Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
i thought Byzantium circa 1261 was an inch from death. if it wasn't so, how come they kept losing?
i thought Byzantium circa 1261 was an inch from death. if it wasn't so, how come they kept losing?
This. Also, if they were an inch from death as you say, they'd never have lasted another 200 years.In 1261 they just got Constantinople back from the Latins. They were probably at their strongest in almost a century.
This. Also, if they were an inch from death as you say, they'd never have lasted another 200 years.
you should remember that when the ottomans besiged them(they defending with ~5-7k against... I don't know against what, I doubt it could've been 100k under mehmet, but anyway, serious numbers) they were "an inch" away from repulsing. And by 1453 the siegin' eq. made some pretty decent advancements from the time we're talking about.
Ok, they were doomed anyway, but the balance of forces was so disproportionate and yet the ottomans didn't have a field day.
That's the main point against the invasion of W. Europe too: I doubt they could've pulled it out but anyway, even if they could... the cost would've been great for so little gains(W. Europe of that time wasn't famous for "good booty", but for stone walls which aren't exactly the wet dream of a pillager... much like Constantinopole after the 4th crusade).
Most likely disease do to a huge amount of men crammed into a relatively small space with inadequate sanitation, and possibly lack of supplies do to difficult logistical position and staying in one location preventing good foraging. Along with two months of attrition. I don't know about that time to be exact, but that seems pretty common up to (and for much of the world including) modern times. 80,000 doesn't seem too unreasonable.- unless the byzantines had machine guns, I don't know how they could've inflict those casualties given the scenario
I'm certain the Byzantines themselves had something to do with it, too. The Ottomans weren't the real threat until the 1350s anyway.they lasted this long because their enemies suck. including the ottomans.
I'm certain the Byzantines themselves had something to do with it, too. The Ottomans weren't the real threat until the 1350s anyway.
The Ottomans becoming a threat caused the end of the civil wars.before or after the civil war?
they lasted this long because their enemies suck. including the ottomans.
Exactly, it was "trashed," yet still survived for 200 years. Therefore, it's neighbours must have been more "trashed," yes?no it couldn't. Constantinople was trashed, they had few if any troops, and a bunch of civil wars just sapped everything.
Byzantium could have survived indefinitely as a vassal state, but no.. manual II had to retire and put a really immature leader in charge. real smart.
Exactly, it was "trashed," yet still survived for 200 years. Therefore, it's neighbours must have been more "trashed," yes?
Seriously, if you're going to be a Byzantine fanboy, at least learn some Byzantine history. I'm not even a Byzantine guy - our most prominent one is probably Dachs - and I know considerably more about its history than you do. Byzantium was in its best shape in a century during this time period.
Also, you're aware of what happens to vassal states in precarious positions? They get outright annexed, like Crimea did when Catherine the Great decided she wanted it outright.
They were not, I assure you.the enemies on the Anatolian side were definitely trashed. i don't know about those on the European side.
in all honestly a peaceful annexation woudl be better than outright conquest. Constantine XI woudl have been a governor of a Byzantine Province.
They were not, I assure you.
Better by what standards? You are aware that Constantine XI very nearly pulled this one out of the bag, are you not? The Byzantines humiliated the Turks during the seige of Constantinople, and only lost the city because some idiot left a gate unlocked. Surely victory and continued existence as an independent state would be better than either conquest or peaceful annexation?
And what makes you think Constantine XI would have been left in power? Mehmet II made Constantinople his capital, with good reason I might add. It would be in his best interests to simply kill Constantine XI and forcibly take the city even if they reached a peaceful arrangement.
i was aware that the Byzantines were winning the siege, but if they won that one, mehmed woudl just come back again and again until they lost.