but it happend that way). He was competent and an able administrator, more like him would have made Manzikert a non-issue (not least because he sat on the Barons that were dispossessing the source of his manpower).

That being said control of most of the Balkans, including the least hospitable sections John did not bother with, is nothing to sneeze at and the conquest of same without breaking the treasury is not a mean feat.

HTG
 

Nikephoros

Banned
I don't see how you would need to decisively defeat Horse Archers. If you drive them off, you have achieved similar results.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
But, if you chase them away they may decide to attack elsewhere. You might end up not having to face them again, alternatively, they will come again.
 
Top