Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 28th, 2017, 10:07 AM   #21
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Anywhere
Posts: 1,170

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
In 1071 the Fatimids were in a really bad situation, even worse than Byzantium, the whole country was in a civil war and the caliph Al-Mustansir was a powerless puppet. The Fatimid troubles started in 1062 when the first fighting between the Turkish and Sudanese slave soldiers started. That year was recorded as a year of calamity, and the conflict between the two groups only truly started in 1067, and by 1071, the caliph didn't even control Fustat and Cairo, the cities were in the hands of the Turks under Nasir al-Dawla. The caliph was forced to frequently pay large sums of money to pay the Turkish mercenaries. The Turks plundered the caliph's treasury and destroyed parts of the capital after it fell. Nasir's attempts to destroy the garrisons of Upper Egypt and Alexandria (controlled by the Sudanese) spread the war into the provinces. And in 1071 itself, the war once again reached the capital when Nasir was expelled, but with the help of the Bedouin managed to seize the capital back. It would only be in 1073 that Badr al-Jamali would be able to restore some order to the Fatimid state, and even though the fighting finished, the consequences were devastating. Famine and chaos spread throughout Egypt, some parts were ruled by groups like the Lawata Berbers with no supervision from the caliphate, the treasury was empty and the administration shattered.

1071 was almost as bad for the Fatimids as it was for the Byzantines, they were really not a big force in the region in that period. They would later experience a revival, but not in 1071.
Do you think it could be the reason why the Seljuqs wanted to face the fatiminds. To align with the Turkish mercenaries. Never knew the Fatiminds were in such a bad position.it was easy picking for the turks that the Seljuqs took wind of it.

I mean the Byzantine romans were in a bad spot. Like I wrote to AlpineLuke. If the ERE were to come to the HRE for help. Then the tide would've changed.
Azarius Balios is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 28th, 2017, 10:16 AM   #22

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,791

Well, it's possible, but Fatimid governor of Acre at the time was the same Badr al-Jamali that would later eliminate all rebellious elements from Egypt and restore the authority of the caliphate (with himself as the true power of course), so he could have very well posed a problem for the Seljuqs. He did after all have a reliable army of Armenian soldiers (Badr himself was of Armenian origin).
Maki is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 10:24 AM   #23
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Anywhere
Posts: 1,170

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Well, it's possible, but Fatimid governor of Acre at the time was the same Badr al-Jamali that would later eliminate all rebellious elements from Egypt and restore the authority of the caliphate (with himself as the true power of course), so he could have very well posed a problem for the Seljuqs. He did after all have a reliable army of Armenian soldiers (Badr himself was of Armenian origin).
Then what was the reason that Bade Al-Jamali didn't the fatiminds this time? Or was the Seljuqs Turks proved to be a strong faction.
Azarius Balios is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 07:20 PM   #24
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Anywhere
Posts: 1,170

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
From a psychological perspective, in imperial age [also in the old Roman Empire] it happened that individuals with power, may be imagining that the Empire was eternal [or something like that], preferred to fight for the crown instead of ensuring a future to the Empire. And this usually endangered a lot the survival of the Empire in case there was an enough strong and determined potential invader around.

I would comment saying that the figure of the "statesman" was still well far to come.
That is also true. But I think the damage was severly done by Constantine X as cut the military budget, disbanded standing military personnel (native romans) and Armenian militiamen of 50,000 by replacing them with mercenaries. And lost Eastern Roman Italy to the Normans. And so the Roman empire lost Italy due to him.
Azarius Balios is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 08:27 PM   #25

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,791

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azarius Balios View Post
Then what was the reason that Bade Al-Jamali didn't the fatiminds this time? Or was the Seljuqs Turks proved to be a strong faction.
You mean, why didn't he help the Fatimids? Well, he would help them in 1073, but I thing I failed to mention: Nasir al-Dawla was assassinated BEFORE Badr came with his army to Egypt. The assassination happened in March-April 1073 and Badr came to Egypt in the winter of 1073-74. The death of the Turkish leader certainly weakened the Turks and enabled Badr's clean-up.
Maki is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 08:37 PM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Anywhere
Posts: 1,170

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
You mean, why didn't he help the Fatimids? Well, he would help them in 1073, but I thing I failed to mention: Nasir al-Dawla was assassinated BEFORE Badr came with his army to Egypt. The assassination happened in March-April 1073 and Badr came to Egypt in the winter of 1073-74. The death of the Turkish leader certainly weakened the Turks and enabled Badr's clean-up.
Well better late than ever. I guess hiring mercenaries was a mistake on both the ERE and the Fatiminds. Sure Badr had a loyal Armenian force. But the damage was already done.the Normans were already on their way to establish the Norman Kingdom of Sicily and the Norman Kingdom of Africa (which also part of the same Kingdom), while they (the fatiminds) had to deal with the Berbers...I think it was. But didn't the mamluks got rid of the fatiminds?
Azarius Balios is offline  
Old December 28th, 2017, 11:52 PM   #27

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 22,666
Blog Entries: 19
An Eastern Roman [as for birth] serving the Normans


Quote:
Originally Posted by Azarius Balios View Post
Well better late than ever. I guess hiring mercenaries was a mistake on both the ERE and the Fatiminds. Sure Badr had a loyal Armenian force. But the damage was already done.the Normans were already on their way to establish the Norman Kingdom of Sicily and the Norman Kingdom of Africa (which also part of the same Kingdom), while they (the fatiminds) had to deal with the Berbers...I think it was. But didn't the mamluks got rid of the fatiminds?
Ah yes, the "Ifriqiya", like the Arabs called the ancient Roman province of Africa which they substantially kept. The Norman King Ruggero II [who was born after Manzikert ... in 1095] became King in 1130CE when there was the right context, in the middle of the Mediterranean, for the Norman expansion. He was able to create a little Empire [the "Regnum Siciliae"].

