jbs1114

To point to the reign of an 11th century byzantine emperor as the "ultimate" cause of the collapse of the state is rather shortshighted, in my view. Equally so is to look at Manzikert as some kind of pivotal point of no return. The empire continued on for roughly four centuries after the death of Alexius, and experienced substantial expansion under Manuel Comnenus later in the 12th century. The Byzantine empire was always waxing and waning after its defacto split from its roman identity under heraclius. If anything, Alexius revitalized the empire, and was not the last to do so.

In its conquering days at the waning end of the republic and the Augustan age of the empire, Rome utilized cavalry very little during campaigns. In fact, Roman cavalry was all auxilary, so there were no true Roman cavalry attached to a Roman legion, only foreign mercenaries or tribute soldiers. Furthermore, these same horseless armies defeated time and time again gallic, germanic, galatian, and countless other forces heavily dependent on mounted troops. don't forget even the germans were defeated munerous times by Marius, Caesar, Germanicus, and others. Their oppurtunity to attack Rome was never dependent on Rome's lack of cavalry, but on a leadership void and crippling internal strife. If anything, the Romans had more cavalry during the Germanic invasion period than during the golden age, where the Germans were bound by the army of the Danube in their forests. This proves that it was certainly not cavalry which was the deciding factor in the barbarian invasions.

As many scholars have said before, the fact that Roman generals were politicians led to the rapid expansion of the republic and its ascension as a Mediterranean heavyweight. A politician in the republic was looking for maximum glory during their short tenure as praetor, consul, propraetor, or proconsul. This led to wars against foreign enemies which may not otherwise have been waged, and, like it or not, these wars lined the treasuries coffers, and the conquered land expanded Rome's influence far beyond the Roman heartland. True, there were a few Carrhaes which might have been avioded if such a competitive spirit was not present among Rome's leaders. But the civil wars did not result from politicians being generals at all. Mariuses, Sullas, and Caesars caused turmoil because they overstepped their role as politicians and became solely liable to their armies. When the system worked, politicians had to answer to the Senate for any wrongdoing. In other words, civil wars resulted from generals with no respect for the senate (something a politician would seek to serve in, not destroy or destabilize), while foreign conquests were carried out by Rome's politician-generals, with much success.