What happens to Zionism if the Crusader states survive up to the modern era?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#21
Whether they could or not is not important. They didn't need to.

The Byzantines needed to dominate the Turks if they wanted to secure their long term survival. And they didn't.
But if the Turks didn't actually have the potential to conquer the Byzantine coastal areas in Anatolia, wouldn't they at worst be a mere nuisance to the Byzantines as opposed to being an existential threat to the Byzantines?
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,069
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#22
But if the Turks didn't actually have the potential to conquer the Byzantine coastal areas in Anatolia, wouldn't they at worst be a mere nuisance to the Byzantines as opposed to being an existential threat to the Byzantines?
No no no no no. They clearly DID become an existential threat to the Empire, didn't they?
 
Likes: Modor

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#23
No no no no no. They clearly DID become an existential threat to the Empire, didn't they?
Not the Seljuk Turks; the Ottoman Turks, certainly, but not the Seljuk Turks. Also, I think that the Ottomans' later rise might have had to do with the Crusader takeover of Constantinople and its aftereffects for the next several decades. Had the Byzantines not been busy fighting the Crusaders for several decades, they might have had more time to prepare against any new threats from the east down the line.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,069
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#24
Not the Seljuk Turks; the Ottoman Turks, certainly, but not the Seljuk Turks. Also, I think that the Ottomans' later rise might have had to do with the Crusader takeover of Constantinople and its aftereffects for the next several decades. Had the Byzantines not been busy fighting the Crusaders for several decades, they might have had more time to prepare against any new threats from the east down the line.
Turks.

The Seljuk ability to conquer the Anatolian coast had nothing to do with the rise of the Ottomans. The point, as I have repeated about five times, is that the Byzantines did not have a strong eastern border, and THAT is where the enemy that ultimately destroyed them came from.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#25
Turks.

The Seljuk ability to conquer the Anatolian coast had nothing to do with the rise of the Ottomans. The point, as I have repeated about five times, is that the Byzantines did not have a strong eastern border, and THAT is where the enemy that ultimately destroyed them came from.
That makes sense; thanks! :)

BTW, I wonder how the Byzantines would have fared against the Ottomans in the long(er)-run without the Crusader Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and its decades'-long aftereffects.
 
Likes: Modor

Kirialax

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
4,852
Blachernai
#26
Not the Seljuk Turks; the Ottoman Turks, certainly, but not the Seljuk Turks. Also, I think that the Ottomans' later rise might have had to do with the Crusader takeover of Constantinople and its aftereffects for the next several decades. Had the Byzantines not been busy fighting the Crusaders for several decades, they might have had more time to prepare against any new threats from the east down the line.
Pretty much this. After the passage of the First Crusade and reconquest of the coast, Constantinople never had any reason to see the Turks of Konya as an existential threat. Beyond them were the Danishmendid Turks. Romano-Byzantine diplomacy at this point had been working pretty well for a millennium in keeping the enemies on the frontier divided and partially depending on Rome, and the Turks are no different. They were dangerous opponents in the field, to be sure, but the Komnenian defensive system worked. The proof of this is in the economic situation that we see in western Anatolia when documentary evidence becomes available in the thirteenth century: it's prosperous, developed, and densely settled. This is a far cry from the Kaisareia - Melitene corridor that at the beginning of the tenth century was handed off to an Armenian frontier lord to administer on behalf of the empire, which despite its strategic value was reportedly deserted.

From Constantinople's perspective, the real danger was the Latin west. Latin success challenged Constantinople's claims of being the head of Christendom, and by the twelfth century Latin Europe was becoming a major intellectual and economic power that had the self-confidence to challenge Byzantium. The Islamic world, however, was more divided than ever. I expect it's no coincidence that the polemical treatises written in twelfth-century Byzantium about religion are concerned with the Latins and the Armenians. The Muslims, however, are a footnote. It's probably no coincidence that the argument was put forth that converts from Islam no longer had to anathematize Allah: the Muslim world was simply one of a range of barbarian polities whose members could still become good Romans. The caliphate had been broken. The Latins were where the attention was, and I'd argue that it was only the civil wars of the early fourteen-century that permitted the rise of Ottoman power. The Turks of previous centuries cannot be seen in the light of one Turkic polity that became successful later (which, incidentally, was still one of several until a late date; the Ottomans took Constantinople before they liquidated the Danishmendids).
 

Kirialax

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
4,852
Blachernai
#27
That makes sense; thanks! :)

BTW, I wonder how the Byzantines would have fared against the Ottomans in the long(er)-run without the Crusader Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and its decades'-long aftereffects.
I doubt the Ottomans would have even existed, but at some point some neighbouring polity would get involved in a Byzantine power struggle and the empire would collapse.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,069
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#28
Pretty much this. After the passage of the First Crusade and reconquest of the coast, Constantinople never had any reason to see the Turks of Konya as an existential threat. Beyond them were the Danishmendid Turks. Romano-Byzantine diplomacy at this point had been working pretty well for a millennium in keeping the enemies on the frontier divided and partially depending on Rome, and the Turks are no different. They were dangerous opponents in the field, to be sure, but the Komnenian defensive system worked. The proof of this is in the economic situation that we see in western Anatolia when documentary evidence becomes available in the thirteenth century: it's prosperous, developed, and densely settled. This is a far cry from the Kaisareia - Melitene corridor that at the beginning of the tenth century was handed off to an Armenian frontier lord to administer on behalf of the empire, which despite its strategic value was reportedly deserted.

From Constantinople's perspective, the real danger was the Latin west. Latin success challenged Constantinople's claims of being the head of Christendom, and by the twelfth century Latin Europe was becoming a major intellectual and economic power that had the self-confidence to challenge Byzantium. The Islamic world, however, was more divided than ever. I expect it's no coincidence that the polemical treatises written in twelfth-century Byzantium about religion are concerned with the Latins and the Armenians. The Muslims, however, are a footnote. It's probably no coincidence that the argument was put forth that converts from Islam no longer had to anathematize Allah: the Muslim world was simply one of a range of barbarian polities whose members could still become good Romans. The caliphate had been broken. The Latins were where the attention was, and I'd argue that it was only the civil wars of the early fourteen-century that permitted the rise of Ottoman power. The Turks of previous centuries cannot be seen in the light of one Turkic polity that became successful later (which, incidentally, was still one of several until a late date; the Ottomans took Constantinople before they liquidated the Danishmendids).
Certainly the Byzantines may well not have seen the Turks as an existential threat at the time, but my point is that history proves that point of view to be mistaken.
 
Likes: Futurist

Tulun

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
3,851
Western Eurasia
#30
The Turks of previous centuries cannot be seen in the light of one Turkic polity that became successful later (which, incidentally, was still one of several until a late date; the Ottomans took Constantinople before they liquidated the Danishmendids).
(I guess it was just an error and the Karamanoğulları/Karamanids were in your mind, the Danişmendids were long long gone before the Ottomans, their last branch finished in 1178 when the Selcuk sultan Kılıç Arslan II took Malatya)
 

Similar History Discussions