Help
QuickTidal, on 04 December 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:
Studlock, on 04 December 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:
QuickTidal, on 04 December 2014 - 04:04 PM, said:
Studlock, on 04 December 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:
Kind like how the Eastern Roman Empire still held on to much power after the collapse of the Western half.
History sidebar: I don't know that this is an apt analogy. The Eastern Roman Empire only existed as long as it did after the fact because of the walls of Byzantium/Constantinople which were too thick to siege. They were literally assaulted from all sides for all the rest of its years...and this included a changing of the Emperor on an almost yearly to bi-yearly basis a lot of the time. And they certainly would never reach the offensive legionary power that Imperial Rome had when it was united. Byzantine armies were handed their asses more often than not when they went out into the field, only surviving because the walls of their capitol were so thick when they retreated. At best they held onto a politically high-minded power and educational power...but were no longer a severe military one or a threat.
This is way of topic but you would have to look at the era, it did last a 1000 years after the fall of Rome after all, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to say it only lasted because the strong walls of it city. Under the rule of Justinian I reconquered many former holdings (Belisarius was a hell of military commander), and had pretty good military outings until around the 11th century, and between the 7th century and the 11th century I think we could consider the Eastern Romans a military powerhouse. There problem was that constant war on their Eastern border, be that the Caliphate, or Ottomans, or even the Persians before that. That and the constant struggle of succession which I don't think would effect the Eastern seaboard of the former USA as bad. That being said all analogies break down, at the Roman Empire wasn't the greatest military forces at the time it collapsed, and if the USA fell tomorrow, it would fall as the most powerful military force that every existed, and a large part of that would be tied up in the East. (nerdsidenote: make belief future-history is fun.)
Having recently read two books about Byzantium and the topic, I really don't think they were a threat like you implied that the US states might be after a fall. That's all I was pointing out. And yes, NerdHistory way off topic!
Byzantium was saved several times by its walls, true. However to stop there is too simplistic an explanation.
Up until the emergence of Islam Byzantium was indubitably the major power of Europe and the middle east. However, following a rather disastrous campaign in Italy, and after the arrival of what might have been the bubonic plague crippled the empire, there was little strength left. Normally manpower could have been regrown, so to speak, but the arrival of the muslim armies put a stop to all of that. In less than a decade most of the empire's richest territories were taken. Perhaps if the Persians had been in a better position, things might've looked different, but they too were on the verge of collapse, also possibly because of plague.
So, more than anything, Byzants steady decline was a result of bad luck at what became their peak. And yet, they didn't survive for another 900 or so years because they had big walls. If it was that easy everyone could have gone and built themselves some big walls and then where would we have been? No, the empire survived for so long because they could build walls of that magnitude. The Byzantine empire was by far the most advanced civilization west of India at the time, and because of Justinian's reforms, by far the most well run. Even during succession crisis (of which there were many), taxes were still collected. The judicial system still ran smoothly. Levies were still raised and food still purchased. The diplomatic corps still did their thing, playing enemies against each other. Even at the bleakest of moments the Empire was able to pull itself back from the brink because it was so much more efficient than anyone else. When a strong leader grabbed the reins you had moments of renaissance, but alas, most of the rulers were rather lackluster.
In that regard the Ottomans' claim to being the successors of Rome had quite a bit of merit. They too had a superior bureaucracy compared to their neighbours and was able to utilize their resources in a much more efficient manner than say Spain or France.
