The death of the Byzantine civilization

Entry

The reasons for the fall of the city of Constantinople, the early medieval center of the world, are described in great detail. There were enough articles on this subject on the VO website, and in this note I want to draw attention to a number of key factors that led to the fall of the Roman civilization.

Diorama of the fall of Constantinople. Army Museum. Istanbul. Turkey. Photo by the author.

So, Byzantium was the direct successor of the Roman Empire; the Byzantines themselves considered their history and the state is a direct continuation of the Roman Empire, without any continuity. It just happened that the capital and all state institutions were transferred from the West to the East.

In 476, the last emperor of the Western part of the empire was deposed in Rome, let us emphasize that the Roman state was not destroyed, but the Roman ruler was deprived of power, the signs of power were sent to Constantinople, the center of the empire was finally relocated to New Rome.

Western civilization took shape in the territories of the Roman Empire, not by succession, but by conquest, beginning from the end of the 5th — 6th centuries. The key question of the rivalry of Western countries with Byzantium, starting from the VIII century, was the struggle for the right to be considered the heir of the great Rome? Who to count? Western civilization of the Germanic peoples on a geographical basis or Roma civilization, based on the incident of state, political and legal succession?

In the 6th century, under Justinian the Great, the territory of the Roman Empire was practically restored. Returned Italy, Africa, part of Spain. The state covered the territory of the Balkans, Crimea, Armenia, Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the Middle East and Egypt.

A hundred years later, with the advent and expansion of Islamic civilization, the territory of the state was significantly reduced, the Arab invasion decided the fate of the imperial lands in the east: the most important provinces were lost: Egypt, the Middle East, Africa. At the same time, a part of the territories was lost in Italy. Ethnically, the country becomes almost the state of one people - the Greeks, the Greek language completely supplanted the universal imperial language - Latin.

From this period, the struggle for survival begins, sometimes illuminated by brilliant victories, however, the empire had no more economic or military forces to conduct constant and active military actions or create "challenges" to other civilizations.

This weakness, for some time, Byzantine diplomacy “compensated” with “tricks”, money, bluff.

But the ongoing struggle on several fronts exhausted the country. Hence the payment of "tribute", for example, Russia, under the guise of voluntary gifts, in order to compensate or level the damage.

An outbreak of political and military activity was observed in the X century, 40-ies of the XI century. In place of which came the new invasion from the steppe: Polovtsy, Pechenegs and Turks (Seljuk Turks).

The war with them and the beginning of a new invasion from the west (the Normans of southern Italy) brought the country to the brink of destruction: lands were lost in Italy (South and Sicily, Venice), almost all of Asia Minor was lost, the Balkans were destroyed.

In such conditions, the new emperor Alexey Komnin, a warrior and diplomat, turned to the West, to the Roman bishop, who was formally in Byzantine jurisdiction, although the schism in Christianity had already begun.

It was the first crusades that reanimated Byzantium, returned the lands in Asia Minor up to Syria. It would seem that a new renaissance began, which lasted until the 40-s of the XII century.

Due to the specifics of the Byzantine institutions of power, which were increasingly dilapidated, under the influence of the “tradition”: real and contrived, a period of discord in the country began again.

At the same time, there was an increase in Western countries, united by feudal institutions, which saw in Byzantium and Constantinople a source of fabulous wealth, at the same time, its administrative and military weakness.

What led to 4-th crusade and the capture of Constantinople by the Western soldiers. Fifty-seven years later, the Greeks of the Nicene "empire" with the support of the Genoese, Venice's competitors, regained the capital and a small part of the land in Europe, but during 50 years they lost all remnants of land in Asia Minor.

No lessons from the shame of defeat were made, and from that moment the state began to roll down the slope:

• all the same hope for a miracle and God's hand (“hope for God, but do not commit it yourself” is not the Byzantine motto);

• all the same quarrels and intrigues of the ruling elite for shares in a decreasing pie.

• inability and unwillingness to see reality, and not the world through glasses of imperial arrogance.

In the internecine struggle for resources, the ruling stratum lost lands, which fell under the power of foreigners, and with the loss of lands and a free congregator, the basis of the army and navy.

Of course, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. there was an army and a small fleet in the country, but the latter could not solve any problems, giving way sharply flotillas, and not the fleets of the Italians, but in the end the Turks.

The army consisted of detachments of rebellious aristocrats and mercenaries who periodically staged uprisings in order to seize weak power in Constantinople.

Such a helmet could be on the defenders of the city of Constantine. Barbotto Sev. Italy XV century. Army Museum. Istanbul. Turkey. Photo by the author.

The Romanian power after 1204 was only an empire by name, in fact it became a semi-colony of Italians, shrinking to the size of the city of Constantinople, small territories in Asia Minor (Trabzon) and Greece.

In this regard, I would like to quote a lengthy quotation from L.N. Gumilev, who brilliantly describes the situation of the ethnos at death. Within the framework of his theory, which many consider controversial, he noted an important phase in the development of an ethnos - obscuration (darkening):

“Oddly enough, the phase of obscuration does not always lead an ethnic group to death, although it always causes irreparable damage to ethnic culture. If obscuration develops quickly and there are no predatory neighbors seeking to seize, then the imperative: “Be like us” meets a logical reaction: “Day, yes, mine!” As a result, the very possibility of preserving the ethnic dominant and any collective actions, even destructive . Directional development degenerates into a kind of “Brownian movement”, in which the elements - individuals or small consortia, which have retained, at least partially, the tradition, are able to resist the tendency towards progressive decline. In the presence of even a small passionate tension and inertia of the everyday norms developed by the ethnos in the preceding phases, they preserve individual “islands” of culture, creating the deceptive impression that the existence of an ethnos as an integral system has not ceased. This is self-deception. The system has disappeared, only individual people survived and their memory of the past.
Adaptation in case of such rapid and constant changes in the environment is inevitably delayed, and the ethnic group perishes as system integrity. ”

The ruling clans of Byzantium, fighting for power, began to actively use the "new mercenaries" - the Ottoman Turks, "introducing" them with the European part of the country. After that, the Ottomans conquered all the Balkan countries and Byzantine territories around the capital, which became the basis of their state, the center of which was the Roman city of Adrianople (modern Edirne). The militant Orthodox Serbs participated in all the campaigns as part of the Ottoman army, both during the battle with Timur and during the siege of Constantinople.

The fall of Constantinople at the end of the fourteenth century. It was postponed by another “miracle”: the Mongol conqueror Timur defeated the Turkish Sultan Bayazet.

In 1422, the Turks lifted the siege of Constantinople under the threat of invasion by Western troops.

All the diplomatic attempts of the last emperors, including the game of contradictions in the Ottoman camp, the union with the Catholics and the recognition of the Pope as the head of the Orthodox Church, were not crowned with success.

In 1444, the Turks at Varna crushed the army of the Crusaders, which could only indirectly help the Byzantines.

These helmets were at the Turks in the last battle for Constantinople. Helmet of Sultan Abu Said Gurkan 1451-1469 Army Museum. Istanbul. Turkey. Photo by the author.

In 1453, despite the threat of another crusade, the young Sultan Mehmed II took the "capital of the world."

Now in the information space, there are two views on the problem of the death of the Byzantine civilization:

1. Themselves to blame - because of its "Byzantine policy", insidious and perfidious. We would agree with the West and the Pope, observe the agreements, and everything would be fine.

2. The blame is that they did not defend the Orthodox empire without creating a “strong state”. The idea is, of course, original, but not explaining anything.

The truth is still somewhere in the middle.

