Why did the Byzantine Empire fall?

[RousseauX]

Let me preface by saying we've seen numerous posts on the WI: of by Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, we've had mega-Byzantine wanks and lots of TLs where they at least do better.

But really why did the Byzantine Empire fall, why was it incapable of defending itself in 1204 like it did against the Arabs or the Persians centuries prior? What long term trends brought down the empire?

 

[Malta]

Demographics.

It kept loseing territory and being invaded by people's who did not or would not become Romans that they could no longer really sustain an effective military and state.

 

[RousseauX]

Demographics.

It kept loseing territory and being invaded by people's who did not or would not become Romans that they could no longer really sustain an effective military and state.

They lost the entire Anatolian peninsular in after Manzikert, but that didn't stop the Kommonians from mounting a counterattack and retaking it.

In 1204, they held -more- territory than they did in 1080, but yet they recovered from the earlier crisis but not the later one.

Is it just leadership quality or is there more here?

 

[ChewyGranola]

Lots of invasions, excellent emperors followed by terrible ones, lack of manpower, lack of support from the West (opposite of support in the 4th Crusade), very vibrant and militarially skilled opponents, greatly weakened by the Byzantine-Persian Wars, oppressive government...the Byzantines were good at a lot of stuff and really resiliant, but even the most resiliant culture can only last so long.

 

[RousseauX]

Another observation.

In Western Europe a variety of states which fought against existential threats from external foes survived and ended up creating stronger states in the 1300-1500 timeframe (i.e France, Castille).

Why was is that France came out of the hundreds year war, and Spain out of the reconquista stronger whereas Byzantium came out of the wars "reunifying" the empire after 1204 weaker?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The Byzantine government was very centralised for the time and area. This was great when there was a good Emperor on the throne, but it did mean that under a bad ruler the state could effectively be paralysed.

The absolutist nature of Byzantine kingship might also have played a role: because there was never any Byzantine Magna Carta or whatever, there was often no way of stopping a tyrannical Emperor except by fighting a civil war to depose him.

Also the Byzantines never really had as much of an attachment to the idea of hereditary succession as the Latins did. Admittedly I'm not very strong on the specifics of Byzantine succession law, but it seems that the de facto situation was that anyone who was acclaimed by enough of the army and the mob in Constantinople could be accepted as Emperor, regardless of whether they were related to the previous/current/co-Emperor. This of course meant that there were always many more potential claimants to the throne than there were in the West, meaning that civil wars, palace intrigues and so forth were more likely to happen.

 

[Spelf]

I think one of the Byzantine Empire's biggest issues was simple geography - the entire Eastern flank of the Empire (aka required to maintain the Empire as a stable state) had very little to no recourse against pressures from the East.

 

[Zioneer]

Probably demographics, geography, bad luck (having bad rulers and their opponents having skilled rulers), and a host of other factors.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Another observation.

In Western Europe a variety of states which fought against existential threats from external foes survived and ended up creating stronger states in the 1300-1500 timeframe (i.e France, Spain).

Why was is that France came out of the hundreds year war, and Spain out of the reconquista stronger whereas Byzantium came out of the wars "reunifying" the empire after 1204 weaker?

They "reunified" a much truncated Empire (by the time the Palaeologus had recaptured Constantinople). Their resource base, by this time, was much more impoverished, their economy in tatters, and their truculent neighbors more numerous and powerful. They couldn't afford an army sufficient to preserve the frontier in Anatolia and Balkan powers were nibbling at Thrace and Greece in Europe. The Empire was really on extended life support by the time of Michael VIII Palaiologos death.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Another thought:

By the later Middle Ages large parts of Western Europe were very heavily fortified, which made sweeping conquests of other countries' lands difficult if not impossible. Thus, for example, the English during the Hundred Years' War had great difficulty taking much land even after major victories such as Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt, because even if they destroyed the French King's field army there were still a bajillion castles to besiege. The Byzantines, OTOH (and Middle Eastern countries in general, really) don't seem to have had nearly as many fortifications: hence the Turks could take Anatolia after only one major battle, and the Normans invading Greece only ever had trouble taking Dyrrhachium, Thessalonica and Constantinople itself. This just wouldn't happen in France in Germany.

 

[Riain]

All kingdoms have good and bad rulers, but in the case of Byzantium even the good ones couldn't staunch the haemorrhaging, which leads me to believe that it was a structural problem rather than personal. It should be noted that after the restoration of the Greek Kingdom after the Latin interlude the Palaiologans had more income than their neighbours due to the efficient Byzantine taxation system.

I think the rot started with the Macedonians, who changed the military service requirements in order to raise cash for mercenary armies to undertake offensive action. For example before the Macedonians a family who held land to the value of 1 pound of gold had to provide a cataphract for the army, but I believe Basil changed this to 4 pounds which drastically curtailed the native recruiting base. In addition noble houses began buying up free farms, pushing the empire into a more feudal system, especially since these noble houses gained enough power to be exempt from taxation.

