The Middle Byzantine Military (610-1204)
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16092
Printed Date: 12-May-2024 at 23:10
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Middle Byzantine Military (610-1204)
Posted By: Brainstorm
Subject: The Middle Byzantine Military (610-1204)
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 03:57
|
The most Glorious Era of Byzantine History. This is a place for posting everything related to middle Byzantine period,and its military aspect. Military organization ,tactics,strategy,arms,armor,battles,units..etc. |
Replies:
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 04:27
|
The Centurion at the Crucifixion,presented as an officer of the Varangian Guard. From Nea Moni-Chios Island- 1040's.  |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 04:49
|
Soldiers at the Arrest of Christ,represented as Varangian Guards.(in ceremonial costumes) Nea Moni-Chios Monastery-1040's.  Guards hold maces,axes and double-axes. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 07:09
|
Interesting, I'd like to see some more mosaics depicting the Varangian Guard. ------------- |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 11:01
|
did those byzantines conquered more land that they have already inherited from The Roman Empire?
------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 12:10
 sorry for the blured image. Its a Varangian guard again (holding double axe and round shield), from Nea Moni. The monastery was donated by Emperor Constantinos Monomachos in 1040 ,and the mosaics were made by artists of Constantinoupolis, depicting more or less aspects of Life there. |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 13:04
And here is a representation of a Varangian Guard.(1000-1050) This man is of Scandinavian origin ,migrated in Kievan Rus kingdom. The shield depicts the crow-symbol of god Odin and he holds Danish Axe. Greaves,hand protection ,chest leather strips and pteryges ,are obviously Byzantine,borrowed by the imperial arsenal. |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 19:59
|
Nice photo!
------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 20:20
I'm not sure what you mean. Justinian reconquered lost Roman lands in Africa, Italy,and Spain in the 500's but most of those were later lost to the Arabs. Heraclius pushed east against the Sassanids in the mid-600's but those gains were also lost to the Arabs. The Byzantines retook Crete, E. Anatolia and parts of Syria under Nikephorus Phokas and John Tzimiskes in the 10th. c. and Byzantine suzerainty was imposed over Armenia. This was going to be the greatest extend of Eastern Roman territory in the post-Justinian years and smaller than the Roman Empire at its heigh, of course. In the Balkans faltering Imperial authority during the 6th-8th c. was restored somewhat and to various degrees of succes from 850-1100 and then being lost for good post-1204. Generally the years 680-900 are considered low-ebb. The great Iconoclastic controversy tore the byzantines internally whereas abroad the empire was besieged by enemies: Slavs had overun most of continental Greece, Bulgarians in the North, Constantinople had to withstand great sieges laid by Avaro-Slavs and Arabs. They bounce back in the 10th c. with the "Macedonian" dynasty. ------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 06:13
 Excubitor Elite Soldier of the imperial tagmata of Excubita/Excubitores. His armor has many nomadic-islamic elements combined with the older roman fashion style. His helmet is fo turanic style,and he wear a klivanion -lamelar cuirass. Inside of this ,he wears chainmail,and outside white "epilorikion". He carries a round shield,a "paramerion" sword ,and holds a "tzekourion" -battle-axe.(similar to older western "frageska") The green color of shield and mantle sign his unit. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 10:42
I hate to disappoint you mate, but there are no photos of Byzantine soldiers in existence.  ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 14:14
Very nice. I have seen some of the mosaics from Nea Moni, but not this first one of the supposed Varangian. His attire seems western with some Scandinavian influence on the trimming of his cloak and tunic. The round shield is characteristic of the early Varangians. Can anyone make out the inscriptions on his shield?
Notice the wrappings on his lower legs. I have seen these depicted in the Osprey color plates, with the lettering monogramed onto the material. Are these the typical cloth wrappings we see on the shins of Byzantine soldiers or are they actual leather or metal greaves?
What book did these drawings come from? They do not look like the Osprey pictures and I noticed the text on one was in Greek. I'd be interested in trying to find these books if you can provide the reference.
The leather pteryges are commonly depicted on military saints and in some manuscripts and frescoes. They harken back to the late Roman period; perhaps they had an actual function as armor and were not worn just as decoration.
Notice that the Varangian of 1000-1050 has splint vambraces on his arms and lower legs. These are interesting pieces of armor. I have read that they were commonly made from wooden strips. I think, possibly, that they were reinforced with a metal covering.
Nice!
Notice on the excubitor the leather (not splint) vambraces on his forearms and the "mummy" wrappings on his shins. I wonder what the function of these wrappings was? If the material was thick they would offer some practical protection against weapons and the elements. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 14:33
|
@Emperor I m not sure that these on the shields are letters or inscription. They seem to be signs. As for the tunic and the cloak,i would disagree with u.I think they are typically Byzantine,and his all clothing must be ceremonial. It's also interesting the meander on the shield-ancient greek motive. I guess the "Scandinavian nature" of the centurion, could be betrayed by his thick beard and the really big sword.(and the shield as u noticed). The Osprey pic,comes out of this mosaic (see details of the plate) The drawings come of a series of Books ,monographs. Esp from the book "Vyzantinos Stratos" (Byzant. Army)-Dimitris S. Belezos by "Periskopio" editions -(its in greek) This "mummy" wrappings are depicted quiet often in frescos.I guess it was a part of the shoe/boot ,but maybe they had a protective role as u mentioned. -ps the Excubitor dates at 870 AD. |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 14:41
 Here is an example of these wrappings. St.Demetrius -from church in FYROM -13th cent. |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2006 at 02:32
 Varangian Guard (?) decapitated! (Manuscript from Mount Athos-11th century.) The man lies dead,wearing a chainmail cuirass.His big battle axe (danish?)(the characteristic weapon of Varangians) lies beside him and he carries on his right shoulder a sword which he didn't manage to draw.(Varangians were sometimes described as "those who carry their sword on the right shoulder") A red round shield lies on his left and his helmet on his right. The man has beard and mustache. All the above show that this man should be a Varangian guard. |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2006 at 20:32
Wow, a very interesting illustration indeed! In what context is the Varangian portrayed? A battle? Perhaps an execution?
Not that I am disputing you or anything, but is this not a depiction of scale mail? It looks like the scale mail depicted in some Western frescos, or in some Byzantine depictions of Western-style armor such as that worn by Normans from Sicily.
Good point. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2006 at 01:34
It's a vivid battle scene.Unfortunately problems-again-didnt allow me to post it. Another interesting scene is where a horse archers shoots back-He wears a shirt similar to nomadic horse archers.
Yes it could be.But chainmail is also usually depicted like this in Byzantine art,so it's not easy to decide. |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2006 at 20:37
That's too bad. It would be wonderful to see the entire panoramic battle scene! Why can't you post more pictures? Is there now a limit to the number and size?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2006 at 00:44
| No- a message appears :"only members with sufficient posts (or smth like this) are allowed to enter this post" |
Posted By: CPWN
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2006 at 05:46
Middle Byzantine?
 |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2006 at 18:58
Before AE went offline, I used to get this message almost every time that I clicked the "Insert Image" button on the control panel. I just had to open and close it a couple times and then it would work for me. Don't ask me what eventually allowed it to work because I have no clue!
Well, I would say yes, probably 9th-13th centuries or thereabout. However, in some depictions of icon saints in the 14th and 15th centuries, we can see some of the same equipment. But therein lies the same question that always lingers: does iconography depict reality, or half-reality, half-classicization/stylization?
But what indicates that these are middle Byzantine soldiers are the following.
1. The klibanion chest protection
2. Leather pteryges around the waist and on the shoulders
3. Wooden/metal vambraces on the forearms
4. circular shield
But I will say that the helmet on the figure at the far left looks late Byzantine.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2006 at 02:54
 Helmets with visor were used mostly in the 13th century on. |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2006 at 07:18
 At last,the whole battle scene. Heavily armed horsemen with spears charge causing tremendous losses to their opponents. One of the attackers seems to wear a "muscled cuirass" Also note the router who is firing back.His shirt,seems characteristic nomad fashion style as his tactics (the parthian arrow) shooting back while galloping. |
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2006 at 10:02
|
Hi!
Where is this picture from?
Was it a battle against saracens or maybe bolgars or pechenegs etc?
And: do yuo have it larger?
TSZ
|
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2006 at 10:54
It's from an illuminated manuscript of Mount.Athos-11th century. As long as i can remember it depicts a biblical scene. I have it larger ,but it's over 200 kb and cannot be uploaded. |
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 00:37
|
Hi!
Could you send me to mailto:tzh@freemail.hu - tzh@freemail.hu ?
TSZ
|
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 00:41
|
I first thought that it's a picture about a big kiev rus-bulgarian-hungarian-pecheneg (losted) campaign against Byzantium in 970.
TSZ
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 09:05
|
There were some units of infantry called Menlaviatoi and Skutatoi
during the Early Empire? Could anyone give me a description of them?
How were they armoured and how were they organized and how did they
fight and so on... What other infantry types were there? ------------- |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 09:29
 Skoutatos. |
Posted By: CPWN
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 23:58
|
Hi,dear Brainstorm,could you send me ,too? please..... klibanionphoroi@gmail.com A 12th century skoutatoi  Menaulion ,origional was a hunting spear maybe for boars,about
2.5meters long, but got a 45-50cm long with the
shape of a broad |
Posted By: CPWN
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 00:11
|
http://www.allempires.com/Forum/uploads/20061217_092251_Per-Skoutatos.jpg Skoutatois. -------------------------------------------- Amzaing!!! Do you have other those kind pictures? I want to see that so much!!!  |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 03:04
| Yes ,i have ..but guys dont ask me to send-u can copy from here-cant u ? |
Posted By: CPWN
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 05:56
Sorry, I just ask the larger one which cannot be uploaded.  Loving to collect byzantine pictures.  |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 11:35
 A battle scene from the same 11th cent manuscript. Heavy cavalry attacks light Cavalry and defeats it. |
Posted By: CPWN
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2006 at 23:23
Mix of Byzantine flag.
|
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 10:11
|
Hi Brainsorm!!
What's the title of the manuscript? And: do you have other pictures ,like this(with mounted archers)?
TSZ
|
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 10:17
|
Hi!
what do you think: the nomads are wearing helmets or caps?
And: what kind of soldier is killed on the ground? Nomad or greek? And: is he wearing an armour?
TSZ
|
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 10:28
|
It's interesting, that Byzantium had such warriors too (nomads).
F.e: vardariot turks (these were hungarians, settled by the greeks by the Vardar river), seldjucks, pechenegs etc.
Do you know the battle by Zimony between hungarians (paions) and greeks? It was in the 1140's (maybe:-), in the hun. army were mostly hungarian and austrian knights (just cavalary), by the greeks infantry, seldjucks, other muslims, greeks, armenians etc. The hungarians attacked in one big formation, the greeks in many little units, their battle line was deep. And: the greeks had clubs (maces, or what , I don't know the correct name), the hungarians not. So we lost:-/. Later the greeks said that after the sword of both sides were chipped, the greeks binged out their war clubs and killed a lot of the hungarians.
|
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 10:35
|
Hi!
Frank cavalary versus late-awars. (Pippin's and Carl's campaign against the awarians in the Carpathian basin in the 790's, Stuttgarter Bilderpsalter):
I'll send the picture if someone told me, how to do this:-)
 |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2006 at 12:21
|
Tar Szernd, could you avoid multiple posting from now on? There is the edit option too.
------------- |
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2006 at 05:28
|
Hi!
Thank you, and ok, sorry.
wichbattle shows that byzantian ms?
TSZ
|
Posted By: Mameluke
Date Posted: 24-Dec-2006 at 17:35
|
Hello
I am looking for some literature on the campaigns of Belisarius. Can someone recommend a good book on the subject? ------------- Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war |
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2006 at 22:43
|
fictional literature, look up Robert Grave's Count Belisarius ------------- Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2007 at 18:32
John Haldon. The Byzantine Wars: Battles and Campaigns of the Byzantine Era. Stroud: Tempus, 2001. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Nestorian
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 02:20
|
Scholae
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=76780 - http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=76780 ------------- Isa al-Masih, both God and Man, divine and human, flesh and spirit, saviour, servant and sovereign |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 00:21
Awesome picture, but I'm 1000% sure that Odin's symbol are ravens, not crows. The names of his two ravens are Huginn and Muninn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 05:06
|
whats the difference of a raven and a crow? !
------------- http://protostrator.blogspot.com |
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2007 at 14:54
|
Hi!
The raven is larger:-)
|
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2007 at 00:15
I stood on the sea walls of Constantinople south east of the Agia Sophia. I have seen enough pics of Byzantine soldiers so I imagined my Byzantine ancestors defending Constantinople in various periods of its long history. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2007 at 14:45
Here are some cavalry men. The first from the right is a standard bearer(11th-12th century), the second is a katafract (10th century) and the third is also a katafract e.1050 A.D. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2007 at 14:47
sorry, i meaned from the left....
-------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 11:28
|
I think the Byzantine Empire was the biggest FLOP militarily. They are probably the greatest empire with the worst army ever. Basically the empire never expanded but kept only to its traditional borders, which it couldn't hold, lossing to so called "Barbarians" if thats not enough to prove they were bad militarily i dont know what is. I mean come on they saw "Barbarians" as uncultured people but hey they were kicking there little buts all the way to Constaninople. I think the problem with the Byzantines was that like the Athenians they cared more about culture than warfare. They would have spent more funds building schools than building a professional army. Half their army in the Middle ages were mercenaries. There really wasnt a warrior code like in the west with the tribes, a man only learnt to become a honorable warrior. In Byzantium they could go 2 school and learn everything and they became sissys. Greeks have always been too cultured, thats what did them in I think they never really had sort of a warrior attitude or chararcteristsics about them. I know people would say hoplites but that was Sparta and Sparta owned Athens u know y because Athens read there books to much.