Byzantinist and church historian A.P. Lebedev wrote:

“Unfortunately, with all its religiosity, the society bore in itself a lot of the beginnings of a painful, pathological life, an abnormal development, from whatever it was. Religiousness was something separate from life: religiosity was in itself, life was in itself. Between them there was no such unity, that close connection, which, by supplying the one and the other in a harmonious relationship, would give rise to a truly improved, highly moral life. ”

Or add a very correct opinion of L. N. Gumilev:

"Byzantines spent excess energy (drive) on theological disputes and discord."

First of all, this characteristic of Romaic society should be attributed to its top, which, combining unbridled self-interest and unwillingness to make changes to decrepit governance institutions, was fascinated by Western trends, not realizing the essence of the phenomenon (“knighthood”, tournaments, “knightly” feasts, equestrian polo and etc.)

Excessive conservation of society has come into conflict with military technology. What did not allow at a certain stage to carry out "modernization" and led to the death of the country.

When we say “military technology”, we mean not only cannons or missiles as such, but the whole system of building defense: from training a soldier, his quality and health, to tactics and strategies in wars. If at certain stages of development of the country with theoretical “military science” in Byzantium everything was in order, the actual weapons were at a high level (which is one “Greek fire”), then the system of equipment for the armed forces and senior officers was always a problem. While there was money, it was possible to have mercenaries, but when the money ran out, the warriors ran out. And at the end of the twelfth century. Constantinople also lost technological advantages on land and sea, theoretical military science fell behind and retarded the development of tactics. With the loss of territories and finances, this problem has dramatically worsened.

The ideological disputes that periodically shook Byzantium did not contribute to the consolidation of society, it was a kind of “dispute during the plague.”

Attempts to modernize the system, or at least its elements, ran into aggressive conservatism. So, in the tenth century, when warrior-emperor Nikifor II Fok, who understood the need for ideological stimuli and personally saw how Arab warriors behave in battle, suggested

“To issue a law so that those warriors who perished in the war be canonized only because they fell in the war, not taking into account anything else. He forced the patriarch and the bishops to accept this as a dogma. The patriarch and the bishops, bravely resisting, kept the emperor from this intention, emphasizing the canon of Basil the Great, who says that a warrior who killed an enemy in a war must be excommunicated for three years from the sacrament. ”

In the end, there remained one dead-end paradigm: "a turban is better than a papal tiara."

Let us paraphrase VI Lenin: any civilization, like any revolution, only then is it worth something, if it can defend itself, to provide a defense system. We read - the system of protection, we understand - the system of development.

The Roman Empire, or the Christian Byzantine civilization, fell under the pressure of Western civilization and was absorbed by Islamic civilizations due to the following reasons: the preservation of the control system and, as a result, its disappearance (where shall we go?). Civilization has ceased to form "calls", and the "answers" were becoming weaker. At the same time, all the energy of the Byzantine aristocracy, however, as well as of the metropolitan society, was aimed at personal enrichment and building a system of government only for these purposes.

In this connection, the fate of the Great Duc (Prime Minister) Luka Notara, a supporter of the "turban" who was captured by the Turks, is a landmark. His young son liked Sultan Mehmed II, who demanded him to his harem. When the father refused to give up his son for desecration, the sultan ordered the execution of the whole family. Laonique Halkkokondil wrote that the children before the execution asked their father to give in return for life all the wealth that was in Italy! Pseudo-Sfrandzi describes the situation differently, telling that after the capture of Constantinople, the Great Duca Luka brought untold riches to Mehmed, the sultan, indignant at his cunning, asked: “Why didn’t you want to help your emperor and your homeland and give them untold riches that you had ...? "

The situation is the best characterizing the self-interest of the highest representatives of the Byzantine government, who, having wealth, were not ready to use them to defend the country.

However, in the situation of 1453, the ruling class could not do anything, the mobilization system failed in 1204, and it was almost impossible to recreate it. And the last thing: the inertia and passivity of the masses, especially in the capital, unwillingness to make efforts in the struggle against enemies and the hope of a miracle, all these factors led the Roman empire to death. As the soldier Procopius of Caesarean wrote back in the VI. about Constantinople: “They wanted to be witnesses of new adventures [of war], albeit with dangers for others.”

The main lesson of the fall of the Byzantine civilization is, oddly enough, that ... civilizations are mortal.

Comments

[Operator]

The Roman Empire, with its capital in Rome, had a cementing ethnic base represented by inhabitants of the Apennine Peninsula, connected by a common language and culture.

The second edition of the Roman Empire with its capital in New Rome was a patchwork ethnic blanket made up of Greeks, Little Asia, Armenians, inhabitants of the south of the peninsula and Balkan Slavs. Therefore, the second edition and collapsed in 1204 year - without any participation Gumilev with his fantastic theory of passionarity.

[VLR]

"Cementing Ethnic Basis" is about the Roman Republic. The First Rome of the era of the empire is no less a patchwork quilt than the Second Rome of Byzantium, and the Third Rome of Moscow (Russia). Moreover, the Romans were a minority in Rome itself. This did not interfere, and up to a certain point even helped - both Rome and Byzantium drew passionarity from the outskirts (as now Moscow attracts passionary people from all over the former Soviet Union). But when the level of passionarity of the neighbors exceeded the level of passionarity of the Empire, neither sophisticated diplomacy, honed over the centuries, nor the wealth accumulated over the centuries helped and could not help.

[VLR]

By the way, about the migration of passionate people in the imperial centers: while the level of imperial drive is high, it is good, because, on the one hand, it feeds the center, making it stronger, on the other hand, emigration of passionaries depletes and weakens its neighbors. But when the level of imperial drive is small (as in modern Western Europe), alien passionaries crush the indigenous ethnic group by themselves, establishing their own laws and orders - and this is irreversible.

[Basil50]

to the operator
You're right. Gumileva with his theory today is trying to PUSH anywhere, trying to describe the incomprehensible.
Byzantium simply changed religion from Christian to Muslim and nothing more. Too many of the Byzantine elite hoped that even under Muslims they would be able to adapt. That in general, they succeeded. Of course, someone was ruined or destroyed, but on the whole they later faithfully served the Turks.
After the plunder of the Crusaders, the Byzantines could only choose the future owner, since they were no longer able to exist independently. There was no strength to rob neighbors. Disagreements with Western Christians became insurmountable, especially the * experience * of close communication with savages from Europe was remembered. Nevertheless, the Turks were more civilized in comparison with the Europeans and their * Christian army *.

[lucul]

This characteristic of the Romance society must first be attributed to its elite, which, combining unbridled self-interest and unwillingness to make changes in decrepit institutions

Just Byzantium was fabulously rich, even by the standards of Rome. The successful geographical location, on the Silk Road, enriched the country without any difficulty.
If it is exaggerated, let's say we take the country's population for 100% and see what percentage of them do not worship the golden calf. The more such people in the country (primarily among the nobility), that is, people who agree to die for the sake of the lives of others, for example, when defending a country, the more this country / people is stronger, more united, and more durable in history.
As soon as the number of people worshiping the golden calf begins to prevail, the country degrades and dies. Everyone then wants to live, only for their own pleasure, and no one agrees to die for others.
And the greater the percentage of such people, the faster the country will die.
Confirmed by the long history of mankind.

[Victorio]

Quote: lucul

Just Byzantium was fabulously rich

Quote: lucul

We look at what percentage of them do not worship the golden calf. The more such people in the country (primarily among the nobility), that is, people who agree to die for the sake of the lives of others, for example, when defending a country, the more this country / people is stronger, more united, and more durable in history.

===
It seems that at the current historical stage, Russia is already in the role of Byzantium

[VLR]

Quote: "It seems that at the current historical stage, Russia is already playing the role of Byzantium."
No, in the role of Byzantium - Western Europe and the United States are slightly behind. And Russia is in a phase of breakdown, this is the era of "soldier emperors" in Rome.