Strangely enough perhaps the best emperor was Andronikus K. He laid the boots into the nobles to knock them down a peg or two, this could have restored the balance of power within the empire to an extent in favour of middle class, free, military peasants.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Lots of reasons abound: feudalism, geography, demographics, and so on.

Personally, I'm rather convinced by the ideas put forward in a long essay I recently read, that states that Byzantium was completely unable to compete with Italian city states in particular after 1100 or so because of the continued Graeco-Roman prejudices about wealth of the Byzantine elite. I'm paraphrasing hugely here (at some point I'll put out the full argument) but the Byzantine nobility's dislike of "capitalism" might well have played a part.

 

[eliphas8]

All kingdoms have good and bad rulers, but in the case of Byzantium even the good ones couldn't staunch the haemorrhaging, which leads me to believe that it was a structural problem rather than personal. It should be noted that after the restoration of the Greek Kingdom after the Latin interlude the Palaiologans had more income than their neighbours due to the efficient Byzantine taxation system.

I think the rot started with the Macedonians, who changed the military service requirements in order to raise cash for mercenary armies to undertake offensive action. For example before the Macedonians a family who held land to the value of 1 pound of gold had to provide a cataphract for the army, but I believe Basil changed this to 4 pounds which drastically curtailed the native recruiting base. In addition noble houses began buying up free farms, pushing the empire into a more feudal system, especially since these noble houses gained enough power to be exempt from taxation.

Strangely enough perhaps the best emperor was Andronikus K. He laid the boots into the nobles to knock them down a peg or two, this could have restored the balance of power within the empire to an extent in favour of middle class, free, military peasants.

I would say that's a big part of it, their military system had effectively fallen apart and they never really where able to make significant improvements.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Lots of reasons abound: feudalism, geography, demographics, and so on.

Personally, I'm rather convinced by the ideas put forward in a long essay I recently read, that states that Byzantium was completely unable to compete with Italian city states in particular after 1100 or so because of the continued Graeco-Roman prejudices about wealth of the Byzantine elite. I'm paraphrasing hugely here (at some point I'll put out the full argument) but the Byzantine nobility's dislike of "capitalism" might well have played a part.

Fascinating. Do you remember the article's name and where it was published?

 

[betrayor]

So when do you think that the fall became inevitable?

Battle of Manzikert?Or it could have been saved even after that?

 

[Flocculencio]

One believes the Turks had something to do with it

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

So when do you think that the fall became inevitable?

Battle of Manzikert?Or it could have been saved even after that?

Long after Manzikert.

The Byzantine state's chances of survival declined pretty sharply after 1204, I'd say, but I don't think a Byzantine recovery is ASB really until the last generation or so. That said, I think it's exceedingly unlikely that a post-1204 Byzantine state of any shape is ever going to be anything more than a regional power around the Aegean, and even that requires a lot of luck.

As for the article, it's in a book called The Dynamics of Ancient Empires from Assyria to Byzantium, or something along those lines. I'll summarise it properly here soon, as I've been promising too for a few months now. Don't have the book on me at the moment as I'm at my parents'.

 

[funnyhat]

Another observation.

In Western Europe a variety of states which fought against existential threats from external foes survived and ended up creating stronger states in the 1300-1500 timeframe (i.e France, Castille).

Why was is that France came out of the hundreds year war, and Spain out of the reconquista stronger whereas Byzantium came out of the wars "reunifying" the empire after 1204 weaker?

Well, after the Reconquista, Spain (or rather, the kingdoms that were all ruled by the same royal family) was pretty secure geographically, with only Portugal as a neighboring Iberian state. France was a potential enemy, but it was on the other side of the Pyrenees.

As for France, it was the most populous European kingdom, so when unified, it was not in serious danger of being conquered. England's successes in the Hundred Years' War came when the French were disunified, with their leading noble house (Burgundy) coming over to the side of the English. Once the Burgundians were finally reconciled with the House of Valois, England then had little chance.

The Byzantines did not have either these geographic or demographic advantages.

 

[htgriffin]

Major 11th century problem caused much of what followed

The freeholding soldier-peasantry that formed the backbone of the theme system in Anatolia was shoved aside for the sake of sheep pasture. That did really unpleasant things to the manpower and defense-in-depth available which could have salvaged matters after Manzikert

 

[KittyKat]

Im gonna go with the common response and say incompetent emperors. Honestly, In the empires entire one thousand year history, how many emperors accomplished diddlysquat besides loosing territory and emptying the treasury. If it weren't for the few occasional great leaders that took the throne, the empire would have fallen long before it actually did.