hckrnws

If someone is interested in Byzantium fall and why this war was so bad for both empires, read some more about Justinian's Plague which killed ~35-50% of population and also halved economical output. It took about 200 years to get to the same place population wise for most of the empire.

Weirdly it didn't hit Persia as much outside of Mesopotamia, most historians estimate "only" ~20-30% of population died and shifted balance of power to Persian side, from almost renewed Roman Empire at 540 which most likely was getting back to ruling mediterranean world once again.

It should be noted, though, that by the time of Basil II in the 900s, the Eastern Roman Empire (aka Byzantium - a name neither they nor anyone else uses until the 19th century) had again become the most powerful military actor in the western world.

And then they got rekt in Manzikert, 1071 AD. 46 years after Basil II's death.

Let's not kid ourselves, the Byzantines had far more underlying problems throughout its history and only mostly survived by a.) the walls of Theodosius, and b.) bribing away potential invaders and getting others to fight their wars.

Generally battles like Manzikert or similar events were only as disastrous because they were inevitably followed by internal chaos and civil wars.

The free for all nature of the succession meant that whenever the empire was facing major difficulties (i.e. because the emperor was incompetent or due to factors he couldn’t really control) every general or noble within the eyesight of the throne thought that he should have it.

Turkish gains after Manzikert itself were limited and much of the imperial army survived. Of course it marched straight back to Constantinople for its commander to appoint a new emperor (since Romanos IV was captured by the Turks).

Then the Romans kept fighting each other for years while entire Anatolia was gradually lost.

Manzikert was a disaster but they certainly had enough resources to bounce back (i.e. it was certainly not worse than Cannea)

1204 also started as coup attempt by the Venetians to put the son of a former overthrown emperor on the thrown.

That's precisely what I meant by underlying problems. New emperor? Let's revolt. Emperor captured? Free for all king of the hill. Old emperor returns? Let's blind him, imprison him, and then free for all king of the hill.

Exactly! Manzikert was barely a disaster in terms of numbers. Half of Romanos's army was not even on the field. They simply didn't come to his aid, most likely because they were led by a Doukas who wanted one of their own on the throne.

Byzantine history is full of such examples. Civil wars that last decades, never-ending internal strife, and the ever present threat from steppe tribes and caliphates. It's a wonder they survived as long as they did.

Yes, Basil II had the unfortunate legacy of not leaving an heir at a very bad time. The Romans of the Eastern Empire had their problems but mostly just a continuation of the old Empire: dynastic jealousy and external enemies. As enfeebled as their last 300 years were, they were pretty unique in having lasted almost 2 millennium.

Late Mary Boyce attributes lower outbreaks of pandemics among Zoroastrian communities to the strict purity laws and practices. For example, it was unacceptable to pollute water, considered one of the sacred creations of Ahuramazda. To avoid polluting water, Zoroastrians would not wash their hands directly in rivers or bodies of water. There are hundreds of examples of these strict purity laws. [1]

[1] A History of Zoroastrianism, The Early Period by Mary Boyce <https://archive.org/details/AHistoryOfZoroastrianismVolI>

The Plague of Justinian was also the first recorded major outbreak of bubonic plague. Black death seems to be the pivot-point at a lot of important moments in history.

Correct, it was brought in by the troops of Genghis Khan and their marmots which were full of fleas.

Are there any specific sources you would recommend?

If you are interested in learning more about Byzantium there is a fantastic podcast The History of Byzantium[1] that follows on from Mike Duncan's The History of Rome Podcast.

[1] https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com

Tom Holland's "Shadow of the Sword" covers this and the broader context. "Justinian's Flea" is set a century earlier, but provides some grimly fascinating background: both these empires were still suffering the economic and demographic consequences of a plague. It's an under appreciated period of history, just as interesting as the Roman civil war imho.

Anything off of the beaten track of Pharoahs -> Greece -> Rome -> GoT -> WWII is pretty under-appreciated. I've been reading more about Byzantium, the Ottomans, and the Persians and it's been fascinating. We never really scratched the surface of any of that in school.

Agreed. Sounds like you're definitely a candidate (or have already read) for the two books I mentioned and I'll add "The Venetian Empire" by Jan Morris, and anything by Peter Brown, John Julius Norwich, and Roger Crowley to the pile. Better than fiction. Oh, and "Ghost on the Throne" by James Romm, which shares an abbreviation and more with Martin's fantasy.

I read a short historical fantasy novella named The Passion, by Jeanette Winterson. It was very good, and it has interested me in Venice ever since. It's from 1987 but it's very gender-bendery and fun.

These sound like great places to continue reading. I really enjoyed The Ottomans by Marc David Baer. I love that history is so much weirder (and relevant) than fiction. It's easier to connect with people, and understand where they might be coming from, when you understand some history. You can't say that for a lot of sci-fi/fantasy outside of the Snow Crash and The Lord of the Rings.

Edit - so GOT does mean "game of thrones"

Yep.

As a big history fan, history just writes the best stories. There is so much more. It never ends.

I have been binging on the Swedish Empire recently.

Currently I'm trying to get a bit into pre-Columbus and early Colonial Americas. That's something I don't know much about because its just so separated from what some world historians call the 'Imperial Core'.

If you are interested in late medival times, I highly recommend this series on the Dutch Revolt, its among the best and most detailed series of video on any history topic I have found:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5kdplBvGykV1KKcYbH6X...

Oh man, I'm down. I have The Labyrinth of Solitude on my reading list, it's not pre-Columbian, but I think it's a cultural touchstone, and it's a Mexican writer, not some American that knows just enough Spanish.

I read Layered Money, and it talked about the VoC, but I think that's a few decades after the Dutch Revolt. I'll check it out!

If you want a wild story, read about Judah P. Benjamin. He was the descendant of Sephardic Jewish refugees from the Spanish Inquisition, he was the first openly Jewish U.S. senator (representing Louisiana), eventually a Confederate Cabinet member, and finally a barrister in England. To top it all off, he was likely gay. To put things into perspective, he was a partner in sugar plantation, a slave owner, and an prominent advocate for slavery. Usually when you hear anything about the man, it's his international resume, not the fact of his slave ownership.

What does GoT stand for?

Game of Thrones. I was just making a (bad?) joke about the popular conception of things that happened between Caesar and Napoleon.

I would have guessed war of the roses, which got us based on.

Gulf of Tonkin incident and the iron throne of Saigon.

[dead]

For anyone enjoying this type of content, I just happen to be reading The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan and damn, I never thought I could be so interested in all its cultural and religious context. So much to learn from history... but this time is different hehe ;)

Such an excellent book. I get that it's a summary of 2,000 years in one medium sized book, but every single page was new to me.

This is an excellent summary of the beginning of the end of two great empires. The Arabs would destroy the Persian Sassanids completely. The Byzantine with the loss of their bread basket of Egypt and Africa would be permanently weakened. The Crusades of later centuries did not help the Byzantines. The Fourth Crusade where the Crusaders sacked Constantinople left the empire even weaker. The Fourth Crusade is why many of the treasures of Constantinople were brought to Venice.

The First Crusade did help the Byzantine empire massively (after all it was largely organized by the Byzantine emperor). Komnenian restoration would have not been possible without it.

Of course there was some infighting and quite a but of tension. However by Manuel I Komnenos day it seemed like it worked out pretty well. The Crusader States finally formally recognized his overlordship and West/East relations were pretty good.

However the ruling class of the empire became extremely Westernized. The emperor adopted a bunch of Latin/Western practices. Married western and appointed them to high offices. There was extreme corruption and most of (even internal) trade was outsourced to Italian city states.

This led to (somewhat genocidal) backlash after he died and several decades of chaos that culminated in 1204.

But anyway, the Crusades did save the empire and gave it an extra century or so. Even if it didn’t work out that well..

Alexios I did ask the Pope for help. But I doubt what he wanted was the Normans Robert and Bohemund to enter his territory with their armed men. Alexios I had fought several battles against them and feared that they were after his throne. Alexios’ daughter mentioned her father’s fear several times.

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad00....

That’s true. There was a chance of it getting slightly out of hans. It worked out reasonably well at the end.

Bohemund didn’t renege on his oath of fealty to the emperor until a couple of years later after he got Antioch.

Then again Byzantines choosing to entirely abandon the Crusader army during the siege of Antioch did cause quite a but of longterm enmity. So it’s possible that could have been avoided.

The Normans seem to behave reasonably well in Byzantine territory during the crusade itself, though. Anna herself seems to have been really personally impressed by Bohemund himself as well.

The Crusades did help quite a bit actually. They reconquered quite a bit of territory and regained a lot of influence. They would have gained far more if they had not withdrawn from Antioch.

The Fourth Crusade was of course a disaster, but the only way it could have been successful was because they had weakened themselves internally so much, and that wasn't because of the crusades.

Led to the muslim conquest of Persia, What a tragic chapter in the history of my nation!

>By 615 CE, the Sassanians had captured Chalcedon, and Heraclius was willing to become a Persian vassal. His offer was rejected, and the Sassanians withdrew their forces for the invasion of Egypt, which fell in 618 CE.

It's reported in In 617 A. D. … The Roman Emperor sent an envoy to Khusrau, praying that he was ready to have peace on any terms, but he replied, "I shall not give protection to the emperor until he is brought in chains before me and gives up obedience to his crucified god and adopts submission to the fire god." [1]

[1] Quran's Correct Prophecy Of Victory Of Romans Over The Persians - Religion - Nairaland:

https://www.nairaland.com/3034657/qurans-correct-prophecy-vi...

Any historical sources for that? The alleged letter from Khosrau was:

> Khosrow, greatest of Gods, and master of the earth, to Heraclius, his vile and insensate slave. Why do you still refuse to submit to our rule, and call yourself a king? Have I not destroyed the Greeks? You say that you trust in your God. Why has he not delivered out of my hand Caesarea, Jerusalem, and Alexandria? And shall I not also destroy Constantinople? But I will pardon your faults if you submit to me, and come hither with your wife and children; and I will give you lands, vineyards, and olive groves, and look upon you with a kindly aspect. Do not deceive yourself with vain hope in that Christ, who was not able to save himself from the Jews, who killed him by nailing him to a cross. Even if you take refuge in the depths of the sea, I will stretch out my hand and take you, whether you will or no

But its authenticity is doubtful.

Also AFAIK we don’t have any evidence about Heraclius trying to surrender. I mean.. how would that even work? He would have been just overthrown immediately.

Iran could possibly still be predominantly Zoroastrian today, and perhaps much of central Asian still Nestorian Christian, had this war not taken place or gone differently.

It is also possible that Central Asia would be still Buddhist or Manichaean, as those were the major pre-Islamic world religions in the region alongside Nestorian Christianity.

And much of Central Asia and Anatolia would probably still be speaking an Indo-Iranian language as opposed to becoming Turkic speakers later on.

I’m of the opinion that the climate changes precipitated the rise and migration of Turkic speaking tribes and the concomitant decline of settled agricultural society in the central and west asia. See the chapter “Big Chill” in Richard Bulliets “Cotton, Climate, and Camels in Early Islamic Iran”

"The Collapse of the Eastern Mediterranean" by Ronnie Ellenblum, whom I believe was a student of Richard Bulliet covers this topic as well.

Thanks for the reference, sounds interesting.

Turkic tribes were always gone turn into an influential political force but they might have picked up another language along the way, as they did the religion.

"CE"? Ahh, Christ Era, what a weird spelling though. Isn't it "AD" (Anno Domini) usually?

Common Era, a secular alternative to BC and AD.

BCE is "before the common era", and CE is "common era".

I suppose it kind of grandfathers in BC and AD, but I always find it funny that it happens to centre the birth of Jesus anyway.

Well, epoch'd to Dionysius Exiguus's best guess as to the date of birth some five hundred and twenty odd years later ...

So many interesting events in history. But why a random one of them is at the HN top page?

Because somebody posted it && people found it interesting and voted for it.

Same as with anything else. Did you ever ask "lots of posts about all programming languages on the web, but why a random one is on the first page on HN?"

It happens a lot. It's not a judgment call about all of them vs this one, it's just an interesting article.

I haven't finished it as it's long. Seems OK. But is it much better than the wikipedia one?

Interesting photos of artefacts. But no maps at all. Two or three maps would make it much more informative.

YC in-group fixation on "Roman stuff."

No, such random articles pop up often, and not necessary about Roman stuff.

It's the "liking Roman stuff is something modern bros do, and thus beneath me" card, from the hollier-than-thou board game...

The rise of islam was only possible due to the fight to exhaustion by the Byzantines and Sassanids. If not for the timing, Muhamad and his religion would have been but an obscure cult in the sands of Arabia. Just goes to show that timing is everything in history.

Yea they were absolutely exhausted in terms of economics and demographics but it is so much more than that too which the article touches on.

The lands in the middle east changed hands so many times that you had a generation be born and grow into adulthood without having being firmly associated with one empire or the other.

You had the nomadic tribes grow rich from their mercenary work for either empire.

You also had the fact that both Christian and Zoroastrian faiths took huge blows as the true cross was stolen by the Persians and then the Roman army destroyed the most important Zoroastrian fire temple and snuffed out the eternal flame there.

And finally after the Persians were defeated by the Caliphate, you the the Romans, against their well established strategies, gather their forces for a decisive battle, and then make tactical mistakes allowing for defeat.

It was the perfect storm of the right place, at the right time, with rolling nat 20s.

There does seem to be a tipping point where a place tips from a fairly organized society and constant warfare / conflict just becomes the norm and social and economic forces evolve to supply it ... and effectively keep it going even if it is not in society's best interest. Not a lot of peaceful alternatives at that point that aren't highly vulnerable to the cycle of conflict.

I don't buy the 'huge blows as the true cross was stolen' story. Christianity did fine for 100s of years in the region. Conversion happened very slowly over a long period of time.

Its not even clear how 'Islamic' the early armies were, they might have considerable Christian and Jewish portions. How differentiated early Islam was from certain version if Christianity is up for debated.

I also think just going with the 'right place, right time' narrative misses good coalition billing, good generalship and other things they did very well. Both Rome and Persia had thought a great number of wars in its history, and faced many 'barbarian' invasion, sometimes from forces that on paper were more impressive, that invaded during ongoing peer conflicts and despite that had been successful.

The plague and climate change probably also had a massive impact. The latter giving an edge to decentralized nomadic societies.

yes and no then you have characters like Genghis Khan who change history even if everything is stacked against them.

Not sure if this is true, he got "lucky" with technological advantage of warfare (Mongol bows) compared to other nations close to him as horse archers were literally "meta" to fight vs heavy/peasant infantry same case as Crassus fighting Parthians.

Horse archers had been a thing before him, though they were quite powerful.

His great accomplishment was marrying that with the ability to besiege walled cities. Nobody expected barbarian horse archers to be able to do that.

You mean you only need better bows to conquer the world? What about millions of warriors already trained in battles and already winning against the biggest and most competent military force in that world (China) after hundreds of years iterated tactics and strategies?

Wasn't it the invention of the stirrup ?

Not really true. Horse archers were a thing before him and after him. And many of the people he thought were either horse archers themselves, or allied with horse archers, or had fought horse archers for centuries.

Yes and no Mongol Bow was a thing that was just a lot better for this era compared to rest of Eurasia especially with combination with mongols tactics and rest of the regions didn't fight horse archers much for centuries but ofc. you can disagree.

The "mongol bow" was a traditional central asian design that had been in use for over a thousand years. It was even known to the Huns.

I think its up for debate how much their bows were compared to other steppe people. Since we don't know exactly how the bow making changed across the centuries.

Even if we would accept that their bows were better then some other steppe peoples, he still thought many people that for sure had the same bows as he did.

In fact, most of his life, he thought people who had the same technology, including the invasion of the Qara Khitai.

Then the Jin had allies that likely had the same bow technology. However it seems most of those allies just switched sides.

Only the Khwarazmian Empire and Xia likely didn't have significant troops armed the same way.

This may have had to do with rainfall more than anything else:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140310-ge...

Climate change did not defeat a million soldiers at Badger Mouth, nor could it be explained by slightly better bows.

“The Mule”

Not sure the downvote. I assume it's a reference to Asimov's Foundation, which even the illiterate have a chance of knowing now

The rise of Islam through military conquest perhaps, but as a religion it is difficult to say. It spread in (East) Asia mostly through peaceful means all the way to China and South East Asia, for example.