[evgeny68]

According to Gumilyov, Russia is 500 years younger than Western civilization. Western Europe before Byzantium as before Beijing .... The comparison is not correct, Byzantium is the most successful and longest, about 1200 years in the entire visible history of mankind. Rome is considered the richest empire, approximately 700 years old. Western Europe and the United States are very far from these empires. Gumilev suggested that the next powerful drive would be in Mexico and South America. And it’s better to read Gumilyov, of course, excitingly and readily.

[Maki Avellevich]

Quote: evgeny68

Gumilev suggested that the next powerful drive would be in Mexico and South America.

tremors there constantly. but the people are not that, not passionate.
their character is very different from the sons of the she-wolf of those days.

[evgeny68]

Perhaps in 100-200 years there will be not the United States of America, but the United States of Mexico.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: lucul

As soon as the number of people worshiping the golden calf begins to prevail, the country degrades and dies.

This is understandable. Another thing is not clear - where they both come from (those that are willing to sacrifice themselves and those that are engaged in charity) come from. At the same time, they can also be reforged in the process - first in the second, second in the first.
So, what do you think is crucial here: genetics, passionarity, industrial relations, the role of the personality, something else?
The question, of course, is addressed to all colleagues. It would be interesting to know who thinks about this.

[haron]

Quote: Trilobite Master

Another thing is not clear - from where both those and others (those who are willing to sacrifice themselves and those who are engaged in money-grubbing) come from. Moreover, they can also be reforged in the process - the first in the second, the second in the first.
So, what do you think is crucial here: genetics, passionarity, industrial relations, the role of the personality, something else?

Don't you think that people "sacrificing" themselves for the good of others is one of the forms of "money-grubbing"? It was not in vain that they "won the victory".
If you do not take the extreme cases of pathological sacrifice, as well as pathological money-grubbing, with a clear clinical picture of mental damage, then the transition from one form to another (as you correctly noted) can occur very often, several times a day, with every action. In the other person, we only see the net effect of this "game of chess" (game theory hello!) When someone has lost or someone has won.
Moreover, death is not always a loss, for many people for many reasons.

What influences the strategy and tactics of life from what you have listed? - probably all. Only the degree of influence of factors varies from person to person.
You can add climate ... the surrounding nature in principle. For example, the extreme north affects a person a little differently than the subtropics of southern Europe.

[Trilobite Master]

I was not talking about an individual person - every single person can unlearn any miracle, including depending on the degree of mental health. It is not interesting. It is interesting when you consider this issue in large numbers. Why in some period "heroes" appear in large quantities, and in another - also in large quantities "money-grubbing" (conventional names). And then the money-givers become heroes and vice versa.
Someone who is accustomed to operating with simplified concepts will say that heroes are all entirely Slavs (Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Japanese, Arabs, etc.) Chinese, Ukrainians, to whom what), they only need to fill a bag. Gumilyov, over there, invented "passionarity." Marx talks about the division of the surplus product, someone will say "we lacked a leader."
So it was interesting who thinks about this.

[Edward Vashchenko]

As they say - "a very good question." I will express my opinion, firstly, at all times and among all nations: soldiers are mortal — exploits are immortal, and then ... everything seems to depend on the level or stages of development of society. That is, if this is a nomadic union, representing a people-warrior, then the feat or “feat” is the whole point of existence in this society, or you are a “hero” or no one: initialization, all life, it’s just a feat, in war or hunting , it doesn't matter, you have to be a hero. About them are songs and legends.
Distracted, I watched some Hollywood cartoon with a child, and there the kid from the family of knights suffered something, how to kill a dragon, how to fight. Absurd! The knightly European feudal society is a society of warriors by definition, that is, born a knight, born a warrior with all the consequences and nothing more. Point. The same story about pre-class (A.I. Neusykhin), pre-class (I.Ya. Froyanov) or “military democracy” (F. Engels) is a society built on war, first you are a warrior, and in your free time you can and plow.
And shall we say, who is “the serving people” of Moscow Rus? "Connoisseurs" will say nobles, or their predecessors + children of boyars, boyars and their battle slaves. But - no, for Moscow Russia - that's all. And black - free peasants, legally and de facto, why? Because, to resist the warrior people, for example, the Crimeans, it was only possible to sit in the saddle almost the news of the people. Conclusion, glorification corresponds to certain stages of society, and becomes useless for other periods.
Heroes of the First World War and mass heroism of the Great Patriotic War, is there a comparison?
For Byzantium, especially in the later period, this was completely relevant, because it was not a society of war. The Byzantine system, in the last centuries of life, did not ensure the creation of a society of war and challenges.
Well they did not even understand it, but the Ottomans smelled it - people of war.

[haron]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

Conclusion, heroization corresponds to certain stages of society, and become worthless for other periods.

I agree.
I understood that. The laws of society, written and not written, at a particular point in time create the conditions for the manifestation of a particular archetype of personality on a massive scale.
The "laws of society" should be understood as all factors influencing the communication / interaction of people within this society.
At the same time, the number of potential heroes / money-givers depends on genetics and teaching children what is good and what is bad.
IMHO. Mayakovsky's poem "what is good, what is bad ..." underlies the archetype of WWII heroes and, in general, the basis of the popular consciousness of most of the inhabitants of the USSR. But he was not born from scratch, and will not sink into the past.

Let me give you an example from "life".
The human immunity (in the broad sense, and not just protection against infection) through one’s work allows only the events that are trying to occur to manifest themselves. He does not create, he sifts out of the sequence NOT what is needed and gives the opportunity to what is needed at a particular moment in time. In this case, genetics determines the severity and frequency of occurrence of certain events.
Another example. Not a stable scheme for the Su27 glider.

[haron]

If you dig deeper, then a system that does not prepare heroes (sacrificing money-grubbers) is doomed to absorption by another system, which is always ready to defend its values ​​in any way possible.
Or so - a system striving for stability, or only "positive" development will be absorbed by the one that teaches children any possible ways to fight for survival. At the same time, it does not matter whether a certain type of threat exists at a particular moment or not. Society must constantly teach children all the skills learned in the past.
If we take the average period of full activity of one person; physical - 50 years, mental 60 years, then I do not know examples in history when society has been completely stable for so long.

[haron]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

Distracted, I watched some kind of Hollywood cartoon with a child, and there a kid from the family of knights was tormented by something, how to kill a dragon, how to fight. Absurd absurdity! Knightly European feudal society is a society of warriors by definition, that is, born of a knight, born of a warrior with all the consequences and there is nothing more for that. Dot.

I want to note that perhaps you did not pay attention to the second class of people who could become a person born by a father "knight" - read a nobleman / feudal lord. This is a class of managers - priests. People who, within the framework of feudal, medieval, European society, represented by the Catholic Church, carried out a managerial, legislative function in peacetime (normal) times. An example of exactly the same internal struggle as you indicated in the cartoon is the life and fate of Cardinal Richelieu.

I think that it was the Catholic Church that was the base, and the cement that united and clearly distinguished Western European society in principle. In fact, this is the same European Union with its center not in Brussels but in Rome. And the functions of the European Commissioners and members of the European Parliament were performed by bishops, cardinals and ministers of a lower rank.
Divisions within Western European society into states took place at the level of kings, dukes, counts .... chivalry, warrior class. But from the rest of the world, Western European society was separated precisely by the rights and laws of the Catholic Church, which was the main judge and determinant of what is good and what is bad - at the basic conscious level of each of its members - people. From the emperor to the serf.
Only after the 30 year war, this system cracked, Napoleon razed its remains with the ground, but ...... a holy place does not happen empty. Without a single center, two world wars.

[lucul]

Another thing is not clear - from where both those and others (those who are ready to sacrifice themselves and those who are engaged in money-grubbing) come from. What do you think, what is decisive here: genetics, passionarity, industrial relations, the role of the individual, something else?

I will not spread thought on the tree - I will say briefly: in ancient times, such people were formed by religion and ideology. They were specially created for this.

With regard to the topic of the article, this question may sound as follows: is it possible to fully reveal the causes of the death of the Byzantine empire without resorting to the theory of passionarity? If, in your opinion, it is impossible, it would be interesting to know which particular aspects of this process (the process of death) cannot be explained in the framework of theories unconditionally recognized by science?

Yes, everything is simple, outrageously - the "golden calf" washes out the number of alpha males in the empire. Power from the leaders is slowly shifting to moneybags (gamma males), but they are not capable of creation - only destruction. As a result, there is simply no one to defend the empire.

[Square]

The fall of Constantinople - a catastrophe of universal proportions!
True, the Trebizond Empire and some principalities in Greece, fragments of the Byzantine Empire, lasted several decades.
And thank God that there was a Third Rome, which took up the banner of civilization and the Orthodox faith!

[Seal]

The whole trouble of the Greeks turned out to be that they in 1261 managed to accidentally regain Constantinople. After the capture of Constantinople (or, as the Greeks themselves called it long before the Turks - Istimboli) by the Latins, the Greeks managed to create several states. The strongest of which was the peasant (without big cities) Nicaean Empire. The Nicene Empire was strong and most importantly, a self-sufficient, prosperous state. And therefore, it had, though not a very large, but strong army, consisting of free people who had something to defend.
But as soon as the Greeks accidentally occupied Constantinople in 1261, everything went awry. The capital was declared this huge parasite city. The bureaucratic apparatus of the former Nicaean Empire, which became the Empire of the Paleologists (who overthrew the legal Vatat dynasty shortly before the return of Constantinople), grew to tens of times with relocation to Constantinople.
In order to feed him and restore his old new capital, part of which had been in ruins since 1204, Paleologists sharply increased taxes on peasants and artisans, which the founders of the Nicene Empire Theodore I Laskaris and Vatatsi would never have allowed. Peasants and artisans began to go broke. Accordingly, this instantly affected the army. And quite soon after the return of Constantinople, the Paleologists no longer had that mass of strong free peasants who made up the army of the Nicene Empire from the time of Theodore I Laskaris and Vatatsev. Therefore, the Paleologists were forced to reorient themselves to European mercenaries, which again needed money. Taxes grew.
But money was still not enough, since the European mercenaries valued themselves dearly. Therefore, after a while the Byzantines decided to part with the European mercenaries (Catalans) without paying them. And they (the Byzantines) acted very badly with their European mercenaries. The Byzantines lured the leader of the Catalans, Roger de Flore, who not so long ago received the Byzantine rank "Caesar", the second most important after the emperor; and his closest assistants to an appointment with the emperor, and there he and his associates were stabbed to death. Since the Catalans, as it should be according to the ceremonial, entered the emperor without weapons. The Catalans were offended, and the main thing is that the Catalans managed to organize themselves. They chose new leaders for themselves and went to chehvost and the Byzantines and French barons who had possessions in Greece, and in the tail and in the mane. And the Paleologues were forced to turn to the Ottoman Turks. So none of the Europeans, seeing the fate of Roger de Flore before their eyes, no longer wanted to go to the Byzantines as mercenaries. And the Palaeologus did not have money for the Europeans - all the money went to feed their own huge bureaucratic apparatus and to this parasite city of Constantinople. Therefore, the Europeans no longer went to the Byzantines as mercenaries, but only the Turks. However, the Palaeologus did not even have enough money to pay for the Turkish mercenaries. Therefore, as a payment, the Paleologians began to let their mercenaries, whom I recall, were the Ottoman Turks, on the territory of the rural areas of their state - the former Nicene Empire, now the Palaeologian Empire, which had become not very necessary for the Paleologians long ago separated from the land.
The Ottomans organized their government there, which was economically more profitable for the peasants and artisans than the management of the bureaucratic Constantinople. And the inhabitants of the former Nicene Empire partly began to massively convert to Islam, that is, they became Turks, and partly went under the Turks while remaining Christians. Moreover, those areas of the former Nicene Empire, which were still controlled from Constantinople, also sought to go under the Turks. That was what Home reason for the success of the Ottomans.

[Edward Vashchenko]

For the "Nicene" empire to the point!

[Trilobite Master]

After reading the article a lot of questions arose. I'll give you one.
Edward, from the text of the article, I realized that you, to some extent, are a supporter of the theory of drive. If this is the case, then I’m wondering which one. With regard to the subject of the article, this question may sound as follows: is it possible to fully disclose the causes of the death of the Byzantine Empire, without resorting to the theory of drive? If, in your opinion, it is impossible, then it would be interesting to know which aspects of this process (the process of death) cannot be explained within the framework of unconditionally recognized theories?

[Edward Vashchenko]

Michael,
It’s like a society outside ideology, isn’t it beautiful?
And in response to your question, I will assume. It always seemed to me that if you use a quotation from one or another author, this is not evidence of the fact that you are his ardent supporter, unfortunately, we have a black and white view of things, so many are divided into camps by theories, and not by sound ideas . I try to think in terms of the latter.
Quote from L.N. Gumelev, in my opinion, artistically and colorfully illustrates the situation with the fall of Byzantium, by the way, this same quote is also suitable for 1 Rome, if someone thinks that in Rome at least there was mono-ethnicity or Rome with the Apennines did not tear social contradictions .
I am not at all a fan of the theory of "Ethnogenesis and the Earth's biosphere", but there is a rational grain in it and this cannot be ignored.
As for the "generally accepted" theories, excuse me for wagering, which ones? Formation theory? Theory of Civilizations? And what else?
According to Byzantium, there is a classic view of the historian E. Gibbon, that its entire history from the first page is the way of the fall. But 1000 years of fall?
However, as I wrote above: Gumilev’s thought - the idea that an ethnos goes through different stages: from birth, through illness, to death, is not without meaning.
The article is obviously based on the Civilization Theory: Toynbee, S. Huntington, and our N. Ya. Danilevsky. Its meaning is very simple - either you “create” calls to others or you are overtaken by challenges, as in the Tale of the Golden Cockerel. Speech just about Civilizations. Many empires, for example, we cannot attribute to civilizations, for example "nomadic empires", the same "empire" of the Mongols.
I hope answered your question)

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

It’s like a society outside ideology, isn’t it beautiful?

Sorry. I could not resist objections. We look at the wording:

Ideology - totality systematic orderly views, expressing the interests of various social classes and other social groupson the basis of which the relationships of people and their communities to social reality in general and to each other are recognized and evaluated, and either established forms of domination and power (conservative ideologies) are recognized, or the need for their transformation and overcoming (radical and revolutionary ideologies) is justified.

That is, do you think that in Russia there is no ideology? And if you think about it? Maybe we can highlight the community of people, such social groups in the relations between which the glaring social inequality has arisen today?
As for the fall of the Byzantine Empire, I have already cited the source:

The reasons here are indicated in full and with all the details. The Russian Federation (Russian Empire) became the successor of the Byzantine Empire, and it repeats the mistakes one by one. And I don’t understand why people don’t see who exactly puts the sticks in the wheels of our history and who exactly benefits us from disappearing just like Byzantium once ...

[Edward Vashchenko]

Sorry, I don’t know how to address you correctly,
About ideology is sarcasm, but the authors of the film you cited are unlikely to agree with the most important component of the fall of 2 Rome:
“Unfortunately, with all its religiosity, the society bore in itself a lot of the beginnings of a painful, pathological life, an abnormal development, from whatever it was. Religiousness was something separate from life: religiosity was in itself, life was in itself. Between them there was no such unity, that close connection, which, by supplying the one and the other in a harmonious relationship, would give rise to a truly improved, highly moral life. ”
What was not in the "terrible" West or Russia.

