The Sassanids settled large numbers of captured Roman Christians in the eastern areas of their territory, apparently with success (this is why central Asia was a major centre of Christianity in the early Middle Ages, although relatively little is known of this church today). I'm not sure precisely what their motivation was though, or whether this could be considered an attempt to establish a "buffer".
Could the Byzantine Empire have been saved-and when?
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
I think the Sassanians were afraid of the Christians acting as a fifth column in case of hostilities with Rome, were they not? I know the Romans were afraid of Jews doing the same.
Of course, but then the simplest thing to do would have been simply to kill them all - that was the typical Sassanid approach to Christians living within their borders in the fourth and early fifth centuries.
That was a bit after the relocations though, wasn't it? After those Christians started to become pawns in the Sassanians own internal power struggles? Or do I have my timing off?
christos200
Never tell me the odds
In my (few) readings about the Byzantine Empire i have come across at least two claims about the empire being able to sustain itself, provided that things had developed differently.
One was in 1071, obviously at Matzikert, had there not been a retreat and the capture of the decent emperor Romanos Diogenes. Even if this all happened still, the cancelling of the treaty between Romanos and Alp-Arslan (due to the byzantine machinations against Romanos) mean that the empire had to continue a war against the seljuks, which slowly cost the loss of the main bulk of Anatolia.
The other is at the 13nth century. The battle of Klokonitsa between the Empire of Thessalonike (Despotate of Epirus) and Bulgaria, and the resulting disastrous defeat of the greek army, meant that the Despotate of Epirus could not continue its march to liberate the rest of the european territories of the empire.
It was argued that if there had been two viable successor states, one in Europe and one in Asia Minor (Empire of Nicaea) then they might have had been able to fend off the continuous attacks by other powers more successfully. Of course they would have had to be allied, or at least not in war with each other.
You can comment on these two points of differentiation in the history of the empire, or mention your own proposed other points
Short answear:
No
Long answear:
Lets just say that somehow emperor constantine stoped the turks at 1453. Then what will happen? Is he a enough good general to strike back against the ottomans while they would be regrooping from their loss? Lets say that he manages to take a small part of thrace and minor asia. Then what? Arent the turks going to strike back? Will their be a enough emperor to stop them? Even if they survive the turks will the byzantine empire have good relations with the europeans who want to restore the latin empire against the heretical greeks? They could create a coloniial empire if they survived the turks. But how? The byzantines didnt have enough money, men and they had the turks or the europeans to think. Holy roman empire ( Austria) collapsed beacause of nationalism. There were too many nationalitys to be part of the same empire. So the byzantines would have collapse and greece and other balkans nations would have been created in the byzantine place. So the byzantine empire would have never survived and maybe its better that way. Later the byzantines may have learnt their true identity and call themshelfs greeks, create a nation state and survive in the form of modern greece. But as a powerfull or even small international empire no, they wouldnt survive.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
Some Byzantines were already calling themselves Hellenes by 12th century at least. That term had more of a "high refined culture" connotation, though its proto-nationalist use wasn't that uncommon (see Plethon or even some letters of Theodore II Laskaris, with stuff like "The same air that was then (in Antiquity), is now our too; the Hellenic language is ours; and we are drawn from their blood ... But what wisdom ever came from you (Latins) to us?").
I wouldn't call the Byzantium of Palaiologoi an international empire anyway.
I wouldn't call the Byzantium of Palaiologoi an international empire anyway.
christos200
Never tell me the odds
I agree, but still they wouldnt survive too much.
I think, off the top of my head, your timing's off, but I don't have the resources to hand to be able to say! It doesn't really matter, though. My point was just that if their sole motive had been fear that Christians might act as a fifth column, the simplest solution - and the most typical for the times - would have been to get rid of them. The fact that they chose to resettle them implies that there was some other motive at work, at least so it seems to me. But I'm no expert on this.
I don't think internal enemies were exterminated en masse all that often. After all, these are still people paying taxes, and at these times the more citizens you had, the better. It'd be strange to exterminate a population you could keep. Moving it to a place far away from the enemy they were part of assured that they wouldn't be dangerous, but kept them playing taxes.
Similar threads
