| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Byzantines Defenders of Europe?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Byzantines Defenders of Europe?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2011 at 16:50
That Ottoman was essentially a Muslim version of Byzantine, with a slight Oghuz Turkish elite diffusion spice thrown into the mix which caused the language to change, but the genetics to remain largely similar, seems believable to me.

Europe's reservation for inclusion of Turkey, I believe is twofold:

- a real linguistic affinity with Asiatic Turkics
- Ottoman being the torch bearer of Islam for five and wider Turkics for 10 centuries, whereas Ottoman was the claimant of Caliphate who somehow got hold of a descendant of Abbasid Caliph from contemporary Egypt and also was the custodian of two holy cities/towns

The change of luck in WW I due to Arab betrayal and the loss of Imperial dominion, leadership of Young Turks and later more pragmatic Kemalists turning Turkey's direction towards Europe, was able to modernize, westernize and secularize a large portion of the urban population, but the rural population in Anatolian heartland, remained largely untouched, who made a come back with soft Islamism of AKP.

I believe Turkey knows its precarious position and is no longer waiting for or depending on a EU accession, which may or may not happen. A special partnership may be what it will end up with. This is not a surprise as no large civilization accepts encroachment by another. Hindu India is also not willing to accept subcontinent's Muslims back into their fold and are happy to make do with a lesser Muslim presence after the partition, regardless of economic and strategic benefits it would provide to reunite the subcontinent into a SAARC union for example.

Sorry if this is off topic, mainly responding to Dr. G's comments in this regard.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1596
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Hidden Face Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2011 at 17:13
Eventhorizon, that's too off topic, I think. I mean, soft Islamism of AKP etc, nothing to do with the topic.

As for the topic, I think Byzantines are also defenders of Asia from Europeans.(i.e Latins.)
Back to Top
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1596
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Hidden Face Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2011 at 17:55
Quote And now today, what do we have? Well the Turks assert, "Hey boys we are Europe so make room for us in the Union! The result: The political correctness of the EU Club is now strained to the max over those Muslims calling themselves "Europeans"!

Dr. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Technically, It's the Council of Europe that decides what counry is European and what country is not. So Turkey is a European country according to the Council of Europe, regardless of Turkey's entry into the EU. Furthermore, Turkey's reasoning to enter the EU has nothing to do with a willingness to prove Turkey's Europeanness. There are rather other political and economical factors playing a role on it.


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 01:33
What I am subtly stating goes all the way back in the thread where I clearly denoted that the history of the Ottomans is part and parcel of the History of Europe, and has always been considered such within respected historical constructs. To maintain otherwise is unhistorical; hence contemporary palaver about the "otherness" of the Turkish state is little more than hypocritical appeals to contemporary "nuttiness".
 
Despite the attempt to to derail the thread by speaking of the Seljuks--whom the Ottomans pretty well eliminated--we have to remember that the Ottomans "conquered" Anatolia from the Balkans and not otherwise!


Edited by drgonzaga - 21 May 2011 at 01:36
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 03:50
In response to the comments concerning the Battle of Manzikert, as found above, I will offer what I wrote in the "discussion" area of the Wikipedia site.

"A few corrections or explanations needed.

In the body of this site, it was written; "500 Frankish and Norman mercenaries under Roussel de Bailleul", later it is found that certain Frankish and Norman mercenaries were dismissed for raiding the country side ("the Roman population also suffered some plundering by Romanos' Frankish mercenaries, whom he was forced to dismiss." So, back then just how did they determine or distinguish the Franks from the Normans? Were the Normans really English? And just how many of the 500 were dismissed, and just where would this group of 200 or 300, etc., go? Even later they are mentioned as being involved in the events, thus "Romanos ordered his general Joseph Tarchaneiotes to take some of the Roman troops and Varangians and accompany the Pechenegs and Franks to Khliat." Note above that the Normans are not mentioned but the dismissed Franks, are mentioned. Just what are the facts?96.19.156.227 (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Just whom was Bryennios, who commanded the left wing?In the article it is written; "The next day some foraging parties under Bryennios discovered the Seljuk army and were forced to retreat back to Manzikert. The Armenian general Basilakes was sent out with some cavalry, as Romanos did not believe this was Arslan's full army; the cavalry was destroyed and Basilakes taken prisoner. Romanos drew up his troops into formation and sent the left wing out under Bryennios, who was almost surrounded by the quickly approaching Turks and was forced to retreat once more. The Seljuk forces hid among the nearby hills for the night, making it nearly impossible for Romanos to send a counterattack.[6][17" It is even said that Bryennios survived the battle and later fought for the Romans. But, does not his Roman name betray him?Within Wikipedia your hyperlink takes us to his site, which says; "Bryennios or Bryennius (Greek: Βρυέννιος), feminine form Bryennissa (Βρυέννισσα), was the name of a noble Byzantine family which rose to prominence in the 11th and 12th centuries, mostly as military commanders. The etymology of the name is uncertain. The first members of the family appear in the 9th century. None are known for the 10th, but they reappear in the latter half of the 11th century, when they rose to high military commands and became associated with the Komnenian dynasty. Members of the family retained high positions through the 12th century, and are documented up to the 15th century." Considering the later day adventures of the "Brienne" family in both Western and Eastern Europe, perhaps the name "Bryennios" in Greek or Eastern Latin, could just as easily be spelled "Brienne?" Certainly Walter, or Jean de "Brienne", should raise some questions? See;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Brienne

