Most painful territorial losses

Sep 2017
720
United States
Has anyone mentioned the loss of Anatolia for the Byzantines? IIRC Anatolia was in a lot of ways its heartland and losing it was a pretty decisive blow that contributed to its decline.

Also, the loss of Northern Africa to the WRE. I believe it was a breadbasket whose loss was pretty bad for its food imports/economy. Not to mention the joint WRE/ERE force sent to recapture it was crushed in a devastating defeat to the Vandals.
 
Likes: macon

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,040
Republika Srpska
I don't believe Bulgaria was eager. I think Albanians were having 0.25 million in Kosovo or so, they actually experienced African growth rates.
Indeed. While I strongly doubt the number of Albanians living in Kosovo now, they are quite famous for "multiplying" quickly.
 
Likes: macon

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
34,429
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Austria couldn't realistically keep all of the Sudetenland and Germany only ever posessed it 1938-1945. I think the loss of South Tyrol hurt Austria more and for Germany, East Prussia and Silesia.
Czechoslovakia's loss of the Sudetenland in 1938 led to its invasion and occupation by Nazi Germany and thereby to WW2 ("peace in our time") - that's what I'm referring to.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,993
Slovenia, EU
Has anyone mentioned the loss of Anatolia for the Byzantines? IIRC Anatolia was in a lot of ways its heartland and losing it was a pretty decisive blow that contributed to its decline.

Also, the loss of Northern Africa to the WRE. I believe it was a breadbasket whose loss was pretty bad for its food imports/economy. Not to mention the joint WRE/ERE force sent to recapture it was crushed in a devastating defeat to the Vandals.
Yes, but it was a long process of over 200 years. Komnens got back all coast and about half of interior and empire was holding for a century more. Even Nicean empire got back interior lands from Turks in 13th century.

What about loss of Balkans in 7th century? Byzantines needed around 4 centuries to get most of it back.
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,698
Lower Styria, Slovenia
Czechoslovakia's loss of the Sudetenland in 1938 led to its invasion and occupation by Nazi Germany and thereby to WW2 ("peace in our time") - that's what I'm referring to.
Sorry, I thought you meant Austria losing after ww1.

It's interesting really, the Sudetenland on its own shouldn't have been worth much for either side. A lot of it was hills covered with forest. No big centers, no major industry. A peripheral borderland. It was interesting for Germany and Austria only because of its people, who were mostly Germans, but their economic situation was rather bad, even worse after the creation of Czechoslovakia. By then their number was already declining because a lot of them were moving to America and elsewhere for a better life. Even the previously quite German cities like Budweis (Budějovice), Brünn (Brno), Olmütz (Olomouc) etc further in the heartland of Bohemia and Moravia were getting more and more Czech because the industries located there required more and more workforce, which came from the Czech rural areas surrounding them. Being German made it more difficult to get a job after 1918. People like Franz Kafka did relatively well because they spoke Czech and not just German and surpressed their German identity in public.
In turn, the Sudetenland wasn't worth all that much to the Czechs, except for providing a good historic and natural border. Wood makes a nice raw material too. If it only wasn't for those cheeky Jerries living there.
 
Oct 2011
273
Croatia
You need to learn how to quote.

And quotes made by people from the centuries we are talking about are not primary sources?
Definition of a primary source: an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.
My quotes are textbook primary sources.
Primary source = source which had direct access to information. Neither Constantine Prophyrogenetos nor Anna Comnena are primary sources, because they used other sources, not doing research themselves.

If Duklja is not a Serb state, why did John Skylitzes refer to Stefan Vojislav, a Dukljan ruler, as ὁ τῶν Σέρβων ἄρχων (archon of the Serbs)? If Duklja is not a Serb state why was Mihailo Vojislavljević called Τριβαλλών καί Σέρβων... αρχηγός (archont of Triballians and Serbs)? If Duklja is not a Serb state, why did then Anna Comnena call Bodin a ruler of the Dalmats? From other parts of the Alexiad we know that there Dalmat=Serb:
"Bodinus and his DALMATIANS had broken the truce and were contemplating an incursion into our territory"
"For now Bolcanus (who ruled over the whole of DALMATIA and was active in speech and in deed) marched out of his own borders and proceeded to devastate the towns and lands around and actually seized Lipenium itself, set fire to it and burned it down-this was when the sun had twice completed its circuit since the destruction of the Scythians. On receipt of these tidings the Emperor thought them unbearable, so gathered together a considerable army and marched to meet the SERBIANS along the direct road to Lipenium"
From the second quote we quite clearly see that the land of "Dalmatia" was actually Serbia so the Alexiad's Dalmatians were Serbs and according to Alexiad, Bodin ruled the Dalmatians, the Serbs.
It is actually quite clear that Dalmatia is definitely not Serbia, as for Duklja, that depends on the sources. See my next post.

Oh, really? Let's check what Porphyrogenetus has to say:
"These same Pagani are descended from unbaptized SERBS, of the time of that prince who claimed the protection of emperor Heraclius".
Neretljani were Serbs and Croatian historiography's attempts to retroactively Croatize them have no justification.
Let's see what Poryphrogenetus has to say:
But the Croats at that time were dwelling beyond Bavaria, where the Belocroats are now. From them split off a family of five brothers, Kloukas and Lobelos and Kosentzis and Mouchlo and Chrobatos, and two sisters, Touga and Bouga, who came with their folk to Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After they had fought one another for some years, the Croats prevailed and killed some of the Avars and the remainder they compelled to be subject to them. And so from that time this land was possessed by the Croats, and there are still in Croatia some who are of Avar descent and are recognized as Avars. The rest of the Croats stayed over against Francia, and are now called Belocroats, that is, White Croats, and have their own prince; they are subject to Otto, the great king of Francia, or Saxony, and are unbaptized, and intermarry and are friendly with the Turks. From the Croats who came to Dalmatia a part split off and possessed themselves of Illyricum and Pannonia; they too had an independent prince, who used to maintain friendly contact, though through envoys only, with the prince of Croatia. For a number of years the Croats of Dalmatia also were subject to the Franks, as they had formerly been in their own country; but the Franks treated when with such brutality that they used to murder Croat infants at the breast and cast them to the dogs. The Croats, unable to endure such treatment from the Franks, revolted from them, and slew those of them whom they had for princes. On this, a large army from Francia marched against them, and after they had fought one another for seven years, at last the Croats managed to prevail and destroyed all the Franks with their leader who was called Kotzilis. From that time they remained independent and autonomous, and they requested they holy baptism from the bishop of Rome, and bishops were sent who baptized them in the time of Porinos their prince. Their country was divided into 11 ‘zupanias‘, vz., Chlebiana, Tzenzina, Imota, Pleba, Pesenta, Parathalassia, Breberi, Nona, Tnina, Sidraga, Nina; and their ban possesses Kribasa, Litza and Gotziska. Now the said Croatia and the rest of the Slavonic regions are situated thus: Diocleia is neighbor to the forts of Dyrrachium, I mean, to Elissus and to Helcynium and Antibari, and comes up as far as Decatera, and on the side of the mountain country it is neighbor to Serbia. From the city of Decatera begins the domain of Terbounia and stretches along as far as Ragusa, and on the side of its mountain country it is neighbor to Serbia. From Ragusa begins the domain of the Zachlumi and stretches along as far as the river Orontius; and on the side of the coast it is neighbor to the Pagani, but on the side of the mountain country it is neighbor to the Croats on the north and to Serbnia at the front. From the river Orontius begins Pagania and stretches along as far as the river Zentina; it has three ‘zupanias’, Rhastotza and Mokros and that of Dalen.
[/QUOTE]
 
Oct 2011
273
Croatia
Continued:
The Croats who now live in the region of Dalmatia are descended from the unbaptized Croats, also called ‘white’, who live beyond Turkey and next to Francia, and have for Slav neighbours the unbaptized Serbs. ‘Croats’ in the Slav tongue means ‘those who occupy much territory’. These same Croats arrived to claim the protection of the emperor of the RomansHeraclius before the Serbs claimed the protection of the same emperor Heraclius, at that time when the Avars had fought and expelled from those parts the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian had brought from Rome and settled there, and who were therefore called ‘Romani’ from their having been translated from Rome to those countries, I mean, to those now called Croatia and Serbia. These same Romani having been expelled by the Avars in the days of this same emperor of the Romans Heraclius, their countries were made desolate. And so, by command of the emperor Heraclius these same Croats defeated and expelled the Avars from those parts, and by mandate of Heraclius the emperor they settled down in that same country of the Avars, where they now dwell. These same Croats had at that time for prince the father of Porgas. The emperor Heraclius sent and brought priests from Rome, and made of them an archbishop and a bishop and elders and deacons, and baptized the Croats; and at that time these Croats had Porgas for their prince. This country in which the Croats settled themselves was originally under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans, and hence in the country of these same Croats the palace and hippodromes of the emperor Diocletian are still preserved, at the city of Salona, near the city of Spalato. These baptized Croats will not fight foreign countries outside the borders of their own; for they received a kind of oracular response and injunction from the pope of Rome who in the time of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans, sent priests and baptized them. For after their baptism the Croats made a covenant, confirmed with their own hands and by oaths sure and binding in the name of St. Peter the apostle, that never would they go upon a foreign country and make war on it, but rather would five at peace with all who were willing to do so; and they received from the same pope of Rome a benediction to this effect, that if any other foreigners should come against the country of these same Croats and bring war upon it, then might God fight for the Croats and protect them, and Peter the disciple of Christ give them victories. And many years after, in the days of prince Terpimer, father of prince Krasimer, there came from Francia that lies between Croatia and Venice a man called Martin, of the utmost piety though clad in the garb of a layman, whom these same Croats declare to have wrought abundant miracles; this pious man, who was sick and had had his feet amputated, so that he was carried by four bearers and taken about wherever he wanted to go, confirmed upon these same Croats this injunction of the most holy pope, that they should keep it so long as their life should last; and he himself also pronounced on their behalf a benediction similar to that which the pope had made. For this reason neither the galleys nor the cutters of these Croats ever go against anyone to make war, unless of course he has come upon them. But in these vessels go those of the Croats who wish to engage in commerce, traveling round from city to city, in Pagania and the gulf of Dalmatia and as far as Venice. The prince of Croatia has from the beginning, that is, ever since the reign of Heraclius the emperor, been in servitude and submission to the emperor of the Romans, and was never made subject to the prince of Bulgaria. Nor has the Bulgarian ever gone to war with the Croats, except when Michael Boris, prince of Bulgaria, went and fought them and, unable to make any headway, concluded peace with them, and made presents to the Croats and received presents from the Croats. But never yet have these Croats paid tribute to the Bulgarians, although the two have often made presents to one another in the way of friendship. In baptized Croatia are the inhabited cities of Nona, Belgrade, Belitzin, Skordona, Chlebena, Stolpon, Tenin, Kori, Klaboka. Baptized Croatia musters as many as 60 thousand horse and 100 thousand foot, and galleys up to 80 and cutters up to 100. The galleys carry 40 men each, the cutters 20 each, and the smaller cutters 10 each. This great power and multitude of men Croatia possessed until the time of prince Krasimer. But when he was dead and his son Miroslav, after ruling four years, was made away with by the ban Pribounias, and quarrels and numerous dissensions broke out in the country, the horse and foot and galleys and cutters of the Croat dominion were diminished. And now it has 30 galleys and *** cutters, large and small, and *** horse and *** foot.”

Great Croatia, also called ‘white’, is still unbaptized to this day, as are also the Serbs who are its neighbours. They muster fewer horse and fewer foot than does baptized Croatia, because they are more constantly plundered, by the Franks and Turks and Pechenegs. Nor have they either galleys or cutters or merchant-ships, for the sea is far away; for from those parts to the sea it is a journey of 30 days. And the sea to which they come down after the 30 days is that which is called ‘dark’.” [Black Sea?]
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,040
Republika Srpska
Primary source = source which had direct access to information. Neither Constantine Prophyrogenetos nor Anna Comnena are primary sources, because they used other sources, not doing research themselves.
You still ignore all that quotes from the 17th century that clearly state that Vlachs and Serbs were one and the same.

I fail to see what your quoting of Porphyrogenetus brings to the table. You still haven't proven that the Neretljani were Croatian. Or that Duklja was not a Serbian state. Or that Bosnia and Croatia had common heritage in medieval times.
 
Oct 2011
273
Croatia
SO:
1) Croatia and Serbia are distinct countries, and Croats and Serbs are distinct peoples.
2) Croats established themselves in Dalmatia, Illyricum and Pannonia (so basically everything east of Istria and west of Drina)
3) Docleia and Terbounia are distinct from both Croatia and Serbia.
4) Zachlumi and Pagani are descended from Serbs, although Pagania may never have been part of Serbia politically.
5) Croats arrived before Serbs did, and separately from the Serbs.
6) Serbs first came west of Drina seeking refuge in Croatia from Bulgars.

On the other hand, Nikephoros Brienos - who actually campaigned in these areas - lists Croats, Serbs, Zahumars, Travunians, Konavlans, Dukljans, Neretljans. It is quite clear that he does not consider Neretljans to have been Serbs. Niketos Koniates states that Stephen Nemanja conquered "Croats and Kotor", which means that Croatian areas Stephen conquered were to north and possibly east of Kotor. Skilitzes mentions Petrilo, ruler of Duklja, as having "ruled among Croats".

Regardless of who you follow here, it is clear that my assertion of "no Serbs to west of Drina" still stands. What is contentuous is whether Serbs did have access to sea or not - that depends on whether you go with Porphyrogenetos or Brienos, Koniates and Skilitzes.
 
Oct 2011
273
Croatia
You still ignore all that quotes from the 17th century that clearly state that Vlachs and Serbs were one and the same.

I fail to see what your quoting of Porphyrogenetus brings to the table. You still haven't proven that the Neretljani were Croatian. Or that Duklja was not a Serbian state. Or that Bosnia and Croatia had common heritage in medieval times.
I had proven that Bosnia and Croatia had common heritage at the very least. Duklja may or may not have been Serb state, and Neretljani may have been separate peoples alltogether. As for 17th century quotes, which ones do you refer to?