But the spread of Islam into China (in reality Central Asia - there's a reason Xinjiang has historically been called Turkestan, Uyghur is the closest living language to Chagatai, and why a Kashgari family has managed the Jama Masjid in Delhi for centuries) and South East Asia was itself because of Islam's prominence in Central and South Asia.

The early Islamic preachers in what became Indonesia and Malaysia were South Asian or Iranian in origin, and a major reason why Persianate motifs are prominent in Southeast Asian Islam. Same with much of Central Asia.

That would have not happened if the Byzantine-Sassanid War did not happen, because what became Yemen and Oman would have remained under Sassanid suzerainity and much of the Levant would have remained Byzantine. And thus, Khorasan, Gujarat, Sindh, and Punjab would have not become Muslim.

That said, I agree with you that the spread of Islam was HEAVILY dependent on trade.

Yes Islam went into China through trade and missionaries via the silk road and sea routes.

There is a one thousand year old mosque in Beijing. There are ethnic Hans who converted (now the Hui minority). There was a sizeable Muslim community in Guangdong in the Tang Dynasty.

The same holds true, as far as I know, throughout South East Asia.

My point is simply that Islam could and did spread peacefully, like Christianity did before it. So it is difficult to draw drastic conclusions, IMHO.

> It spread in Asia mostly through peacful means all the way to China

The spread of Islam to China was only made possible through the spread of Islam first to Sogdiana, and that happened through quite violent means as we know from the written record.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that Muslims spread through conventional warefare and Islam spread through proselytization and incentivising conversion? I would imagine Muslim empires could expand without conversion (as they most definitely did in some areas) and Islam spread without a political presence.

Like, I always thought that the Umayyad elites sometimes didn't even want people to convert, lest their privilege become diluted.

But Sughd, Khorasan, and much of Central Asia didn't become almost entirely Muslim overnight - it still took centuries for it to become the dominant religion with Buddhism, Nestorian Christianity, Mancheanism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Tengriism and folk traditions remaining common.

Even in the 16th century if you read the Baburnama, pagans and non-Muslims were common across Central Asia and even Muslims like Babur were lax in their religiosity (drinking wine, eating pork, etc).

In most cases, religion didn't largely solidify until the 19th-20th century with the rise of the nation state and nationalism.

Religious nationalism in the modern sense (eg. Political Islam, Political Christianity, Hindutva, etc) only really began in the late 19th century when Rationalist (in the actual philosophical sense - not the tech bro bullcrap) and Enlightenment era thought began spreading.

The arrival of Islam in Sogdiana resulted in an immediate decline in written transmission of other major religions, and they were gone by approximately the year 1000 CE. Even the Pamirs, always a relative backwater, were Muslim by the middle of the medieval era. Of course Islam in the region, just like the world religions preceding them, was mixed with age-old pagan beliefs or laxly observant, but in terms of politics and society, Islam of some form certainly became the dominant religion early, and that was due to the violent overthrow of the preceding regime by Qutaya b. Muslim al-Bāhilī and the installment of one that chose Islam as an official religion.

Yet neighboring Nuristan (19th), Kohistan (18th), and Kashmir (17th) didn't fully islamize until the 17th-19th century - 7-10 centuries after Islam arrived in those regions.

> they were gone by approximately the year 1000 CE

Absolutely not.

Nestorian Christianity and Buddhism remained common in inner Asia until the 13th century with the Mongol invasions.

Depending on where you draw the line for Central Asia, non-Muslim religions remained significantly practiced in Central Asia well beyond that era as well.

At one point, the Tibetan empire even controlled Kabul during that era, and the Turk Shahis remained Buddhist or Hindu (depending on the leader) well beyond that era.

Even the leader of the Ghurid dynasty (Muhammad ibn Suri) was a Buddhist or Hindu Turk despite using a Muslim name.

> Nestorian Christianity and Buddhism remained common in inner Asia until the 13th century with the Mongol invasions.

I was talking about Sogdiana, not other regions of Central Asia, and 1000 CE is a standard cutoff date in scholarship for the end of the other world religions there.

[dead]