Yeah, the impression I get is that Byzantium's more centralised government meant that there was less endemic instability, but that periods of instability and weakness in the centre were potentially devastating. Something like the post-Manzikert collapse couldn't have happened in feudal Western Europe, for example.
More Stable Byzantium?
- Thread starter Faeelin
- Start date
Yeah, the impression I get is that Byzantium's more centralised government meant that there was less endemic instability, but that periods of instability and weakness in the centre were potentially devastating. Something like the post-Manzikert collapse couldn't have happened in feudal Western Europe, for example.
It kind of did with France in regards to the Hundred Years' War.The Lancastrian phase of the war was basically this.Most of the time,the reason why there's not much major conquests in Europe was due to the fact that the kings didn't have much resources to fight a long war anyway.
The historical Roman Republic was very stable. You don't maintain one system of government for half a millennium without an appreciable ability to keep things orderly.
The Spartan state was a more pronounced version of this (yes, they had kings, but their power was severly checked), showing how a mixed government like a classical Republic could actually be too stable.
The Venetian Republic (and I would argue the US as well) is another example of how mixed governments can be too stable, albeit with a fairly long period of decent for the time performance.
Personally I think the 'Byzantine coup all the time' cliche is an unfortunate and unjustified holdover from Gibbon. Now the byzantines did have a problem in this regard, but I don't think it was appreciably worse than its contemporaries, east or west. It is a medieval polity in a world of medieval polities.
For comparison look at English (to be technical for 1066-1204 the Anglo-Norman realm) history at the same time. There was all the infighting between the Conqueror's sons before Henry I won out. Then he died to be followed by the Anarchy. Henry II had all the fighting amongst his own family. John had a barons' revolt that escalated into a French invasion by the end of his reign. Henry III had his own serious revolt. Edward II was overthrown by his own wife after serious problems with his own nobles. Edward III had to seize power by overthrowing his mother and her lover in a coup. Richard II was deposed by his cousin. Henry IV spent his reign playing whack-a-mole with rebels. Henry VI had the War of the Roses.
The disadvantage Byzantium had was its long frontiers and central position made it quite exposed to foreign attack. Even in the 900s when the Empire was doing quite well Liutprand of Cremona noted their geopolitical position was less than ideal. So civil wars and coups often could combine with foreign invasions. It was the double jeopardy that was so damaging. That was what made the post Manzikert 1070s so harmful, not the battle itself. The Fourth Crusade was the beneficiary of political instability in the Empire since the death of Manuel but without the sack of 1204 the Byzantines might've been able to muddle along till someone intelligent (not the Angeloi) took charge.
England in contrast rarely had to face that double jeopardy but the one time it did in the 1210s it could've been fatal. France suffered a similar problem when facing the Anglo-Burgundian alliance in the HYW and that could've been fatal as well.
In short I think the empire's problem is less about political instability (although it certainly didn't help) per se and more about not timing it with serious foreign threats.
For comparison look at English (to be technical for 1066-1204 the Anglo-Norman realm) history at the same time. There was all the infighting between the Conqueror's sons before Henry I won out. Then he died to be followed by the Anarchy. Henry II had all the fighting amongst his own family. John had a barons' revolt that escalated into a French invasion by the end of his reign. Henry III had his own serious revolt. Edward II was overthrown by his own wife after serious problems with his own nobles. Edward III had to seize power by overthrowing his mother and her lover in a coup. Richard II was deposed by his cousin. Henry IV spent his reign playing whack-a-mole with rebels. Henry VI had the War of the Roses.
The disadvantage Byzantium had was its long frontiers and central position made it quite exposed to foreign attack. Even in the 900s when the Empire was doing quite well Liutprand of Cremona noted their geopolitical position was less than ideal. So civil wars and coups often could combine with foreign invasions. It was the double jeopardy that was so damaging. That was what made the post Manzikert 1070s so harmful, not the battle itself. The Fourth Crusade was the beneficiary of political instability in the Empire since the death of Manuel but without the sack of 1204 the Byzantines might've been able to muddle along till someone intelligent (not the Angeloi) took charge.
England in contrast rarely had to face that double jeopardy but the one time it did in the 1210s it could've been fatal. France suffered a similar problem when facing the Anglo-Burgundian alliance in the HYW and that could've been fatal as well.
In short I think the empire's problem is less about political instability (although it certainly didn't help) per se and more about not timing it with serious foreign threats.
An advantage for Byzantium is that hey had a tradition of co-emperors, which helped smooth things out. Didn't the Macedonians face two usurpations where the usurper simply ruled alongside the legitimate emperor, mooching off that legitimacy?
That wasn't an advantage unique to the Byzantines. IIRC, in the 10th/11th century the Germans, French, Hungarians, and possibly others also occasionally (or regularly) elevated heirs to be co-kings.
What are the most stable borders for Byzantium that are the easiest to attain? I'm assuming it would involve easily defensible borders--the Danube? The Taurus Mountains? It would probably need to be limited to areas that are mostly ethnically Greek, too, since a rebellious nation under the Empire would be the first thing to rebel during a time of instability.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
If I might ask a somewhat related question -- we all know the Macedonian Dynasty as one of the more successful periods in Byzantine history, and one of two lasting dynasties in the ERE founded by a peasant who became emperor; however, as many know, this latter aspect is actually made murky by the fact that Leo VI, the "son" of Basil I on who most all subsequent Macedonian Emperors trace their lineage, is himself widely believed to be the son of Basil's Amorian predecessor, Michael III.
My question -- did this assumption actually help the "line" of peasant born Basil rule as long as it did? If his younger son, Alexander, had inherited instead of Leo, or had children of his own that he could put on the throne folliwing Leo's death, would the Macedonia dynasty have been living on borrowed time?
My question -- did this assumption actually help the "line" of peasant born Basil rule as long as it did? If his younger son, Alexander, had inherited instead of Leo, or had children of his own that he could put on the throne folliwing Leo's death, would the Macedonia dynasty have been living on borrowed time?
Deleted member 67076
Balkans, Italy, Anatolia up to Lake Van and the surrounding areas, Iraq north of and including Mosul, the Levant up to the Sinai.
Oof, that's gonna need a pretty early PoD then, especially in order to hold Palestine and Mesopotamia. Why would you say those areas are necessary?
Deleted member 67076
Actually a reconquest of Palestine and Mesopotamia is doable with a 900s POD. The reason I mention them is because from Mosul north its mostly mountains that can be fortified to block off most invasion from the east and southeast. At the same time, its a pretty Christian area that potentially can be more easily assimilated and just generally friendly to the Roman government.
The Levant can also be a strategic resource for control of the Eastern Mediterranean in that its supplementing Greece and Sicily, while is also a wealthy area bordered by the relatively inhospitable Syrian desert, a natural border. And from Sinai gives you the chokepoint to intervene in Egypt, the Hedjaz and the Red Sea.
Alright, cool. An (even more) successful Macedonian dynasty could probably pull this off, then, with a well-timed Caliphate civil war thrown in
How widespread was the assumption at the time? If people did believe it, wouldn't Leo's status as a 'bastard' potentially have damaged his legitimacy?
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Leo's mother had been Michael's mistress before Basil was forced to marry her; Basil, for his part, clearly believed Leo was his predecessor's son, based on how he treated him (had him arrested, threatened to put his eyes out until the patriarch talked him out of it, vocally wanted to make Alexander his heir instead, etc).