And just how could I leave out this information also found within Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roussel_de_Bailleul It seems he actually tried to carve out a place for him and his troops within Anatolia? Was he with those troops who ravaged the countryside and were dismissed? Some reasonable explanation is needed? 96.19.156.227 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes"

As you may note I was merely trying to get the Wiki site to improve its article by giving better explanations, etc. I also attempted to ascertain if there could have existed any relationship between the "Roman" name Bryennios, and the Frankish name Brienne? And, as well I also questioned the acts of Roussel_de_Bailleul, who, it was written, attempted to establish a Frankish or Norman estate or empire within Anatolia. This act in itself is both strange and earily similar to the so called "Celtic" kingdom know to have existed in Anatolia, in times past.

I also feel that the questions I posed to the Wiki article are real questions, and one's that should be asked by any good historian, and not merely "detritus", as one poster here described it. But at least that poster actually took the time to look! Thanks!

So, there it is Seko!

I could also have taken the entire account into question, since it shows so little information that could really be considered as fact.

Would not it have been easier for any of you to merely go to the Wiki site and read it yourselves as did drgonzaga?

Regards,



Edited by opuslola - 21 May 2011 at 04:25
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 04:41
There can be no reason whatsoever to think that '500 Frankish and Normal mercenaries' included anyone 'English', largely because there were still no 'English' five years after Hastings. What there were of course were Saxon refugees from the Conquest who scattered here, there and everywhere seekings service as mercenaries. In particular they formed part of the Varangian Guard in Byzantium, and the Guard were present at Manzikert. The Byzantine forces therefore are already known to have almost certainly incoporated Saxons from England.
 
In any case there is no indcation there that the accounts of the battle are 'worthless'.
 
Quote
 Steven Runciman, in The History of the Crusades, noted that by the time of the Emperor Alexios Komnenos, the Byzantine Varangian Guard was largely recruited from Anglo-Saxons and "others who had suffered at the hands of the Vikings and their cousins the Normans".
 
I see no reason to suppose any link at all between Jean de Brienne and Nikephalos Bryennios. Jean of course was much later, but his family was well established as feudatories of France long before (and remained prominent at court for some centuries.) The family of course takes its name from the town and the town name's origin may be Celtic but there remains no reason to link it with anyone in the Balkans or Anatolia.  


Edited by gcle2003 - 21 May 2011 at 05:18
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11687
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 05:43
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

In response to the comments concerning the Battle of Manzikert, as found above, I will offer what I wrote in the "discussion" area of the Wikipedia site.

"A few corrections or explanations needed.

In the body of this site, it was written; "500 Frankish and Norman mercenaries under Roussel de Bailleul", later it is found that certain Frankish and Norman mercenaries were dismissed for raiding the country side ("the Roman population also suffered some plundering by Romanos' Frankish mercenaries, whom he was forced to dismiss." So, back then just how did they determine or distinguish the Franks from the Normans? Were the Normans really English? And just how many of the 500 were dismissed, and just where would this group of 200 or 300, etc., go? Even later they are mentioned as being involved in the events, thus "Romanos ordered his general Joseph Tarchaneiotes to take some of the Roman troops and Varangians and accompany the Pechenegs and Franks to Khliat." Note above that the Normans are not mentioned but the dismissed Franks, are mentioned. Just what are the facts?96.19.156.227 (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes


Romanos Diogenes's army was a cosmopolitan lot. Normans (Viking conquerers mixed with local Frankish, Gualish) from northern France became mercenaries of the Eastern Romans. Gibbon wrote that their leader was Ursel of Baliol. The Baliols, or Bailleuls, of France were eventually to become English nobles and later progenitors of Scottish kings.

