Redscape - View topic - 7 Lessons from Byzantium

7 Lessons from Byzantium

Page 1 of 1

Author

Topic

Archduke Russell John I
Dignitary

Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:36 pm

Here is an interesting article. Seven Lessons the Author feels the U.S. should take from the Byzantine Empire if it wants to stay a super power. They all seem to be kind of self-evident if not always followed.

_________________
"There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one."

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 -1859)

posts: 1760 | location: Philadelphia Pa | joined: 29 Jan 2003 | medals: 2

ozzie the blade
Adjutant

Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:58 am

An interesting read. But it was the Byzantine empire that fell victim to the Seljuks/Ottomans hence paving the way for the invasion of Europe and the spread of Islam. So there tactics are not to sound. Also the Byzantines clinged to the old traditions which didn't suffice as they found out in the battle of Manzikert against the Seljuk turks, it didn't matter how many heavy troops they feilded, they were outdated and so where they're tactics.

I'm not saying that America isn't any different and the American ideals towards foreign policy are any better or worse. But they certainly are continuously updating they're military to keep the edge on the battle feild.

_________________
I used to complain because I had no shoes, then I met a man that had no feet. Eastern Wisdom.

To acheive something through striving is to acheive something. To achieve something without striving is to achieve a great thing. Sun Tzu.

posts: 212 | location: Behind you!!! | joined: 18 Nov 2003

Telcontar
Adjutant

Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:18 am

I hope that guy has something more substantial to show for "two decades" of effort. Let's hope this was just a spin-off work for the unwashed masses.

As to the article itself, I none of it was particularly brilliant - and while it may have been insightful a thousand or so years ago, it is not so impressive now. What I find most interesting is that the Byzantines wrote it down - I hadn't known they kept extensive manuals on state- and military craft.

For a final note, at least in one case these rules differ from what the US actually wants in Iraq and Afghanistan - if they could engage the enemies there in decisive field battles, I imagine they'd be thrilled.

posts: 34 | location: Ann Arbor, MI | joined: 10 Jan 2010

Archduke Russell John I
Dignitary

Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:23 pm

Telcontar,

He actually has an entire book out on the subject. As well as one on Rome as well.

Ozzie,

I think the author's point was that part of the reason Byzantine fell was because it stopped following those rules.

posts: 1760 | location: Philadelphia Pa | joined: 29 Jan 2003 | medals: 2

ozzie the blade
Adjutant

Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:59 pm

Regardless of wether they we're following the rules or not, the downfall of the Byzantine Empire was inevitable as is the downfall of the American Empire in time. I have studied history as a personal hobby for years and there is one thing that I have come to learn that history teaches us. That is that it repeats itself time and time again. Every Empire no matter what they're policies are, both foreign and domestic, they're military capabilities ect ect, each and every one of them has fallen. Assyria, Persians, Alexanders Macedon, Rome, Napoleon and the list goes on. They have all fallen for various reasons, and I'm sure they all followed some kind of rules or guidelines. But not one of them has lasted and I think that perhaps America should learn the teachings of history and come to realize that regardless of what they attempt to do and how they attempt to do it, it is inevitable that in time they are destined to failure.

posts: 212 | location: Behind you!!! | joined: 18 Nov 2003

Telcontar
Adjutant

Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:34 pm

Archduke Russell John I wrote:

He actually has an entire book out on the subject. As well as one on Rome as well.

Yeah, saw that after my sarcastic comment. Considering finding it at a library somewhere - I've always liked Roman/Byzantine history.

posts: 34 | location: Ann Arbor, MI | joined: 10 Jan 2010

Ozymandias
Emissary

Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:05 pm

Telcontar wrote:

As to the article itself, I none of it was particularly brilliant - and while it may have been insightful a thousand or so years ago, it is not so impressive now. What I find most interesting is that the Byzantines wrote it down - I hadn't known they kept extensive manuals on state- and military craft.

I disagree with nearly the entirety of your post, though I've only quoted a small portion.

Firstly, I'll assume I'm the only one who has read the full text of the book, and if not, feel free to chime in. If you read the book, which is far more in depth and insightful than the article (obviously), you understand that the Byzantine "Grand Strategy" as its so obsequiously called, is not a strategy but an admission of reality and a pronounced ability to react. As a student of history in all ages, I can tell anyone here that from the very dawn of recorded history to the present day, the Byzantine Empire has been, without question and by a huge margin, the most successful of any multi-ethnic, multi-regional empire. And in large margin, because of the very tactics outlined in Luttwak's book.