He was a smart leader and [probably thanks to the historical traditions of his people] he built a powerful fleet to get the control of the waters around South Italy.

An interesting aspect of the Norman Kingdom of Africa is that it obtained the support of the surviving local Christian Eastern Roman community.

An other point to remark is that the great fleet of Ruggero had leaded [in 1146CE] by an Eastern Roman admiral, Giorgio of Antioch, who became "amiratus amiratorum" of the Norman Kingdom.

[A note: in 1143 he ended a Greek-Orthodox church in Palermo which still show him and Ruggero in some mosaics. The church is the "Saint Mary of the Admiral"].

Giorgio's deeds were impressive and he conquered Tripoli and Ruggero II, in 1147, sent him to face the Byzantine Empire. Giorgio [who was a traitor for the Eastern Romans, considering his birthplace, but actually he was born in the last decade of IX century and he moved to Ifriqiya very young] sent a fleet of 70 galleys to attack Corf¨. Niceta Coniate says that the isle fell because of the excessive imperial taxes and because of the promises made by Giorgio.
AlpinLuke is online now  
Old December 28th, 2017, 11:56 PM   #28

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 22,666
Blog Entries: 19

In a few words, the Normans were in their "best moment" while the other powers [the HRE, the ERE, but also the Muslims in Northern Africa] weren't in their most marvelous moment. And the Crusaders were going on ... keeping them busy in Middle East.

Friedrich II of the house of Hohenstaufen would have changed the situation, but in early XII century, the Normans had all the room they wanted.
AlpinLuke is online now  
Old December 29th, 2017, 12:01 AM   #29

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,634

Don't forget that at the time of the Ostrogoth takeover the ERE was paralysed by fear and actions of of the Vandals by sea from Carthage. They had more to worry about than Italy and it wasn't easy to transport materiel.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old December 29th, 2017, 12:05 AM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Anywhere
Posts: 1,170

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
Ah yes, the "Ifriqiya", like the Arabs called the ancient Roman province of Africa which they substantially kept. The Norman King Ruggero II [who was born after Manzikert ... in 1095] became King in 1130CE when there was the right context, in the middle of the Mediterranean, for the Norman expansion. He was able to create a little Empire [the "Regnum Siciliae"].

He was a smart leader and [probably thanks to the historical traditions of his people] he built a powerful fleet to get the control of the waters around South Italy.

An interesting aspect of the Norman Kingdom of Africa is that it obtained the support of the surviving local Christian Eastern Roman community.

An other point to remark is that the great fleet of Ruggero had leaded [in 1146CE] by an Eastern Roman admiral, Giorgio of Antioch, who became "amiratus amiratorum" of the Norman Kingdom.

[A note: in 1143 he ended a Greek-Orthodox church in Palermo which still show him and Ruggero in some mosaics. The church is the "Saint Mary of the Admiral"].

Giorgio's deeds were impressive and he conquered Tripoli and Ruggero II, in 1147, sent him to face the Byzantine Empire. Giorgio [who was a traitor for the Eastern Romans, considering his birthplace, but actually he was born in the last decade of IX century and he moved to Ifriqiya very young] sent a fleet of 70 galleys to attack Corf¨. Niceta Coniate says that the isle fell because of the excessive imperial taxes and because of the promises made by Giorgio.
the Normans were smart in having two kingdoms. It seemed to be on their advantage since they placed a permanent foothold. And not to mention that there were Christians living in Carthage. So its possible that the Normans were present there.

A paragraph that I copied.
["Carthage remained a residential see until the high medieval period, mentioned in two letters of Pope Leo IX dated 1053,[77] written in reply to consultations regarding a conflict between the bishops of Carthage and Gummi. In each of the two letters, Pope Leo declares that, after the Bishop of Rome, the first archbishop and chief metropolitan of the whole of Africa is the bishop of Carthage. Later, an archbishop of Carthage named Cyriacus was imprisoned by the Arab rulers because of an accusation by some Christians. Pope Gregory VII wrote him a letter of consolation, repeating the hopeful assurances of the primacy of the Church of Carthage, "whether the Church of Carthage should still lie desolate or rise again in glory". By 1076, Cyriacus was set free, but there was only one other bishop in the province. These are the last of whom there is mention in that period of the history of the see."]
Azarius Balios is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
ere, italy, lose, times



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aurangzeb The Cruel King of his times r The Great Emperor at his times ashfaqkinqz Asian History 207 April 22nd, 2018 09:09 AM
Why didn't Italy & Japan lose massive amounts of their territory after World War II? Futurist General History 37 October 20th, 2015 04:31 AM
What made France lose interest in Italy? bartieboy Medieval and Byzantine History 15 August 20th, 2015 07:19 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.