Franks (germans) as you know had been dealing with the adventurous Vikings in her territories. In 911 Charles III, king of the Franks gave Rollo, leader of a group of Danish adventurers, the newly created Duchy of Normandy (the land of the north men). He hoped that these Viking poachers would turn gamekeepers and guard the strategic NW approach to the ILe de France against other adventurers. Rollo and his men were the first Normans. This makes both Franks and Normans a separate identity.

You are trying to make much significance out of the Frankish mercenaries be it one umbrella of Normans and Franks or separate units for each. Either way they were under their own commander, Baliol.

The Normans were not English in 1071.

 General Tarchaneiotes was an Eastern Roman with Turkish heritage. He was not involved in the battle at Malazgirt for he had retreated, unbeknownst to Romanos, to the west and safely to Constantinople.

Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:




Just whom was Bryennios, who commanded the left wing?In the article it is written; "The next day some foraging parties under Bryennios discovered the Seljuk army and were forced to retreat back to Manzikert. The Armenian general Basilakes was sent out with some cavalry, as Romanos did not believe this was Arslan's full army; the cavalry was destroyed and Basilakes taken prisoner. Romanos drew up his troops into formation and sent the left wing out under Bryennios, who was almost surrounded by the quickly approaching Turks and was forced to retreat once more. The Seljuk forces hid among the nearby hills for the night, making it nearly impossible for Romanos to send a counterattack.[6][17" It is even said that Bryennios survived the battle and later fought for the Romans. But, does not his Roman name betray him?Within Wikipedia your hyperlink takes us to his site, which says; "Bryennios or Bryennius (Greek: Βρυέννιος), feminine form Bryennissa (Βρυέννισσα), was the name of a noble Byzantine family which rose to prominence in the 11th and 12th centuries, mostly as military commanders. The etymology of the name is uncertain. The first members of the family appear in the 9th century. None are known for the 10th, but they reappear in the latter half of the 11th century, when they rose to high military commands and became associated with the Komnenian dynasty. Members of the family retained high positions through the 12th century, and are documented up to the 15th century." Considering the later day adventures of the "Brienne" family in both Western and Eastern Europe, perhaps the name "Bryennios" in Greek or Eastern Latin, could just as easily be spelled "Brienne?" Certainly Walter, or Jean de "Brienne", should raise some questions? See;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Brienne



 Nicephorus Bryennius was in charge of the Roman west tagmata during the first day of battle. The next day Romanos was determined to draw the Seljuk's into a general engagement, Romanus drew up all his forces for battle.  Romanus followed textbook strategic planning; he commanded the centre with the Varangian guard and a large body of mercenaries.  Bryennius commanded the left wing; Theodore Alyates commanded the right wing.  Turkish and Uz auxiliaries provided a light cavalry screened on each wing.  A reserve force under Andronicus Ducas followed a discrete distance behind the main column.

The Seljuk army formed a broad crescent in front of the Byzantine Roman position.  Alp Arlsan commanded from a nearby hilltop where he could survey the field of battle.

Romanus initiated the battle by beginning a slow advance.  The Seljuks poured arrows into the Byzantine ranks and retired as they advanced.  Skirmishing occurred between the wings of both armies but neither side gained any advantage.  Towards dusk, Romanus called a halt to the advance and began an orderly withdrawal back to the camp.  As the Byzantines began to reverse direction the Seljuks launched a fierce attack against the wings.  The Byzantine right wing, which had been particularly hard pressed during the advance, broke in confusion.  At this point the reserve force, under Andronicus Ducas, should have come to the aid of the emperor but instead turned and withdrew from the field, sparking a general rout.  The left wing under Nicephorus Bryennius fought its way clear, but the centre, including Romanus was overwhelmed and captured.
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/markham.htm

For you to make a big bahoo over
Bryennius is weird since he lived to fight on the second day. Nicephorus Basilakes was captured.

Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:



And just how could I leave out this information also found within Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roussel_de_Bailleul It seems he actually tried to carve out a place for him and his troops within Anatolia? Was he with those troops who ravaged the countryside and were dismissed? Some reasonable explanation is needed? 96.19.156.227 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roussel_de_Bailleul

He was one of the many who deserted and did not join the battle. Later he did carve out some land for himself while under imperial service.

Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:


As you may note I was merely trying to get the Wiki site to improve its article by giving better explanations, etc. I also attempted to ascertain if there could have existed any relationship between the "Roman" name Bryennios, and the Frankish name Brienne? And, as well I also questioned the acts of Roussel_de_Bailleul, who, it was written, attempted to establish a Frankish or Norman estate or empire within Anatolia. This act in itself is both strange and earily similar to the so called "Celtic" kingdom know to have existed in Anatolia, in times past.

