The Byzantine empire

[Winner]

that name looks hard to pronounce.

English pronunciation is sooooo limited. I have absolutely no problem with Ank(ý)ra

 

[Mathalamus]

In order:

Too far south for what?
In ruins due to events that happened after the PoD. Surely the raid of 838 didn't happen in TTL, did it?
Coastal cities are also main trade arteries, and they aren't that vulnerable to attack. It's damned hard to make an amphibious landing in the real world.
You mentioned Nikaia three times; it is a suitable major city, and I don't understand your coastal objections.
Trebizond being on the coasts doesn't make sense as an objection. Presumably the Byzantines would have a half-decent navy?

You also didn't say anything about Kaisareia.

Why are you switching the capital anyway? The Byzantine state was insanely top-heavy in terms of Constantinopolitan importance. You lose that city, you damn near lose the state and society, whether you're just 'moving the capital' on a lark or being pushed out by attack. Few other societies come as near to collapse as the Byzantines did in the OTL Fourth Crusade when Constantinople fell, and it was chiefly due to the total lack of interest by the Latins in pursuing policies agreeable to the Byzantines and to their great deficiencies in military power (the expedition was frickin' miniscule) that Byzantine society survived the first years of the Frangokratia at all.

1. its too far south of Constantinople and it dosnt look as a good centralized location.
2. right, it wasn't razed ion my timeline, but the location istill isnt suitible.
3. a strong power can easily destroy the navy by pure attrition. to be honest i dont know if Constantinople has a deep enough water to contruct modern ships.
4. there were two nikaia's in greece alone.
5. the coastal part of Anatolia is apparently easy to invade and hard to hold.

i chose Ankara as a secondary Capital because it is far enough away from Constantinople that an enemy will need to spend a lot of energy just going there. its also pretty far from the front lines ( at least it was in the Turkish war of independence), and i had to choose a secondary capital in case Constantinople ever fell.

 

[Kyriakos]

Iirc Thessalonike was called the Symvasileuousa (Συμβασιλεύουσ&#945 which means co-reigning city. Reigning, obviously, along with Constantinople

 

[Mathalamus]

Iirc Thessalonike was called the Symvasileuousa (Συμβασιλεύουσ&#945 which means co-reigning city. Reigning, obviously, along with Constantinople

really? that makes sense actually.

one question: throughout history until the fall of Constantinople was Byzantium generally stronger than its neighbors or was it generally weaker?

(i know in the latter years it was weaker...)

 

[Lord Baal]

really? that makes sense actually.

one question: throughout history until the fall of Constantinople was Byzantium generally stronger than its neighbors or was it generally weaker?

(i know in the latter years it was weaker...)

It fluctuated.

 

[Mathalamus]

yes, but what about..say.. around 1025? was it stronger than even the Fatimid caliphate?

 

[Kyriakos]

It probably was the strongest, in the late era, under the reign of Basil II. And then it was huge:

I read that in the Matzikert era (immediately before it) it could raise armies of 1 million soldiers, so still it was a massive force.

 

[Phrossack]

Unfortunately, even then it was less than a quarter of the size of the Roman Empire at its height. Though, considering its numerous powerful enemies and internal struggles, that was impressive.

 

[Mathalamus]

It probably was the strongest, in the late era, under the reign of Basil II. And then it was huge:

I read that in the Matzikert era (immediately before it) it could raise armies of 1 million soldiers, so still it was a massive force.

ouch. that looks a lot more powerful than any other state in that time. maybe i should alter my time line and have Basil II choose a lawful successor. (with the PoD around 1025)

Unfortunately, even then it was less than a quarter of the size of the Roman Empire at its height. Though, considering its numerous powerful enemies and internal struggles, that was impressive.

coudl the roman empire at its height (117 AD) mobilize a million soliders? it probabaly could, but they woudl be so spread out it woudlent matter. Byzantium had a much smaller erea and still managed a million man army when the need arises, giving them more military density.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

ouch. that looks a lot more powerful than any other state in that time.

You can tell that by just looking at surface area at a specific moment in time?

I guess that means that the Sassanid Empire was so unstoppably powerful around 620 or so, right?

coudl the roman empire at its height (117 AD) mobilize a million soliders? it probabaly could, but they woudl be so spread out it woudlent matter. Byzantium had a much smaller erea and still managed a million man army when the need arises, giving them more military density.

The Byzantines by the turn of the millennium rarely mobilized large amounts of troops. It was more like hired large amounts of mercenaries.

 

[Mathalamus]

You can tell that by just looking at surface area at a specific moment in time?

I guess that means that the Sassanid Empire was so unstoppably powerful around 620 or so, right?

The Byzantines by the turn of the millennium rarely mobilized large amounts of troops. It was more like hired large amounts of mercenaries.

..the sassinaids got totally defeated becuase the Emperor lead an army directly to the heart of the Empire.

 

[Phrossack]

Neither side lost that series of wars. The Sassanids were "totally defeated" by the Arabs.

 

[Mathalamus]

then obviously the Sassinaids were worst off so they did indeed lose the war.

 

[aelf]

Of course. They had the Kwisatz Haderach against them.

 

[Lord Baal]

Of course. They had the Kwisatz Haderach against them.

He brought the shortening of the way.

Mathalamus, territory alone is not a great indicator of the strength of an empire. The Roman Empire was at its largest under Trajan (I think) but was actually slightly stronger under his heir, Hadrian, who abandoned territory in exchange for having his troops closer to home to prevent any internal squabbles from getting out of hand. The Russian Empire in 1917 was huge, yet crumbling frominternal rot. Austria-Hungary was similar. Ching China was actually a little larger when it collapsed than it had been for much of the 19th century. A territorial map doesn't necessarily give one an insight of the strength of the nation holding said territory.

 

[Phrossack]

then obviously the Sassinaids were worst off so they did indeed lose the war.

First off, it's "Sassanids" or "Sassanians", not "Sassinaids". Second, the Romans failed to "totally defeat" the Sassanids like you claimed, and the borders were roughly the same as they were before the war. Third, the Sassanids launched a successful assault on the heart of the Romans by taking Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, and the True Cross, and besieged Constantinople, so even though the Romans eventually got them back, they didn't do nearly so much damage to the Sassanids.

 

[Mathalamus]

if Byzantium was more damaged than the Sassanids, how come it was Sassanids who fell?

 

[LightSpectra]

if Byzantium was more damaged than the Sassanids, how come it was Sassanids who fell?

The Sassanians were a dynasty of Persia. Just as many of the Roman dynasties had peaks and then were eliminated, so it was the case that Persia had many regimes. As a geopolitical entity, Iran remained quite powerful for another millenium.

 

[Mathalamus]

The Sassanians were a dynasty of Persia. Just as many of the Roman dynasties had peaks and then were eliminated, so it was the case that Persia had many regimes. As a geopolitical entity, Iran remained quite powerful for another millenium.

iran did not regain their independence until after the mongols fell. before it was part of the various Arabian Caliphates.

 

[Cynovolans]

Even though they were the ones who lost the war, the Persians would dominate the Caliph.