And second, Russia or Russia, not quite the Russian Federation, as you write, became the spiritual heir of Byzantium, but, in modern terms, it had a more reasonable Management System. The people may have been sharply simpler than the Greeks of Constantinople, but with a clear Faith and a clear understanding of what they want.
I am upgrading the term, however, System!
In principle, everything is in the pivot - in the System of Administration, this is a tribal union or a centuries-old empire, and the Byzantine lesson is the unwillingness to modernize, change in the right periods, maybe the last emperors, judging by their efforts, were ready to do something actively, but … the train left.

[Alexander Trebuntsev]

In addition to what is said in this film, the internal problems of Byzantium must also be added.
1) Cruel serfdom, in which a person could not even change his place of residence. All people belonged to the estates and could neither get out of it nor change their place of residence. Rather, they could, but they were caught and brutally punished.
2) merciless taxes and the suppression of all independence of people.
3) The oligarchs, among whom the most important and powerful was the church. She robbed people more than others.
4) Iconoclasm. This problem was long-lasting and at first the power of punishment for veneration of icons, destroyed them, and then abruptly changed its vector and without fail began to demand veneration of icons and going to church. So to say, the church did everything so that it would be impossible for people to exist without it: baptism, funeral services, marriage, compulsory offerings and the signing of property in favor of the church, etc. Hence the hatred of people for the church. This led to the fact that there were a lot of people who now began to deny the icons and the church in general. A mass of heresies arose, which the state suppressed with terrible cruelty. And since the army was hired, the soldiers treated the citizens of the empire as if they were strangers and, when putting things in order, they robbed, killed, raped. Citizens of the empire no longer associated themselves with the state and hated it. By the way, Islam arose from among the deniers of icons and the church and therefore quickly received support.
5) All taxes, all the wealth of the empire went only to the capital, and the province vegetated in poverty.
In this regard, does this not remind you of our modern Russia?

[sniperino]

Quote: Alexander Trebuntsev

Iconoclasm

This is a particular manifestation of Caesarapapism, which is the problem of Byzantium and a threat to all Orthodox churches; look left - at the Poroshenko Thomas Parade.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

Quote from L.N. Gumelev, in my opinion, artistically and colorfully illustrates the situation with the fall of Byzantium,

Clear.
Simply, if you quote Gumilyov Jr. with the same goals as Gumilyov Sr. - to enhance perception - this is one thing. If I do it as a reference to scientific authority and use it as an argument in a scientific debate, then I really have questions. In any case, until the "ray of passionarity" has been discovered, caught, measured and studied, I believe that there is no point in talking seriously about this theory as scientific.
The fact that states (ethnic groups), like their constituent people, are born, grow old and die, was noticed long before Gumilyov. It is not clear only why exactly a "ray", and not bursts of geopathogenic radiation breaking through the earth's crust, or fluctuations of the noosphere?
We will not discuss the difference between the concepts.

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

"Generally accepted" theories

и

Quote: Trilobite Master

unconditionally recognized science theories

I would like on the subject of the article to clarify interesting questions for me, if I may.
Regarding the absence of a bright and long phase of flowering in the Byzantine Empire, compared with the long and painful phase of dying, I think the answer to this question depends largely on the answer to the question of how much the Byzantine Empire was a new state entity, and how it continued collapsed Roman Empire.
In addition, one should not forget that the process of "dying" was essentially a process of painful struggle with strong external enemies - mainly Arabs, later Turks, Slavs and other barbarians, including European ones. Throughout the entire period of its existence, Byzantium was, it seems to me, a kind of foreign body on the map of the "civilized world", count how many enemies it changed, how many it survived, but everyone who came to the place of the "retired" initially defined the Romans as strangers , and not as "their". Byzantium has never participated in coalitions, however significant and lengthy.
Perhaps this is precisely the reason for her death - absolutely for everyone around her, she was an alien, hostile element, even for Orthodox Bulgarians and Serbs. Russia, perhaps, the only state that did not test estrangement to Byzantium and did not consider it as prey, could stand apart among the neighbors of Byzantium, but this is probably explained simply by their mutual remoteness from each other.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Mikhail, it seems to me that you yourself perfectly answered all the questions.
I will add, in fact, the question that this alienation was caused precisely by the essence of "civilization", in this case, the "civilization of Byzantium": first, the sample, then envy, and finally, the desired prey. The allies were for a long time, the same Venice or other cities in Italy: Milan in the 12 century, and the Turks ...
But about L. N. Gumelev, you are not quite right: besides economic, social and managerial problems, there is still a moment of "mentality" (Annals School) - and so, Gumelev's theory conceptually explains the life of an ethnos very clearly. Frankly, to the realization of this, having knowledge of anthropological theories, I came through 25 years, after my first acquaintance with the book "Ethnogenesis and the biosphere of the earth." Read this particular work of his, not confused works about the Khazars or the Huns, namely this book, it certainly expands the vision of historical problems.

[voyaka uh]

"Ethnogenesis and the biosphere", oddly enough, has something in common with the recently appeared
Yuval Harari's "evolutionary" theories of human development, which I generally like.
Although she is "humiliating" for us, presenting us as a kind of "violently furious" (in a good way) species of animals. Animals huddle in huge flocks (states, empires,
unions of empires) because it is easier to survive in difficult times of competition between packs.
And break up into small flocks (small states), which are sometimes more effective in easy times.
The process is blind (it's evolution, kids ) and is constant.

[Polymer]

Quote: Trilobite Master

In any case, until the "ray of passionarity" has been discovered, caught, measured and studied, I believe that there is no point in talking seriously about this theory as scientific.

Gumilyov, I suspect, simply "did not bother" with an explanation of the reasons for the explosive growth of passionarity. Otherwise, his theory is quite harmonious and logical. At the same time, it is almost the only one of its kind, allowing not only to explain historical processes, but also to solve applied tasks for strategic planning.
Many theories are based on postulates — certain statements that must be accepted without any explanation or evidence. These theories do not explain the full depth of the processes, but instead allow solving a number of applied problems and developing science further. Then, in the process of further research, the initial postulates can be refuted or confirmed - the fate of the theory depends on this.
So, if you do not focus on these "rays of passionarity", but simply accept them as a temporary postulate, then there are almost no contradictions in Gumilyov's theory. Hence its popularity.
The true reasons for the growth of passionarity, I hope, will eventually be established and explained.

[VLR]

Without the application of L. Gumilyov's theory, any explanation will be incomplete. This does not mean that it is imperative to explain and solely on the basis of his theory. But it must be taken into account if there is a desire to look at the historical process not only from the side or from below, but also “from above”.

[Edward Vashchenko]

I totally agree

[VLR]

Timur, after all, can hardly be called a "Mongol conqueror". In his work "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe" Lev Gumilev wrote: "In Central Asia and Iran, a Muslim reaction arose against the dominance of nomads. It was headed by the Turkic Mongol (barlas) Timur, who restored the Khorezm Sultanate, destroyed by the Mongols. Here Yasu was replaced by Sharia, Nukhurs - Ghulams, Khan - Emir, freedom of religion - Muslim fanaticism. The Mongols in these countries, conquered by their ancestors, survived only as a relic ... Together with Yasa, the stereotype of behavior, the ability to resist and their own culture disappeared. " And further: "Timur considered the legacy of Chinggis to be his main enemy and was a consistent enemy of nomadic traditions." Another researcher, SP Tolstov, believed that "Timur's state became a copy of the Khorezmshah sultanate, with the only difference that the capital was moved from Gurganj to Samarkand."

