mistakes of byzantine empire

Byzantine empire, like a lot of empires had many reasons for collapse, a lot of them just came from the usual sticks of being an old empire.

As for how one could prevent that: I don't really see many ways you could really prevent a collapse and have it last into the modern day, well, not unless you manage to make a lot of things in a lot of places go just right.

Reminds me of this one rambling a professor of mine was having about how an empire that doesn't expand, starts to decline.
 
The four civil wars in forty years during the fourteenth century was what did in the Empire. The Palaiologoi were too prone to war for their own good.
 
I think that the greatest mistake of the Byzantine Empire is that its inhabitants do not have strong traditions. Anatolia did not have strong traditions like Armenia have, which would have prevented the entire peninsula to be Islamized and would be a lot easier to repel the Turks. Armenia was and still is, very traditional, while the cosmopolitan and liberal value system of the Byzantine Empire caused them to lose 2,000 years of cultural identity. So the reasons for loss are mostly cultural.
 
Last edited:
I think that the greatest mistake of the Byzantine Empire is that its inhabitants do not have strong traditions. Anatolia did not have strong traditions like Armenia have, which would have prevented the entire peninsula to be Islamized and would be a lot easier to repel the Turks. Armenia was and still is, very traditional, while the cosmopolitan and liberal value system of the Byzantine Empire caused them to lose 1,000 years of cultural identity. So the reasons for loss are mostly cultural.

You're being a little hard on the Byzantines here. As someone said early on, 11 centuries is not a bad run. Also, the Byzantine Empire was really just an extension of the Roman Empire, so we're talking about nearly 2000 years of continuous tradition if we include the Roman Republic from the time of Cincinnatus.
 
You're being a little hard on the Byzantines here. As someone said early on, 11 centuries is not a bad run. Also, the Byzantine Empire was really just an extension of the Roman Empire, so we're talking about nearly 2000 years of continuous tradition if we include the Roman Republic from the time of Cincinnatus.
I meant 2,000.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
i think in searching for mistake, it must be limited to Macedonian, Commeni era. Paliologian is already too late, while any mistake pre-Macedonian is irrelevant since Macedonian prove that Empire still strong enough.

several mistake
- failure to control powerful military family of Anatolia.
- expansion / war in Armenia causing loss of reliable eastern border
- failure to compete in trade with Italian Maritime Republic
- failure to maintain middle class farming class in Anatolia
- ?
 

Deleted member 67076

Can you be a bit more specific? The Byzantine Empire of 500 was entirely different than the one at 700, which was entirely different than the one at 1000, 1100, and so forth.

Each era brought about with it alterations in geopolitical situation, political structures, economics and policies of fiscal and military management that need to be considered on a case by case basis.

I think that the greatest mistake of the Byzantine Empire is that its inhabitants do not have strong traditions. Anatolia did not have strong traditions like Armenia have, which would have prevented the entire peninsula to be Islamized and would be a lot easier to repel the Turks. Armenia was and still is, very traditional, while the cosmopolitan and liberal value system of the Byzantine Empire caused them to lose 2,000 years of cultural identity. So the reasons for loss are mostly cultural.

Given that it took nearly 1000 of assimilatory policies and outright genocide during the late 1910s-20s for Anatolia to become supermajority Turkish, I'd argue otherwise.

Armenia was able to maintain itself because it was poor, marginal, mountainous terrain and was more often than not ignored by ruling powers in favor of richer areas. I don't see how the comparison is valid, given that whenever the Byzantines treated the Armenians fine, they became more Greek than the Greeks themselves.
 
my 2 cents:

- Justinian trying to recover Italy on the cheap made sure the Roman Empire would never be restored
- Heraclius' failure to contain the Arab conquests made sure Constantinople would no longer be unrivaled master of the Eastern Med and led directly to the loss of Egypt, Syria and Carthage as well as other, well known problems. Brought the byzzies down from super power to regional power status
- Constantine IV defeat and loss of his entire army at Ongal (680) made sure the Bulgars would take over Moesia and become a major problem for the rest of the Empire's life, forcing them to keep substantial forces near the Capital, thus limiting their options
- Leo III initiating Iconoclasm tore a rift through the Empire that almost made sure Italy would eventually be lost, with all the problems that brought later on
- Romanos IV losing at Mazinkert is obviously up there as a big one; meant the Turks were now an existential threat like the Bulgars for the rest of the Empire's existence
- the loss of central authority under the Angeloi that made the IV crusade possible
 
Top