Are you taking coincidence as an explanation for your convoluted, later-day fact again Opus?
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:


I also feel that the questions I posed to the Wiki article are real questions, and one's that should be asked by any good historian, and not merely "detritus", as one poster here described it. But at least that poster actually took the time to look! Thanks!

Why should I look when I asked you to take time and explain your story here? I'm glad you complied. Are you as good a historian as you intend on being, or are you attempting to Fomenkonize everything?

Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:


So, there it is Seko!

I could also have taken the entire account into question, since it shows so little information that could really be considered as fact.



Do take the entire account into question. Looks like you already have. No sweat off of history's back. In fact there was no battle. There are no such people as Diogenes and Alp Arslan and Turks never inhabited Anatolia. Its all a myth. A suberterfuge from the illuminati.
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:


Would not it have been easier for any of you to merely go to the Wiki site and read it yourselves as did drgonzaga?

No! I like to see real effort and legwork from our members.
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:


Regards,



Regards!


Edited by Seko - 21 May 2011 at 06:00
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 11:53
Thanks Seko!
Perhaps then, I should lay prostrate at your feet? (I would hate to see any of you in power have to do any foot-work?)

But, I shall not!

I would rather suggest some better words to disloge my questions directed towards Wikipedia?

But, of course, either of us could well be incorrect?

Oh! I am sorry, it seems that only I could be incorrect!

Pardon!

Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 21 May 2011 at 11:59
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11687
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2011 at 13:32
as your are thinking up a storm how about answering my questions from yesterday. You can find them a few posts up above. And quit feeling sorry for yourself. Its unbecoming of a scholar as you.
Back to Top
Basil Bulgarktonos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Basil Bulgarktonos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 07:30
The Byzantines did protect europe from the arabs in the east, not from the  love of the west but because in order to reach europe from the east they would have to conquer byzantine lands.  When the ottomans finally conquered europe, the west was strong enough to deal with them. On the other hand, medieavel europeans did manage to defeat arabs; Karl Martell "the Hammer", the crusades, reconquista, so i guess we will never know.  But the byzantines also helped defend the culture and knowledge of the ancient world.  When europe sank into the dark ages, byzantine scholars still learned the works of Aristotle and Socrates.  when the Empire finally fell in 1453, many scholars ran to Italy and helped to start the renissance.
"This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire" (Voltaire)
Back to Top
Buerebista 12 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10 Jan 2013
Location: Nürnberg
Status: Offline
Points: 24
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buerebista 12 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2013 at 05:52
I agree with  Basil Bulgaroktonos in what the Eastern Roman Empire was in the culture, social and also religious  of the medieval Europe and I have to say that only after the year 602AC, when the greeks have the leaderships in Empire taken, the state become the Byzantine Empire, with all that happened after
Mind over matter
Back to Top
CogitoErgoSum View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CogitoErgoSum Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2013 at 15:36
The Byzantines paved the way for the Muslims conquest. Justinian enforced his religious laws, which caused the Jews and Christians to hate him, which caused them to convert to Islam. 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Feb 2013 at 12:54

Byzantium could be seen as defending Europe, in that blocking the advance of foreign nations united by Islam allowed Europeans to develop without being swallowed up by the deluge of the Islamic tide of conquest.

But you can bet that the Byzantines didn't do what they did for Europe, they did it to preserve their own nation. In this endeavour they were ultimately unsuccessful. The nation state, its language, religion and the historical continuity which defined it were all swept aside and replaced by something radically different. In contrast to European states such as Scotland or France.
 
Byzantium likely did not see itself as the defenders of Europe in the same way that Habsburg Spain did in the 16th century. Philip II, most Catholic of kings, firmly believed that it was his responsibility to marshall the ships and soldiers of his empire to thwart the Ottoman ambitions in the central Mediterranean sea.
 
Alexius I wanted European mercenaries to help him regain national territory, and baulked at the notion of representing any form of leadership for any supra-national Christendom when the Crusaders arrived instead.
 
For Byzantium the Islamic invasions were simply yet another in a long line of foreign, heathen/pagan/heretic/infidel/schismatic, non-Greek/Romans. Defending themselves against these opponents was simply business as usual for the Byzantine emperor.
Back to Top
ArthursArmory View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04 Feb 2014
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArthursArmory Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 09:32
Constantinople was situated in the best and worst possible place. Able to take advance of trade along hte Silk Road and ideal port conditions made Constantinople extremely powerful. They also sat on the edge of two conflicting ideologies and therefor had to protect the borders of Europe
Sports guy, entrepreneur, and medieval history buff
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.