[Operator]

Quote: VlR

the Romans were a minority in Rome itself

The vast majority of the inhabitants of the Apennine Peninsula before the formation of the city of Rome and after were ethnic Celts (R1b), with the exception of the extreme south and the islands of the Mediterranean Sea inhabited by ethnic Hamites (Е1) - natives of North Africa.

At the end of the millennium 2 BC a few migrants were added to the ethnic Celts:
- Slavs-Venda (R1a), people from the Carpathians, settled in the Venetian lagoon;
- Trojans-Northern Semites (Y2), previously assimilated linguistically by the Mitanian Aryans, settled in Etruria;
- Greeks (mestizos), which placed their colonies in the south of the peninsula.

The Trojans, under the name of the Etruscans, taught how the neighboring Celts managed the dialect of Sanskrit, created Rome, and ruled it until the overthrow of the city Celts — Latins and Sabines. After that, the latter, under the name of the Romans, gradually seized the entire peninsula, whose residents romanized and as a result of several civil wars became citizens of the Roman Republic.

An attempt of the Roman Republic, and then the Roman Empire to extend its sovereignty beyond the limits of the Apennine Peninsula to Gaul, Iberia, Britain, Germany, Illyria, Greece, Dacia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Tripolitania, Tunisia and Maurentia expectedly led to the collapse of Rome :
- new territories were inhabited by different ethnic tribes, sharply differing from the Romans in culture, language and religion;
- the perimeter of the borders of the Roman state increased from two narrow seaside passages from the south and west from the Alps to the wall of Hadrian on the British Isles, the Rhine and the Danube on the European subcontinent, the meridional dividing line with Parthia, Babylon, Arabia and the latitudinal dividing line with the Sahel;
- the number of mobilization contingent among the inhabitants of the Apennines by more than an order of magnitude was less than that required for the control of sharply increased state borders;
- the involvement of alien contingents in the composition of the Roman army led to its decomposition into ethnic groups with their own interests.

Plus the obsolescence of the Roman economic model based on state ownership of land and the use of slave labor - after the conquest of Rome by the Germans, this model was replaced by a more progressive, based on private ownership of land and the use of rental labor.

Those. miracle-Yudo "Gumilyov's passionarity" and in this matter is completely out

[VLR]

For several centuries, all of the above did not prevent the Romans from conquering new provinces, building in them the existing roads and cities like London or Cologne, Latinizing new subjects - and somehow it was not difficult for them, nothing prevented them. And then all of a sudden everything at once "outdated", "decomposed", it became "impossible to control" and so on. In the same way, for today's Europeans - the descendants of crusaders, conquistadors, pirates, berserkers, suddenly everything immediately became "difficult", they actually lost their culture, replacing it with a "mass" one, applaud the new Migration of Peoples and lose their countries and cities before our very eyes.

[Operator]

While the expansion of the borders of the Roman Empire beyond the Apennine Peninsula was accompanied by genocide of the population of the conquered territories (1 million dead Gauls, 90% Jews, and Iberians, Illyrians, Dacians, British and Parthians simply did not consider it) and the romanization of a few survivors, the process went with a positive result .

This also ruined the Roman state - the perimeter length of the new borders and the degree of aggressiveness of the non-Latinized neighbors (first of all the Germans) ceased to be balanced by the available size of the mobcontingent of Rome.

The attempt to hire migrant workers for military service only aggravated the situation.

[yehat]

no, this problem was not at all unsolvable -
Rome quite confidently followed the path of creating local legions and this was an effective solution - each local legion had a specific structure and weapons.
Some legions didn’t have cavalry at all, others, on the contrary, had many times more full-time ones, etc.
Rome was an empire fantastic in potential and such empires are destroyed only from within.
and no perimeter pressure canals here.
this was evident during the Punic Wars - even the magnificent army of Carthage was crushed by the mobresource of Rome.

[Operator]

In the armed forces, the main thing is patriotism. During the Punic Wars, he was present among the citizens of Rome; in 500 years, the mercenaries of Rome did not.

Plus, the mobresurs of the Germans (the entire male population of the country minus the children) was many times greater than the armed forces of Rome in the north (part of the mercenary army, which could be diverted from the defense of the eastern, southern and western borders).

In contrast to the Germans, the vast majority of the population of the Roman Empire was engaged in the sphere of economic activity.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: yehat

empires are destroyed only from the inside.

Gold words. From myself I would add that one of the most effective, though not the only weapon against any empire, is nationalism. With his plantings usually begin, wanting to ruin a large multi-national state.

[yehat]

nationalism is always and everywhere. you just need to control where radical ideas are brought
and to oppose them with the police or social realities - to whom it is more convenient.

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: yehat

nationalism is always and everywhere

I meant, of course, radical nationalism, preaching the exceptional superiority of one nation over others. That is what is being actively imposed on, for example, Ukraine. A completely destructive function, especially disastrous for multinational and multicultural states.

[yehat]

any nationalism preaches superiority, only the context changes.
the most harmless (although harmless is a controversial thing) forms preach a priority at home or in some narrow area like cross-country skiing in Norway or offshore areas. But it can be taken to extremes very easily. Take the Norwegians - how much dirt the RF has already seen from them - and disputes with the exploitation of the sea, and scandals of skiers.
And these are the most herbivorous nationalists I know.
Therefore, any nationalism must be controlled.

[Luc Mokart]

The fall of Byzantium was due to the fact that there ideology (the Orthodox faith) faded into the background. There were temples, there were priests, but there was no faith.
The collapse and fall of the USSR was on the same principle. Nobody believed in communism anymore and everything collapsed at once and would collapse forever and to the end if Orthodoxy again took over.

[Catfish]

Did she accept her? In what? The fact that on every corner began to put temples in which almost no one goes? And if they do, then either outright Pharisees, or people who have lost everything and who have nothing to hope for.

[Luc Mokart]

They put it not on every corner, but there is a restoration of historical justice. And churches are being built to replace the destroyed ones.

[Catfish]

Colleague Luke, we are talking about the fact that the temples are used for self-promotion of officials deprived of any faith, except for the belief in the "golden calf". And historical justice is restored by other methods.

[1970mk]

"The West did not defend the empire" ... "The empire fell," etc. Why does no one say that there was no empire at all when Constantinople was taken? There was a city-EVERYTHING! No "Byzantium" existed for "a hundred years at lunchtime" ... Everything was "proo" long before that. Naturally, the city could not resist normally - it's just a CITY, nothing more ..

[Edward Vashchenko]

Michael, why? this is clearly written.
The "spirit of the empire" unambiguously existed, the basileus Manuel II, who visited the West, was accepted as a true emperor, but ... the empire itself was no longer there.

[1970mk]

What "Holy Spirit" of the empire can exist at all if the whole "empire" is ONE ONE city?

[arturpraetor]

Per article plus. It seems nothing very new, but it is stated clearly, systematically, and in an understandable language that not everyone (including me) has Oh, and after all, once I blew pink snot on the theme of Byzantium, but the more I got acquainted with the materiel, the more I realized that everything was very sad there and ruined it by the frantic, unbridled conservatism, if not in all, then in most aspects of society and life of the state. Byzantium at first changed in the wrong direction, and then simply tired of changing, calmed by its external brilliance and sense of superiority. But the world did not care that someone was tired, he continued to change, and as a result crushed Byzantium as such.

By the way, it is funny that in the pre-Christian era, speaking a foreign language, the Greeks were much more badass than in the Christian, and then somehow quickly regressed. And the author has just indicated:

excess energy (drive) Byzantines spent on theological disputes and contention

IMHO, one of the fundamental mistakes of Byzantium was the formation of the Church (not religion itself, but the church as the work of human hands) in the form in which it turned out, because of which whole cities and regions preferred to surrender under the protection of Muslims and change their faith, than live under Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarch. Yes, the same excommunication for three years from the sacrament - it is surprising that Byzantium in these situations generally lived so long! However, this is a completely different story about the harm of excessive centralization, the balance of power, and much more ...

[faterdom]

There were golden days with the empire. Indeed, under Justinian and Theodore (fortunate at once, two brilliant co-rulers), the unity of the empire and possession of the Mediterranean Sea were restored, codification of laws was passed that were adopted over the past 500 years (checked for contradictions, everything superfluous was removed - Medvedev's dream!) With Belisarius, it’s true , somehow they didn’t manage well, but these are traditions too - successful commanders are rarely in great favor with the rulers.
But how much energy was invested in religious squabbles, and even outright folly, it would be enough to build an empire. One iconoclasm is worth it! And the schism of the Christian church was allowed, which became civilizational.
It is rather surprising that they existed for 1200 years - yes.
Then the luck of Mehmed II Fatih fell into the balance. The outstanding leader of the Ottoman Turks. Twice he managed to stay as a sultan. Once, when the crusaders defeated his pope Murad II and forced to recant in favor of his son. But dad restored his status. And after his death, Mehmed II, having solved the dynastic task - destroying the infant sibling, decided both military-territorial and administrative, creating Porto as a governing body. Subsequently, the name itself became a household name for the empire, like the Kremlin or the White House today.

[Operator]

Quote: Luc Mokart

The fall of Byzantium was due to the fact that there the ideology (the Orthodox faith) faded into the background

The exact opposite is true - the Byzantine project of building a state exclusively on the basis of religious ideology without language and cultural assimilation of a diverse ethnic population (on a Latin or Greek basis) turned out to be stillborn.

Marxists stepped on the same rake - the Soviet project of building a state solely on the basis of communist ideology with artificially partitioning a unitary state (the Russian Empire) into a confederation of national states (USSR) came to an order of magnitude faster.

The Russian Federation had to throw off the ballast of the Soviet project and start a new project of reviving the mono-ethnic (with 80 and over) percentage of a unitary state by uniting the Russian people (represented by the Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians) and the linguistic and cultural assimilation of national minorities.

[Pancher88]

There is no question of any mono-ethnicity of the Russian Federation. Mono-ethnic Federation is, by definition, nonsense.

[Erik]

As it is written with Russia. The same thing came to our house.

[yehat]

Quote: Operator

The Russian Federation had to throw off the ballast of the Soviet project and start a new project

judging by the successes of the Russian Federation, it is ballast, and not the USSR.
my father got a free apartment at 23 years old. I was able to buy my apartment only at 37 years old.
Here it is the real difference.

[Looking for]

Quote: yehat

my father got a free apartment at 23 years old. I was able to buy my apartment only at 37 years old.

getting an apartment in 23 years is rather an EXCLUSION. than the NORM.

[Warrior2015]

Quote: Seeker

getting an apartment in 23 of the year is rather an EXCLUSION. than the NORM

Well, consider that you are lucky, and your father is incredibly lucky ...

[Iskander. Richard]

Russia repeats the fate of Byzantium.

[Pancher88]

The funny thing is that the Ottoman Turks then built their Ottoman Port, which bent all around and was perceived by neighbors, including Europe and Russia, as a model country, on a Byzantine administrative and ideological foundation. In this case, ideology does not interest us, but administratively the Ottomans were the direct heirs of Byzantium. In particular, their local Timar system was a successor to the Byzantine pronians. The Turks often did not create anything, but simply left the old Byzantine orders already under their flag and their faith. Often, even many holders of these estates were from among the converts to Islam of the Greeks. Some even maintained their faith.
Why am I all this. The core of the Ottoman Empire was the territory of two peninsulas: the Balkan and Anatolian. This corresponds exactly to the Byzantine Empire of 7-12 centuries. From this territory, from the Titmar estates (former Byzantine prones) located on it, the Ottomans exhibited about 40 thousand Sipah knights (often former Byzantines), this was the main striking force of their army. The Sultan's Court located in the former Constantinople-Istanbul exhibited another 20 thousand Janissary infantry and 5 thousand palace heavy cavalry. Plus the best artillery in the world. And the strongest fleet. And this was enough to nightmare all neighbors, from Persia, to Europe, from Russia to Morocco. I am talking about the 15-17th centuries. And all this from the territory of the former Byzantine Empire. What prevented the Basileus from doing all this themselves?
Probably the fact that, unlike them, the Ottoman sultans understood the main thing: you can only manage the empire from the saddle, no diplomacy and intrigue can replace military power, and the ruler is primarily a military leader, and not the heir to some great Caesars, a parthirous basileus to whom you must bow simply because he is the heir to ancient greatness.

[Warrior2015]

Quote: Pancher88

Often, even many holders of these estates were from among the converts to Islam of the Greeks.

Very few; mostly Turks, Turkomans, etc. The surviving Greco-Byzantines became "paradise", no more.

Quote: Pancher88

Some even maintained their faith.

Negligible, especially in Anadolu. According to Sharia, a non-Muslim cannot own weapons and a war horse.

Quote: Pancher88

What prevented the Basileus from doing all this themselves?

Lack of financial flow. From the 14 century, the Ottomans controlled the access to the Silk Road in the Mediterranean, the export routes of spices to Europe, and the Byzantines lost this and were forced to participate as intermediaries, no more (especially since Europeans, bch Italian merchants, could already trade directly with the East - through the Turks or through Egypt).

[Sunstorm]

"The main lesson of the fall of Byzantine civilization is, oddly enough, that ... civilizations are mortal."
A very interesting idea is that those fates of all previous civilizations did not teach us this, but Byzantium .. yes ...
I respect any work, but the analysis carried out in this article seems to me somewhat superficial. Like the author, I have the right to my opinion, and I will try to formulate it. Byzantium, in my opinion, perished even before the Turks, the Turks acted only in the role of the Gravediggers. Let's remember Justinian ..- his main goal was to restore the "Greatness" (in other words, western RI) - and in these attempts, what did he do? In fact, he destroyed his country. In order to expel the barbarians from Italy and Africa, he removed troops in the east and ceded land to the enemy there (and he and his successors could not then return them) ... he built a lot of fortresses to strengthen the defense (but could not provide them with garrisons, and supply). He overextended the Eastern Empire to save the West ... could not save the West and doomed the East to death.
In my opinion, this is precisely the lesson we should learn from the death of Byzantium. You should not save the West, forgetting about the East.

[Molot1979]

Well, that's too much to start with Justinian. You can start the countdown of human death right from the hospital). And he did not lose territory in the East. This process began later, when first the hardest 22-year war with the Persians, and then the Arabs. However, the Arabs were far from immediately and not everywhere. The Greeks really lost Egypt and other Africa, but the Arab attack was stopped and Asia Minor was defended. Subsequently, they even launched a counteroffensive and were even able to return Antioch and recapture Crete. Yes, and the Seljuks were managed at the very least. I would still start counting from the 80s of the 12th century, when the Greeks gave their trade to the Italians. This led the crusaders in 1204. And after that - already agony. It's funny, but if Constantinople had not been recaptured, Byzantium in the form of the Nicene Empire had a very good chance of survival. But - the dream of the former "greatness".

[Molot1979]

There are many reasons for this. You can start counting from the Macedonian dynasty. While the warrior emperors, such as Vasily the Bulgarians, ruled, the army was strong and modern. But as soon as they left the stage, the turbulent river of investment in the military machine dried up to a stream. Which ended quite logically, with the Battle of Manzikert. Although it was possible to win there, but with a high degree of probability, there was betrayal. Which again points to the internal fragility of the state machine and rot within the elite. But if we trace the problem in depth, then we will come to the basis - for the entire Byzantine history, a normal system of transfer of power has not developed. In old Rome, too, there was such a misfortune, and the Second Rome fully assimilated it. Any successful commander could easily arrange another civil war, wasting passionarity on those very "strife". From time to time, dynasties appeared, but in reality there was never a law on succession to the throne in Constantinople. And the dynasties held out exactly until the next successful general appeared. The lack of internal order gave rise to chaos in other areas. Trade suffered, and so did the army. The emperors were simply forced to remove the most intelligent commanders in order to somehow retain power. And whoever forgot about it paid dearly for the mistake. There is no need to look far for examples: the very sensible dynasty of the Nicene emperors ended when Michael Palaeologus, the liberator of Constantinople, killed the last of the Lascari dynasty. And then the Paleologians, in addition to everything else, also carved out acrites, the only real obstacle on the way of the Turks to Asia Minor. Because the akrites in the next civil war supported the wrong side. The Turks were very happy. Yes, with such a policy, it is surprising not that the Second Rome fell, but that it happened already in the middle of the 15th century. And he couldn't resist. After the liberation of Constantinople from the crusading dynasty, only fragments remained from the Greek empire. Interspersed with the possessions of the Franks, all these Duchies of Athens and other ragtag, which simply did not have the strength to eliminate. And the army has always been expensive. Only now there was no money for it. Yes, and the desire to fight in the Greeks is also not particularly noted. In Constantinople there were several tens of thousands of combat-ready men, but Mehmed II was held back by only 7 soldiers, counting 000 of Giustiniani's fighters. The rest didn't give a damn.

[Mikhail Matyugin]

Quote: Vashchenko E.

All the diplomatic attempts of the last emperors, including the game of contradictions in the Ottoman camp, the union with the Catholics and the recognition of the Pope as the head of the Orthodox Church, were not crowned with success.

Dear Edward, allow a couple of amendments. Let's just say dogmatic grammatical nature.

First of all, for some reason you named the Roman Patriarch the Pope with a capital letter, and the Orthodox Church wrote it with a small one (regardless of your personal relationship, this is an organization, not a separate church building in this case, and it is written with a capital letter).

Secondly, part of the Byzantines, however wanted, could not recognize the Pope as head of the Orthodox Church instead of the Patriarch of Constantinople; the head of the Universal Orthodox Church is Jesus Christ, the Lord Savior, and no one else. The heads of the Local Orthodox Churches are the patriarchs - and there are many such - Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, etc. (and the patriarch of Rome, who finally disappeared in the 11 century, separated from the universal fullness of Orthodoxy, and since then has ruled separately the Catholic world of believers).

[Operator]

Edward is a communist and he is forgiven for not knowing the title of supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church at the time: Patriarcha Occidentalis (Patriarch of the West).

And also the fact that the episcopal dignity of rappas (pope, father), degrading the status of the supreme pontiff, was introduced into circulation by the Anglican Protestants after their separation from the Catholic Church

[Kostadinov]

Р

The Romanian power after 1204 was only an empire by name, in fact it became a semi-colony of Italians, shrinking to the size of the city of Constantinople, small territories in Asia Minor (Trabzon) and Greece.

Paradoxically, Orthodoxy preserved the thanksgiving of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire is the local population of the Balkans and Anatolia, who converted to Islam as a place of Orthodoxy and therefore sounded much more tolerant of Orthodoxy than Catholics from the West. Only Genoese defended Constantinople because the locals hated them.
Crusaders from the West were beaten by invaders for the local population of the Balkans, including Orthodox Christians.
One-faith Russia in the 19th century is a completely different matter.

[Edward Vashchenko]

This is beyond the scope of the topic I have proposed, but perhaps I will return to you, I will immediately say that this is just my opinion. It seems to me that Orthodoxy survived, mostly in some places because the Port, like a good shepherd, preferred not to cut the entire flock at once, but to use it pragmatically: taxes, including blood tax, even sometimes autonomy at the level of the ordinary community, nourishing, but, no more than permitted, the slightest disobedience in this framework was punished instantly. The fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch was the “regent” of the fallen Byzantium meant nothing: the old churches were selected as mosques, those that remained should not be like religious buildings, etc., etc. All Christians were, conditionally speaking, “Slaves of fishek”, the fact that they, as merchants, artisans, renegade naval commanders, were very necessary for the state, didn’t raise questions.
In Trabzon, there were almost no Greeks left, or rather, many people accepted Islam, the same thing happened to the Christian population of Asia Minor among the Turkish tribes and Ottoman Turks: Islamization was already successful in the 15th-16th centuries.
And this, speaking, only until the nineteenth century, when the struggle began with the internal enemies - Christians.
But with Russia - everything is different, I agree with you, it was thanks to the hard work of the Moscow grand dukes and metropolitans that Russia took place as a state, moreover, according to some researchers, the state of the first Romanovs is an Orthodox theocratic state. The great princes of Moscow and the first tsars acted in concert with the metropolitans and patriarchs, and this connection was inseparable, the church opposition to Grozny was not caused by questions of faith, but by the social "predilections" of the same Metropolitan Philip II, born Kolychev.

[haron]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

It seems to me that Orthodoxy has been preserved, for the most part in some places because Porta, as a good shepherd, preferred not to cut the whole herd at once, but to use it pragmatically: taxes, including blood taxes, even sometimes autonomy at the level of the ordinary community, feeding, but, no more allowed, the slightest disobedience in this framework was punished instantly.

Exactly!!
At that time they still remembered that religion is, first of all, the primary primitive legislative body. The one who determines the basic laws of society, what is good and what is bad. And the main thing is that God is still one, and no matter what you call him "God" or "Allah", the languages ​​are different. meaning one. The main thing is that those who believe in one God observe the "Constitution" and the "criminal code" filed on his behalf. 1. Don't kill. 2 Do not steal ...
There was also its own "Administrative Law" with its own regional differences. For example, a ban on the use of pork, alcohol in a certain form, etc. ..... It is really relevant in a specific biological zone (climate, infections, plants, the presence and ability to form a feed base with an eye to how it affects health, etc.).
And there are relatively universal administrative rules. For example, rest after 6 business days. They work on a large territory of the human range.

If a person adheres to the basic "mono-Avramic" laws of criminal law, and does not pretend to overthrow the existing system of power, then live in peace (we do not touch other systems, it is more interesting and longer there). Only by living in a specific biozone, pay for the fact that by violating "administrative law" you create a greater burden on the social organs of maintaining order in the state.
For example, chewing pork in the south becomes unfit for defense of the fatherland before the system demands of you. Pay for it and eat it as much as you want. Drink vodka too, but quietly yourself, because it is infectious for normal people. And for this you pay for vodka preemptively and even drink a lot, even if you don't - you "signed up" under a different right, "put on a cross". If you don't drink, then prove it by going to the mosque to Allah, and that's it. Not in word but in deed.

Pay attention to how much angrier they are fighting "inside" one religion with their sectarians. For they claim their truth to the highest level of the pyramid built, where the eye is drawn.

The trouble is that people began to see in religion "sacred" things that are indestructible and true in the whole world at any time. This is already fanaticism and misunderstanding of the true meaning of laws.
Caesar Cesarean))

[Kostadinov]

Totally agree with you. The Turks preserved the patriarch to this day. With Catholics, the question hit life and death. When Constantinople captured the 4 crusade, if they seized the patriarch, they could judge and burn like a heretic. But as Vyi accurately noticed in the Ottoman Empire, the fate of Orthodoxy was also an unsweetened beat - religion and second-class citizens.