Could Eastern Roman Empire have survived after Manzikert? Could it have survived after the Fourth Crusade...

Could Eastern Roman Empire have survived after Manzikert? Could it have survived after the Fourth Crusade? Could it have survived to this day? Ottoman Empire survived until 1914 and got successfully successed by Turkey; why not Rome?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scholars_in_the_Renaissance
youtube.com/watch?v=0gHRFuOlYfs
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The bourgeoisie destroyed the ERE

With a little help from their retarded frankish/german friends, yeah... it could have survived.

Anatolia would have been eventally lost anyway, but there was no reason for them to loose the European part of their Empire.

instead of asking why East Rome fell, people really should be asking how it lived for so fucking long.

It's actually pretty amazing to think that a Roman state existed during the reign of Cyrus the Great in Persia, and was still around to see the Italian Renaissance start.

But as fro OP's statements, the Byzantines went on for 4 more centuries after Manzikert, and 2 centuries after the 4th crusade, it's nothing short of amazing that an empire literally torn apart and partitioned by Crusaders was put back together at all.

as for surviving to this day, the Byzantines just couldn't keep up with the times. Gunpowder made the once-invincible walls of Constantinople vulnerable, and new tactics and strategy just simply outclassed the Byzantine's increasingly antiquated military doctrine and couldn't reform to keep up.

> to see the Renaissance

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scholars_in_the_Renaissance

Why not reform the military if it was so bad? Checkmate, atheists.

The awnser of all your questions is yes if the orthodox states had put aside their differences and worked together against islam. Unlike western christendom they could not afford this infighting. They had several opportunities to recover, most notably Tamerlane almost killing the Ottoman Empire on it's infancy, and they didn't they continued to fight and conspire against each other.

What do you mean could? It did survive. Have you ever heard of the Komnenian Restorian? They reconquered much of the Balkans as well as the outside of Anatolia.
Once Manuel Komnenus died the empire was plunged into chaos which they never really recovered from.
The 4th Crusade and sacking of Constantinople was certainly the end for Byzantium though. Michael VIII Palaiologos was really the last person who had a truly positive reign.

>>On 8 October 1912, during theFirst Balkan War, Lemnos became part ofGreece. The Greek navy under Rear AdmiralPavlos Kountouriotistook it over without any casualties from the occupying Turkish Ottoman garrison, who were returned to Anatolia.Peter Charanis, born on the island in 1908 and later a professor ofByzantine historyatRutgers Universityrecounts when the island was occupied and Greek soldiers were sent to the villages and stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of the children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of them asked. ‘‘At Hellenes,’’ the children replied. ‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ a soldier retorted. ‘‘No, we areRomans." Thus was the most ancient national identity in all of history, preserved in isolation, finally absorbed and ended.[14]

do we know at what rate the anatolian greek speaking christians were converting to islam and learning turkish?
that is the most important factor.

At most I can imagine a Byzantine empire that controls the egean coast where cities like Ephesus used to be, and the black sea coast where Trebizon and Sinop are.
But most of anatolia would be a turkish state.

nice

to put things in a more awesome context, from the establishment of the Roman Kingdom to the fall of Constantiniople. a Roman state has existed for nearly 2200 years.

in the nearly 5000 years of human writing, Rome has been around for almost half of all written history.

>With a little help from their retarded frankish/german friends, yeah... it could have survived.

No. That was part of the issue. The Turks were just one side in an issue that surrounded the very idea of an Emperor who commanded the sole loyalty of his vassals. Manzikert didn't destroy the ERE, it just introduced a series of Turkish vassals into Anatolia who the emperor integrated into his politics like the Slavs and Armenians before them. The problem was unlike the Slavs and Armenians the Turks and Franks were influenced by the politics of their ethnic kin abroad in the Middle East and Europe. After the death of the Seljuk Sultan one of many pretenders fled to Anatolia and established his own sultanate, forever destroying the prospect of subjugating the Turks to the Byzantine hierarchy. This and past Byzantine mismanagement eventually affected the Slavs and Armenians as well, who set up their own kingdoms independent of Byzantine control. The Italians and Normans also set up increasingly independent and belligerent colonies and kingdoms in Greece and the Levant, and slipped out of the emperor's political grasp with each Crusade or concession to them.

The civil wars that weakened the position of the emperor only exacerbated this problem.

Huh? If anything Turks still refer to Greeks as "Romans".

Trebizond survived for a few more years, the Despotate of Epirus until 1479.

People constantly rag on Byzantines for falling the way it did but its the longest lasting empire of its size to date. No Western colonial empire lasted as long, no east Asian empire, and no other near eastern empire lasted as long.

>People constantly rag on Byzantines for falling the way it did

I never got that, Constantinople fell in a massive, epic battle where the emperor couragerously went down with his country. As opposed to the WRE, which was ended by a terrified child emperor being deposed and exiled, and the HRE, where a thousand years of history were undone by an emperor literally ragequitting after a couple of losses, and retiring to his other empire that he had in hand.

no they dont...

the problem with people is that the byzantines stopped being the hole of the cake so to speak, they were not, despite the extremely strategically relevant location, a world-dominating trade hug, they weren't the cultural and technological hotspot for progress, they lost and lost territory until they were another shriveled state clawing for it's dear life.

they weren't an empire, they were a relic of one.

youtube.com/watch?v=0gHRFuOlYfs

Not sure about Turks, but ISIS uses the term Roman sometimes to refer to western people in general. They also call the Iranians Abbasids in some of their videos while calling some Sunni groups Umayyads.

Nope

They used western mercenaries since the beginning the Vth century, which mean they weren't able to defend their own country by themselves, they also called for help wich led to the crusaders saving their ass by retaking nicea and dorylaeum and defeating the turks and the fatimids.

Even during the first siege of constantinople what saved their gayreek ass was a revolt led by the copts, then during the second siege it was the bulgars.

They do that on purpose to fit their theological propaganda. They believe the world will end when the Romans come and are defeated by them or something, so obviously the West is now Rome.

No, the only reason Constantinople fell is because a greek soldier forgot to lock a door, if he didn't forget the empire could have lived a while longer and taken back some of the territory it lost

is that why they haven't destroyed Roman archeological sites yet?

Also Byzantum had a fucked up economic situation.
It was cheaper for a peasant to submit to islamic rule and pay jizha then byzantinian taxes.

in turkish greeks of greece are called yunan (ionians)
and greeks of the empire are called rum (romans).
we still call turkish greeks, cretans and cypriots rum.

This gave me goosebumps.

I didn't ask for these feels

I am a Turk, nigger. Turks don't refer to anyone with words that are derived from "Greek" or "Hellene". Greeks of Greece are called "Yunanlar"; Ionians. Greeks who live outside Greece are called "Rumlar"; Romans.

In the Ottoman Empire, Roman and Hellene meant essentially the same thing. Those kids were probably just confused, and didn't know that the "Hellenes" they were talking to were "Romans" themselves.

That makes sense given that Greeks themselves called themselves Romans well into the 1800s and only switched to Hellenes for the purposes of the independence movement.

>le catholics destroyed the byzantines meme

>what is the crusade of nicopolis
>what is the crusade of varna
>what is the war of the holy league
>what is the council of florence

they did all that they could

>""""Roman""""

The Byzantine Empire survived culturally in the East- and some South-Slavic nations, especially in Russia.

Comparable to how the Western Roman Empire is preserved in the Vatican. It is not a purely religious thing, many purely socio-cultural differences exist that go straight back to Western (in case of Roman catholics) Roman christian culture.

>Anatolia would have been eventally lost anyway, but there was no reason for them to loose the European part of their Empire.

You mean basically Greece?

>Even during the first siege of constantinople what saved their gayreek ass was a revolt led by the copts, then during the second siege it was the bulgars.

Bogomilism started in Slavic Macedonia and Bulgaria, basically as a reaction against the Byzantine Church.

Byzantine Romans weren't very much liked neither by their Slavic neighbours nor Franks. They were said to be very snobby about themselves and their history, and treat foreigners with visible disgust.

Also Byzantine still is synonymous with excessive bureaucracy.

Hence what I said earlier about Russia retaining much of Byzantine culture. I share pretty much Spengler's view on the nature of Russia and the majority of Russians, but where he sees what he calls Asiatic influences, I think that there is quite a lot of Byzantine influence there.

>tfw you will never call yourself Roman

Greeks in Turkey call themselves just that. Hell, Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is called "Roman Orthodox Patriarchate".

Not as epic as the fall of the American Empire, with Emperor Trump riding a nuke into mecca.

Yes. It could easily have survived Manzikert, it was well on its way to a new relative golden age before 1204 fucked it up. It had even reclaimed up to the Danube, which hadn't been under Roman control since the Slavic invasions.

when a Turks looks at the ruins of Ephessus, do they see the work of their ancestors, or the work of their neighbours whom they dont like a lot?

>the work of their neighbours whom they dont like a lot?

This one. Which is bizarre since they're ethnically the exact same people.

Actually it was an Italian soldier that didnt close the kerkoporta

Ottoman Empire is The Roman Empire. It is the 3rd Rome.

many parts of south italy and siciy were nominally under cotrol of the emperor after the death of basil the bulgarslayer,indeed slavs bulgars and other non greek speaking people were under the political authority of the emperor and just before 1049 almost half the balkans and anatolia were under the full check of the empire.so maybe under a competent military-based and fiscal-wise emperor it could have survived or flourished again even after manzikert,myriokephalon or even the 4th crusade.

I WILL NEVER FUCKING FORGIVE THE ETERNAL CATHOLIC

NEVER EVER

THEY RUINED EVERYTHING

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Unfortunately the latter. Everyone here likes to believe that we were some shit smelling horse fuckers from some random steppes. This nation needs a re-awakening.

well the average turk has nothing to do racially with the turks tha came from the steppes,but culturally, man the turk has nothing in common with the people who lived in anatolia for the most part of history