The Late Byzantine Military (1204-1461)

Byzantine military history is my favorite topic of discussion.  Specifically I enjoy the late period, which I like to define as the period from the fall of Constantinople to the crusaders (1204) to the conquest of the final Byzantine Greek outpost, Trebizond, in 1461.

Too many questions 

I hope i ll find time to try give some evidence too.

For now...
As for differences in armor between 14th -15 th centuries .

During the 14th century there was a continuous collapse of the numbers of the army ,as well as a territorial elimination of the Empire.

2 civil wars,
the destructive pass of catalan company,
the conquests of Turks in Asia Minor,
and Serbians of Stephan Dusan,followed by the Ottomans in the Balcans,
resulted an empire extended in the Constantinople ,Thessaloniki,and Peloponnesos in the end of 14th century.

So ,there wasnt enough land for raising local soldiers,traditional swordsmith centers have been lost,there werent mines for metal,and the economics of the empire were in terrible condition.

So,simply in the 15th century,armor was imported.
Imports were made mainly by Italy,through the Venetian and Genoese lands of the East.

Originally posted by Menumorut I think any depiction made in an epoch like that (in West and even more in East), and even later (in Eastern countries), corresponds only with the epoch in which the depiction was made. There are no reason to believe that the men of 15th century and before have any idea about the difference of clothing in different epochs.

I think that Byzantine designs in armour and weaponary were by the late period secondary to that dictated by the equipment that the mercenary armies brought with them. In Heraclian, Isaurian, Macedonian, 11th century Chronographia succession and to a lesser extent under the Komnenoi, the basis of the Byzantine army appears to me to have been a local force supplemented by mercenaries. Mercenaries were always a feature of the Byzantine military, often a specialised and reliable part of it.

It is when mercenaries became the dominant force in Byzantium that the equipment and soldiery are of types dictated by foreign customs rather than Byzantine standardisation. Hiring an entire foreign force wholesale became extremely common, while their rate of pay must have been disproportionately high compared to earlier centuries because Byzantium was economically much weaker and because the mercenaries knew they could squeeze more cash out of the militarily weak Byzantines.

Often the Byzantines had more soldiers down on paper than they did actually under arms. The theme system was destroyed and no viable replacement structure for providing military and economic power was properly devised. Frequently, in the late period the soldiers levied up in times of crisis were demoralised before even seeing battle. There was a lack of martial professionalism in the late Byzantine culture which compounded existing problems with recruiting local forces.

The result was outsourcing to foreigners on a massive scale, Alan steppe cavalry fought for the Basilaeos alongside Catalan heavy infantry, Genoese marines, Turkish cavalry archers and the infantry of Serbs and Bulgarians.

Also to note is that it is clear the West had an important effect on Byzantine military development, rather than before as had been the case. Both Manuel I and Andronikos III were noted for their love of the sport of jousting, considered a low class barbarian practice by the Byzantines. In the aftermath of 1204 I know that one author of the times made note of how the mixed offspring of Latins and Greeks seemed able to combine the martial abilities of both races.

Originally posted by Constantine XI I think that Byzantine designs in armour and weaponary were by the late period secondary to that dictated by the equipment that the mercenary armies brought with them. In Heraclian, Isaurian, Macedonian, 11th century Chronographia succession and to a lesser extent under the Komnenoi, the basis of the Byzantine army appears to me to have been a local force supplemented by mercenaries. Mercenaries were always a feature of the Byzantine military, often a specialised and reliable part of it.

Edited by Constantine XI - 16-Jun-2006 at 00:48

Originally posted by Menumorut hat is an interesting sculpture you posted. Is it from the 3rd-4th centuries or the Iconoclasm period? It's perhaps the most famous piece of Byzantine sculpture, even it's actualy from the late classical period. It were disputes if it's from Constantine's time or Theodosius I (the end of 4th century) and now is considered correct the last opinion. This is the basement of the Obelisc of Theodosius, an original Egyptian (1549-1503 BC), brought to Constantinople and erected just in the very center of the City, in the center of the Hypodrome. All the four sides of this sculptued base presents scenes with Emperor and it's court at the spectacles on the Hypodrome. There are three columns in this point, the oldest, brought from Delphi, is the Serpentine column, made of bronze, from 3rd century BC. Another one is the so/called "Column of Porphyrogenetus". Since recently was considered to be erected in the time of Constantine Porphyrogenetos (912-959 AD) but recently is considered to be built by COnstantine the Great or Theodosius I. In foreground the Obelisc of Theodosius, in background the Column "of Porphyrogenetos". Between them, the small Serpentine column: Another side of the base of Theodosius' Obelisc: The Sepentine column: The "Porphyrogenetos" Column:

The column of Constantine(Cemberlitas) is being restorated right now, so it is all covered for several months or so...

I think that regarding the icons that they can be taken as mostly authentic representations of the clothing of Byzantine soldiers. We see the soldiers wearing the skirts of the classical era, but we also see many non-classical features in their attire which leads me to believe the depictions were of contemporary dress.  They do come with skirting, but not with chiseled Greek or segmented Roman torso armour. The scale mail armour I think is a feature through most of Byzantine history and can be taken as an authentic representation of the times. The Byzantines were very conservative in their tastes, it seems if they were going to preserve depictions of the classical period they would go all the way rather than show classical skirting alongside medieval capes and scale mail armour.

Also, the convex shield is authentically medieval. Later Roman soldiers, from what I have read, typically carried their sword on their right side. Yet the saint in the icon carries it on the left, perhaps a representation of contemporary practice and an indication of a departure from strict adherance to classical representation.


Edited by Constantine XI - 17-Jun-2006 at 21:37

Originally posted by Constantine XI We see the soldiers wearing the skirts of the classical era, but we also see many non-classical features in their attire which leads me to believe the depictions were of contemporary dress.  They do come with skirting, but not with chiseled Greek or segmented Roman torso armour.