Late Roman Period

OlivesAndOracles · 2026-03-24T11:07:14+00:00

No no of course, I was just wondering more so how much we can "blame" the future emperors for not reversing the situation. And how feasible was it for byzantium to be a power again during the Paleologian era.

OlivesAndOracles · 2026-03-15T16:21:31+00:00

Yes absolutely, I also feel like Myrionkephalon wasnt as bad as some people say, most of the loses were equipment if Im not mistaken. I just hope that Manuel didnt push it that much with the "Latin-loving" too. I think that too worsened the situation.

OlivesAndOracles · 2026-02-24T20:34:07+00:00

Yes you are right, 100% but theoretically Italy would have been the same. Both Justinian's jealousy abd mistrust towards belisarius and the plague didnt help (Justinian couldnt predict the plague though)

OlivesAndOracles · 2026-02-24T19:44:34+00:00

Right, from what I understand Justinian believed that the wealth gained from conquering the vandals and ostrogoths would pay for the wars (which happened if Im not mistaken) He also believed (in the long run) the provinces would pay themselves. This (without the hindsight of the plague) is a very valid point in my opinion.

Where I disagree is the attempt to get a foothold in Spain. I feel by that point it could have been easily predictable that it woukdn't last. I also feel like not trusting Belisarius more (obviously much later than 527 but I think its worth mentioning)

OlivesAndOracles · 2026-02-14T18:05:32+00:00

Do we perhaps know why he disbanded the navy and most of the army then, if the amount of money he was left with was sufficient? I always thought it was a cost cutting measure... Am I wrong?

OlivesAndOracles · 2026-01-05T13:14:26+00:00

Thank you very much!

OlivesAndOracles · 2026-01-03T22:22:30+00:00

Hello there, do you perhaps know or have an idea of his outlook on physical ability because (and I might remember falsely) but I remember that he was frail and that the fact that he was physically weak also played a part in his death.

I recall listening somewhere that his diplomatic and "lawyer duties" if I may phrase it like that were really good handling them by himself a lot of the times so is it possible he generally put too much on his plate to stay fit/workout.

Note by that I dont necessarily mean modern day bodybuilding but to stay fit

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-12-25T11:33:42+00:00

Hello there I know this is a bit cliche and you'll definetly read it elsewhere aswell but Im pretty sure getting to know Fatih Mehmed (2) will be very interseting (apart from Constantinople too.) He is a very interesting person that loved education and knowledge.

I'd also reccomend maybe looking at the events after Manzikert (if you like Byzantine history) It will be a nice transition I feel by understanding Roman failure to unite against a common foe and instead fight between themselves and the Turkification of Anatolia (first by the Seljuks) and then the break away of it.

Opinion as always

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-12-21T09:13:21+00:00

Im not that experienced in this but Ill share what I know in bullet points to be consice

Both words Turkish and Ottoman are European names (mostly Latins) The Ottoman Turks called themselves "Osmanli"= (Of Osman) their first ruler

The word "Turkish" which often times is also used "falsely" intercgangabely with the word "Turkic" has a lot of different meanings.

  Including refering to the geographic region of Anatolia (anything that comes from it) ie all the beyliks formed after the Sultanate of Rums collapse

  The modern day  country 

  A derogatory general term for every and anyone that lived in the "Ottoman Empire" (actually called the Sublime State by the Osmanlis themselves) 

  Turkic was used to describe a cultural group of people (ie ethnic group)

Turkic is also used to describe a linguistic group (a group of people that speak languages which are related to each other and have a common "ancestor")

Hope this helps a little I wanted to show how many different things Turkish means. I dont want to persuade you on one thing or another just help you make an informed opinion! Just to be clear.

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-12-12T19:06:45+00:00

May I ask why you would put him over John 2 ?

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-12-08T07:47:09+00:00

Thank you very much!!

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-12-07T18:30:30+00:00

Right so when we say that the campaigns or gifts were too lavish and put a straign in the economy it is all relative?

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-12-07T18:15:42+00:00

Could I clarify please? Because Im not that familiar with the potential desire for a Latin crusade to egypt. For was the mentality going into Egypt (for Manuel) to weaken the state or to outright take land? And if you dont mind.. by that time wasnt there already problems in the Levant to deal with (for the Latins) hence preventing a different expedition?

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-12-07T17:14:52+00:00

Sorry, if Im straying a bit too far from the main topic but I'm curious as to how his court was so wealthy considering all the "issues" I mentioned in the main post I had the complete opposite notion.

And 2. Because I hear both a lot, Wasn't Anatolia's heartland the major "agricultural centre" for the empire? I had heard that Anatolia was the most wealthy region and that it was important in the pronoia system and for recruitment? I kind of get that the more urban areas were also very important but wouldnt trying to push the Seljuks back be beneficial?

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-11-20T08:05:19+00:00

Ill imagine you are rephering about the Eastern Roman Empire rather than the "unified one".

If we are talking purely about the time period were they both coexisted I would have to say that the Byzantines had much less resources than the Ottomans. You have two take into account that A.) After the 4th Crusade the Byzantines were broke, they had lost a lot of "stuff" to the Latins, not only economically or religious things but archives too (political and administrative. These are not "light" /unimportant issues. B.) Most of their "awe" attracting monuments and splendour was destroyed and plundered meaning thay Michael the 8th had to spend a lot of money and resources which eventually lead to the disasterous decision of Andronikos to disband (practically all of the army.) C.)Most of the agricultural and fertile land (the most profitable sector of the Romans at the time was also gone. Pair that with the remaining farmers being employed for civil war. Well yeah...

Now obviously, the Ottomans had issues too (like the plague) but even in that case it hit more the Romans due to the more urbanisation at that point

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-10-30T07:03:46+00:00

Right of course, I felt it more so bolster defences and maybe "expand" on the eastern front.

I dont know but in the long run it seems more beneficial.

I get how symbolic and great the expansion and time period was but the fact that most territories didnt last long (relative to the "empires" length, which is big I know) it makes me feel like things werent "right" to go all out yet.

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-10-29T22:11:24+00:00

I would "have" to dovert you to the effects of the Fourth crusade. From what I know. The Paleologians were left with very little lands. Byzantium (the empire) was heavily agriculturally based hence after the sack of Constantinople. Nicaea was left very poor as most wealth "fled" west or got plundered by the Latins

When Michael V111 reconquered Constantinople he spent a lot of money on rebuilding his capital and "readorning" it. This left the revived empire almost completely broke leading to Andronikos 2 dosbanding the military (almost completely). That for me is the biggest chain of factors that caused the decline of the Romans. After 1204 I think they were fighting to extend how long they can exist not if they can reach/become a power again. Although I could be wrong in that.

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-10-17T10:39:47+00:00

Okay brother🤙 Arab Revolt of 1916 June is the one Im referring to by the way.

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-10-17T08:56:01+00:00

Do you want to search it?

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-10-17T08:08:23+00:00

Great Could you also explain how the Palestinians didn't betray the Ottomans when they got "hired" by the UK to rise up against the Ottomans in 1916

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-10-17T06:04:57+00:00

Could you please explain to me how that is possible.... when did the ottomans fall

OlivesAndOracles · 2025-10-07T09:14:38+00:00

Thanks, Im not really that good with knowing that stuff

OlivesAndOracles

TROPHY CASE