Its quite self-evident that no empire or kingdom will be eternal. Ozzie has a point in that regard. Of course, he quotes Napoleon, whose empire lasted a mere 18 or so years at best, and Assyria, who might legitimately be considered to be the longest lasting Empire/Kingdom in history, in the same breath, but he's right all the same in that no one and nothing goes on forever, the US not excepted.

Secondly, Luttwak claims in his book that the Byzantine Empire did not fall because it stopped following the principles laid down prior to the 11th century. He claims that it fell because it became victim of a decisive mix of civil war, treachery, and outside influence. Specifically that the Venetian Doges betrayed their Byzantine allies in 1204 while they were in the midst of a civil war and simultaneously pressure from Turkish forces in the east. This sounds legitimate to me, having read his book and several other accounts. Prior to 1204, the Byzantines had been in far more dire straights, most notably in the middle of the 7th century when their "empire" was reduced to little more than a few dozen square kilometers, under dual pressure from the Avars and Arabs.

Byzantium, throughout its history, displayed a remarkable resiliency to both internal unrest and outside pressure. Luttwak attributes this to a highly trained general staff (using the term lightly) and core military force, as well as a highly efficient taxation system. Whether or not thats the reason is debatable, but what isn't is the fact that despite repeated invasion and multiple enemies, the Byzantines experienced at least 3 Renaissance's of power and influence from about 400 to 1200 AD, despite having to weather major military disasters at Yarmuk and Manzikert.

Quote:

But it was the Byzantine empire that fell victim to the Seljuks/Ottomans hence paving the way for the invasion of Europe and the spread of Islam. So there tactics are not to sound. Also the Byzantines clinged to the old traditions which didn't suffice as they found out in the battle of Manzikert against the Seljuk turks

Again, let me point out that the Ottomans were merely the latest in a long line of Turkic invaders that Byzantium repulsed. Their tactics were more than sound. Luttwak makes a point, and a well attested one at that, that Manzikert was a deviation from standard Byzantine practice, rather than a failure of it. Byzantium was well known for being incredibly fluid in its military practices, as the multiple field manuals, with their ever changing recommendations for strategy, attest.

Secondly, lets point out that the invasion of Europe was well under way by various steppe groups, from the Huns to the Avars to the Bulghars to even the Ottomans, far far before the Byzantines threw in the towel. And as Luttwak and almost every reputable historian attests to, this defeat was as much a result of Venetian/Crusader interference as anything else.

In the end, according to Luttwak, and which my studies have generally confirmed, Byzantium fell because in one of its moment's of weakness, it was betrayed by Roman Catholics. Venice set up a puppet emperor, and the weakness of the crown from that point on was a huge contributor to the ease of the Ottoman advance. Byzantium had weathered far worse in its history and recovered, but the combination of civil war (which wasn't unheard of) and outside betrayal (which was, unless you agree with the Byzantine description of Manzikert) completely ruined any chance at regaining lost territories in Anatolia and beyond.

_________________
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

posts: 788 | joined: 07 Jan 2005 | medals: 1

cypeg
Attaché

Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:51 pm

I reply due to the ignorance of the Telcontar 's post.

I couldn't agree more with the aforementioned Ozymandias! Byzantium for almost a thousand years saved Europe from being overrun by Arabs, Slavs, Turks. By the time the Ottomans finally broke through in 1453, Europe had at last been able to find its identity. I hope you have a sense what European kingdoms were in the 600s and what would have happened if the Arabs got through!

Byzantium is in short the repeat of the battle of Marathon (and the persian wars in general), the battle that saved Europe as many scholars have pointed out (i.e. V.D Hanson). And yes, Byzantium yielded at the end only because the notorious 4th crusade and our dear venetians chose to loot a christian city than going to Jerusalem.

_________________
Μολὼν λαβέ (Molon lave)

posts: 18 | joined: 18 Apr 2008

Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics
You cannot reply to topics
You cannot edit your posts
You cannot delete your posts
You cannot vote in polls
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Jump to: