5 ms·

I. Avoid war by every possible means.. Yes, they call Basil II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_II) Boulgaroktonos bec

by bh23ha 17y ago

I. Avoid war by every possible means.. Yes, they call Basil II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_II) Boulgaroktonos because he avoided war so much. IV. Replace the battle of attrition and occupation of countries with maneuver warfare Riiiiight.... is it just me or is that not in fashion today and was not in fashion when Byzantine occupied most of the freaking ex-west Roman empire. V. Strive to end wars successfully by recruiting allies to change the balance of power. Oh that worked out real well with the Ottomans, they didn't turn on the Byzantines at all.

Kaizyn 17y ago
Every empire will eventually end. The fact that Byzantium held out as long as they did is a testament to their skill. They never did try to recruit the Ottomans and mostly played with the bordering nations between them and the Ottomans. Once the Ottomans expanded and took over those buffer states, their indirect strategy was less successful. Had support from Western Europe actually materialized, things may have turned out a bit differently. Oh well, that's the way history goes.
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  The Byzantine empire died when it was conquered by the Ottomans after several centuries of decline. That's hardly a testament to them at all.
  - osipov 17y ago
    The Byzantine empire had its ups and downs like any empire. It lasted longer than Roman Empire (per conventional definition of the term). It is a shame that the Western education system downplays the significance and influence of the Byzantine empire on the world. The period known as the Dark Age, was only "dark" in the Western Europe. During the period, Byzantine Empire was a refuge for civilization.
eugenejen 17y ago
Regarding IV. I think to maintain an empire/vast property that you inherited from ancestors is not that easy. You can see a lot of successors who flush the estate down to the drain just in one century. For Byzantine Emperors who were capable of maintaining those assets for almost 10 centuries despite competitions from Muslims and Crusaders is a pretty good achievement.
gaius 17y ago
is it just me or is that not in fashion today The advanced militaries of the world (British Army, USMC, IDF etc) are set up for maneuver warfare. This is what is known as third generation warfare (see William S Lind), and it has its roots in the Blitzkreig practiced by the Germans in WW2. When a third-generation military meets a second-generation military (one that thinks in terms of position-holding and massed formations) in a stand-up fight the result is always a rout (e.g. Six Day War, Gulf War 1, even Rommel virtually conquering France with a single armoured division). The Soviets knew this. Their genius strategy in WW2 was to force the Germans to fight in a second-generation style (and the Germans fell for it). This is also a major reason the Soviets were reluctant to enter Western Europe. All Western militaries thought very hard during the Cold War about how to defeat the Red Army, but the Prussians knew it all along. Unfortunately the Taliban are a fourth-generation military (adept in psyops and propaganda, insurgency, guerilla tactics, information warfare) and the West is not well configured for that (and can't become so easily, as there are still second-generation potentials enemies around - we have to think in third-generation terms still).
- tomjen2 17y ago
  The reason the Prussians knew how to defend against the Soviets was that they where the closest thing to an intellectual heir to Sparta - most of what they did was focused on making their population ready for war.
- barry-cotter 17y ago
  The Afghan military structure has not changed all that significantly in the last 200 years. We know how to beat them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinks_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinks_War Aerial bombardment of population centres works fine, collective punsihment, having minimising enemy military and civilian casualties come behind 1. Casualties you care about 2. Cost 3. Extending treatis meant to only rule under reciprocity to people who don't give a fuck about the Geneva Convention. If you can't follow standard U.S. Small Colonial War tactics pre-WW2 (kill them until they give up, then and only then give them sweeties) you can use the Strategic Hamlets doctrine that worked fine in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan for the Soviets after they7 stopped trying to run the country and would settle for not having any one unsympathetic to them running it. http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2009/10/arguing-about-afghanistan.html http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2009/10/arguing-about-a... As both the Soviets and the Americans show this probably isn't possible for demotic states. Imperial commitments aren't popular.

by bh23ha 17y ago

Kaizyn 17y ago

Every empire will eventually end. The fact that Byzantium held out as long as they did is a testament to their skill. They never did try to recruit the Ottomans and mostly played with the bordering nations between them and the Ottomans. Once the Ottomans expanded and took over those buffer states, their indirect strategy was less successful. Had support from Western Europe actually materialized, things may have turned out a bit differently. Oh well, that's the way history goes.

InclinedPlane 17y ago
The Byzantine empire died when it was conquered by the Ottomans after several centuries of decline. That's hardly a testament to them at all.
- osipov 17y ago
  The Byzantine empire had its ups and downs like any empire. It lasted longer than Roman Empire (per conventional definition of the term). It is a shame that the Western education system downplays the significance and influence of the Byzantine empire on the world. The period known as the Dark Age, was only "dark" in the Western Europe. During the period, Byzantine Empire was a refuge for civilization.

eugenejen 17y ago

Regarding IV. I think to maintain an empire/vast property that you inherited from ancestors is not that easy. You can see a lot of successors who flush the estate down to the drain just in one century. For Byzantine Emperors who were capable of maintaining those assets for almost 10 centuries despite competitions from Muslims and Crusaders is a pretty good achievement.

gaius 17y ago

is it just me or is that not in fashion today The advanced militaries of the world (British Army, USMC, IDF etc) are set up for maneuver warfare. This is what is known as third generation warfare (see William S Lind), and it has its roots in the Blitzkreig practiced by the Germans in WW2. When a third-generation military meets a second-generation military (one that thinks in terms of position-holding and massed formations) in a stand-up fight the result is always a rout (e.g. Six Day War, Gulf War 1, even Rommel virtually conquering France with a single armoured division). The Soviets knew this. Their genius strategy in WW2 was to force the Germans to fight in a second-generation style (and the Germans fell for it). This is also a major reason the Soviets were reluctant to enter Western Europe. All Western militaries thought very hard during the Cold War about how to defeat the Red Army, but the Prussians knew it all along. Unfortunately the Taliban are a fourth-generation military (adept in psyops and propaganda, insurgency, guerilla tactics, information warfare) and the West is not well configured for that (and can't become so easily, as there are still second-generation potentials enemies around - we have to think in third-generation terms still).

tomjen2 17y ago
The reason the Prussians knew how to defend against the Soviets was that they where the closest thing to an intellectual heir to Sparta - most of what they did was focused on making their population ready for war.
barry-cotter 17y ago
The Afghan military structure has not changed all that significantly in the last 200 years. We know how to beat them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinks_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinks_War Aerial bombardment of population centres works fine, collective punsihment, having minimising enemy military and civilian casualties come behind 1. Casualties you care about 2. Cost 3. Extending treatis meant to only rule under reciprocity to people who don't give a fuck about the Geneva Convention. If you can't follow standard U.S. Small Colonial War tactics pre-WW2 (kill them until they give up, then and only then give them sweeties) you can use the Strategic Hamlets doctrine that worked fine in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan for the Soviets after they7 stopped trying to run the country and would settle for not having any one unsympathetic to them running it. http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2009/10/arguing-about-afghanistan.html http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2009/10/arguing-about-a... As both the Soviets and the Americans show this probably isn't possible for demotic states. Imperial commitments aren't popular.