[Cookie Monster]

In the cycle of the rise and fall of empires, empires often try to recuperate their past glory. This can lead to temporal success but the overall decline will still continue. The end of the Napoleonic wars for example marks the beginning of the decline of the colonial powers in Europe, yet the European powers expanded heavily in colonial territory in the 19th century. WWI even more led to the decline of colonialism as a form of government and yet some of the empires expanded even more untill the system finally destoyed itself in WWII. The expansion during decline can be very misleading.

[noemon]

I 'd rather I don't say what's on my mind.

Your above paragraph completely fails, since it completely fails to define in which context, there was rise and decline on the cases you mentioned. Decline of memological colonialism=/=actual colonialism.

One can still decline in something but rise in some different context at the same time. That the Byzantine Empire declined overall even when she rose because she eventually fell(I mean duh) means that every single state then is in constant overall decline since it will eventually disappear at some point in time
Please. Such arguments/sentences do not have any value.

When discussing history keep it simple, concise and clear and leave the shitty philosophical abstractions at the door prior to entering, also avoid taking other people's words for granted when you don't know something yourself so as to avoid falling into such awkward situations again.

The Byzantine Empire was on the rise, economically, militaristically, territorially and culturally exactly right before it's capital got sacked by the Catholics. So much is obvious to anyone historically literate on the subject.

[Cookie Monster]

Yes noemon the Byzantines were ascending, in fact they were soaring like the Hindenburg untill catholics made hydrogen flammable.

[noemon]

It is curious, circumstances happen to be. Sometimes reading about them pays better than betting on the favorite card.

Its easy to imagine that only a state in decline could have its capital sacked, but if certain circumstances pave the way, it might as well happen under your nose.

The crusaders were certainly not victorious in battle to achieve that. It came from within. So its not about better "hydrogen" bombs.

Nevertheless, the collapse of central authority was a hydrogen bomb right after for the state. Do you believe it wasn't?

[Aekos]

I found an interesting thread from a non-existent forum (80+ pages) about the possibilities of a Byzantine survival. The idea that developed was that if Constantinople had not been sacked, The Roman Empire would look something like [blank] by the 15th century.

[pugsville]

The crusaders were manifestly victorious in battle. It was a fight the byzantine lost. The internal Civil conflict had got out control, this was a structural regular problem with the Empire, these internal leadership crisises were are recurring theme. The Empire was in long term decline there may have been some short term rally going on but the problems were structural. Without some sort of revolutionary change radical change in the form of the empire it was almost certainly a long term decline. The Crusaders always thought about sacking/taking over constinople, it was the nature of the beast. They had many faults but man for man they were the premier warriors of the era.

I'm a fan of the Byzantine Empire, but it;s problems were more than bad luck and timing.

[Aekos]

The crusaders were manifestly victorious in battle.

Letting someone into your capital with the expectation that they're friends will give them a little bit of an upper hand when they attack, don't you think?

[Varilion]

If you make an agreement that sounds like "if you help me to take the throne, then i'll give you all my silver/gold". And you don't pay. What do you think it will happen?

..and BTW...Crusaders were not "into" the capital...

[pugsville]

It was an attack rather than a neferious inside job. Trust between crusaders and the Empire was never very high, and they had attacked the city before, given the chance any resonable person could assume the treachorous, greedy bastards would loot the city. They might not be nice but they could fight. The decline of the sea power of the Empire, the rise of the Italian city states, the empires problems were structural.

[noemon]

It can hardly be called a conquering feet. The crusaders came with the son of the deposed Byzantine emperor(it doesn't become anymore of an "inside job" than that), people and soldiers were already dubious as to whether they should fight for merely the change of Emperor(from the same family, anyway). The defending emperor after the fire started burning his City and despite his overwhelming power, fled without a fight before battle even commenced.

[pugsville]

Dont know about that, the Byzantine Empire I think was generally in decline after Mazikirt (spel?) and the loss of central anatolia. Once the Turks had overun most of modern day turkey I think everything after that can be called a decline. It need not have been terminal and the Empire did have sucesses and reconquests after that , but once the turks had sacked/put most of anatoloia to the sword, there was not much going back. They could reconquor the land but that didnt make it populated and productive. The Kommenians were sucessful to a degree, but after that the Ruling families increasingly fell into factionalism. The decline of the Byzantine Navy, the corruption and the semi feudlization, the increasing mortagting of the state, the increasing granting of concessions to the Italian maritime states were all pretty advanced before the fourth Cursade. The Emperors never really beleived tht the crusders could be major allies in some sort of reconquestia of lost lands, Alexius was thinking more in terms of cleint states on the Border, the incrediable sucess (in Military terms) of the First Crusade was not really predictable.

[Nattering Nabob]

It can hardly be called a conquering feet. The crusaders came with the son of the deposed Byzantine emperor(it doesn't become anymore of an "inside job" than that), people and soldiers were already dubious as to whether they should fight for merely the change of Emperor(from the same family, anyway). The defending emperor after the fire started burning his City and despite his overwhelming power, fled without a fight before battle even commenced.

Yeah, but the incoming emperor, who had negotiated with the crusaders to place him on the throne, reneged on the deal, and it was afterwards that the crusaders (until then remaining outside and only 20,000 strong according to Geoffrey de Villehardouin) took the city by force...

[noemon]

Are you trying to justify it because Alexios IV asked for more time to pay? Alexios did not renege, he was killed.

The crusaders did and did not "remain outside", plenty of them were inside who started a fire that burned much of the city before the lot started the siege.

[Nattering Nabob]

Are you trying to justify it because Alexios IV asked for more time to pay?

No, I'm quoting Geoffrey de Villehardouin, one of the crusaders...

[travelert]

I doubt whether Byzantium would have survived to prosper anyway by the 13th century.Had the crusaders not sacked the capitol it would have maybe meant that the empire would have been less weakened.However it was in full decline by that time.Major territories in the Balkans by that time were breaking away.The least great Byzantine resurgence lasted up to the time of the second crusade.Arab and Turkish invasions into the Eleven and Anatolia had stripped Constantinople of its favoured traderouts.Byzantiums Navy was also clearly declining in the face of rising Venetian and later Ottoman trade.By the 1200's there was really no chance of it fully regaining the Danubian frontier,no was there any feasible opportunity to expand anywhere freely.The days when Byzantium had enjoyed strong control in Italian and middle eastern territories were long gone.Islam had asserted itself in the middle east,the west ,after centuries of post roman decline had begun to assert modern nations states like England,France and Spain.Byzantine territories in the Balkans on the other hand were starting to fragment into separate nations such as Serbia,Bulgaria and Albania.

The biggest backdraw to the empire potentials for revival was its backward system of government and its inefficient infastructure.It was ruled by a god ordained emperor and had an autocratic church.That in itself would not necessarily be a problem,but compared to states like England,the Byzantine church had no real centralised authority as wit the pope in the west.Although it did have a patriarch in Constantinople,the Church itself was far less unified.The Byzantines failed to modernise their tax systems and failed to provide some outlet for public discontent.

[noemon]

The entire question is stripped and answered from all the sides: