Political ramifications of Christian disunity in the late6-7th Centuri

[AEGYPTUS]

Hey All,

Basically I'm looking for books and/or websites or any other type of source really that you may know of that would be of use for someone who wishes to immerse themselves more deeply into the topic named above. Would really appreciate your input and suggestions!

 

-AEGYPTUS

[Romanus]

You can start with the first two books of John Julius Norwich's trilogy Byzantium: The Early Centuries and Byzantium: The Apogee. However Disunity wasn't what allowed the Arabs to win. Justinian's plague and the last Roman Persian war did so much damage to both states than any religious disunity so that when the Arabs invaded Rome really had 1 and only 1 chance to stop the Islamic conquest. The repeated attempts to force Orthodoxy on all parts of the empire and client states in the early period did disenfranchise large areas of the Roman middle east and guaranteed that Syria, Palestine and Egypt would be lost to the empire forever but Rome just didn't have the manpower at that point to continue the fight in lands with no natural borders.

[AEGYPTUS]

Thanks for your input Romanus, I'll check those out asap!

[Romanus]

Found a book that may be just what you're looking for Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests by Walter E. Kaegi who has written several books about that time period including his newest one on Heraclius. I'm still trying to find the name of the book that deals with the transformation of the eastern empire from the time of Justinian to the time of Heraclius. I think that is the one which covers the debate and conflict going on between the religious beliefs in Egypt and the Hellenized parts of the empire. Also look at this link on the Battle of Manzikert http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/markham.htm which argues for a political failure of the state not a military one. Religious conflict played a part in the disaster but was not the main cause.

[AEGYPTUS]

Thanks Romanus! I will look for the book you suggested. I read through the internet source you posted it was interesting, however probably a little to late. The period I set for my essay title is quite large already adding another 3 centuries of information may complicate things... I might use it by mention it in my conclusion! Once again thank you so much for all your help!

[barca]

Found a book that may be just what you're looking for Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests by Walter E. Kaegi who has written several books about that time period including his newest one on Heraclius.

 

Nice article.

 

I didn't understand the following statement, "Now the Byzantines came into direct contact with the Seljuks, whose fighting style of mobile horse archery they were unfamiliar with."

 

Were the Seljuk horse archers any different than the horse archers that the Byzantines had faced before?

[Romanus]

Found a book that may be just what you're looking for Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests by Walter E. Kaegi who has written several books about that time period including his newest one on Heraclius.

 

Nice article.

 

I didn't understand the following statement, "Now the Byzantines came into direct contact with the Seljuks, whose fighting style of mobile horse archery they were unfamiliar with."

 

Were the Seljuk horse archers any different than the horse archers that the Byzantines had faced before?

Byzantine derense system consisted of a few large garrisons stationed in widely separated forts, and it was not too difficult for the Turkomans to slip past them. The Christians relied mainly on heavy armour, pikes, and axes and found it almost impossible to compete successfully with the mobile nomadic cavalrymen who used the bow and arrow with deadly effectiveness. And, finally, Byzantine economic policy and religious strife left the populace largely unwilling to support the efforts of their masters against invaders, whoever they might be.

It was The Turkomans who were under the Selijuks which were the problem. All the other enemies, The Avars, Arabs and Sassanian Persians used combined lance Cavalry and archers (Sassanian army used foot not horse but they could keep up with the horse until the charge.) The Turkomans were only nomadic horse and were stopped before by the Arabs, Armenians or Slavs before ever reaching Byzantine territory. Rome in general and Byzantine in particular always had major trouble against a fully mounted force. The Komnenos finally figured out how to beat them but Manuel I Komnenos ruined it and doomed the Empire by ignoring the working system. Even Parthia who was almost completely mounted fought differently than the Turkomans.