The greatest empires and nations were ones who took interest and concern for militarty strength like Rome, Great Britain, Napoleonic France ------------- |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 14:56
|
and ones that "so called barbarians".I stood in the walls of
Constantinople in the south of Hagia Sophia and imagined myself as my
ancestors who climbed up and conquered the city.(no offense i really
did it)
------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 19-Feb-2007 at 07:30
|
Byzantium lost territories and won territories. Especially the discussed period (the middle byzantine) is full of conquest.
The west did not develop the art of war to the level of the byzantines well until late middle ages (to my oppinion).
The byzantine army of the 10th-11th century was able to expand east to Armenia, south to Palestine, west into Italy, and north to Danube, practically unstoppable. It was the other internal problems that led to a collapse of the byzantine military in the mid 11th century. ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Top Gun
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2007 at 15:21
|
How far where the muslims with conquering of the byzantium between that time ------------- |
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2007 at 12:49
| It's true the byzantine armies past the 6oo's were inferior on avarage than the arabs,franks ect,the only reason the byzantines were not conqered was that the walls of Constantinople were so thick, not the effectiveness of their armies. |
Posted By: Top Gun
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2007 at 02:57
|
yes I already thought that but the pride of some members about byzantines is confused me an bit ------------- |
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2007 at 11:10
| I think for some members it;s hard to reconcile how powerful the Romans were with how weak the east Roman/Byzantines were, the Byzantines still called themselves Romans after all,but they just followed the nateral course and fell from power as all countries do. |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2007 at 11:38
Don't be so sure... The byzantine military was by far the most powerfull and sophisticated than all the others of the time. Especially between the 8th and 12th century. Don't forget the navy
 ... I'll agree with you , if you refering in the era between 12th and 15th century( but then byzantium wasn't great at all...)
Don't forget that after the "themata" system collapsing and the uprising of
nobelty and merchant class, the end of the empire had followed (teritorial and economical, 1204, 1453). As i know the losing to the Barbarians was the late roman empire's principal, not the medieval's (byzantium).
Be more speciefic about the "so called barbarians"please... I can give you many examples of the Byzantine army kicking buts of their enemies all the way to danube river , Eufrat river , Crete , Magna Grecia etc. you know why? because Byzantium existed for more than 1100 years because of its military power firstly and diplomacy secondly. How many years did the states of the powerful barbarian wariors last
 ?(Im not refering to christianised/Romanised Bulgaria)
The citizens of Constantinopole, indeed they cared more about culture than warfare like Athenians but their cultural system was totally different so i think the example is a total failure. If you ever known about "themata
" system you would probably didn't make such an argument.
So it is a good chance to start readin byzantine history my friend. It is a petty to spread the western stereotypes about Byzantium.
Oh no no no no! you can't acuse byzantium about not building a professional army! Especially this. And about the mercenaries ... you mean the "so called barbarians"? It is unlikely for them to be the 1/6 of the middle byzantine era army... You can find it and by yourself...
A warrior code is a childish nonsence for a sophisticated prof. army such the byzantine. They fought for their lands(themata), families, Orthodoxy and Emperor and of course the glory of the Romans. Aren't those enough?!
I think that you are a master of reproducing stereotypes (sissys
 , Athens and Sparta [who really fought in Marathon Eh?]A State such as Byzantine empire was also based in culture and economy not only in warfare like the tribes. Thats why you can't see clear warrior attitude or chararcteristsics about them.
Your argument about Sparta and Athens is still very weak . You probably missanderstand that being educated does not mean that you can't be a great warrior of the ancient and medieval world. Please , do a research and you'll find out that there were many great Spartan personalities , not only in the military,such as Lykourgos(in his youth was trained to be a Spartan warrior like all the others
).
What about Egyptians , Persians ,Hittites, early Ottomans, Macedonians, Chinese, Mongols and so many other?(byzantines included)
If you were refering to the late byzantine period , i wouldn't dissagree with you in some points but obviously you are affected from 18th century stereotypes about byzantium . And thats ironic, because those have been produced from Great Britain and France, your great modern military empires (Im refering to the main states not their colonies) !-------------
|
. Greeks have always been too cultured, thats what did them in I think they never really had sort of a warrior attitude or chararcteristsics about them. I know people would say hoplites but that was Sparta and Sparta owned Athens u know y because Athens read there books to much.Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2007 at 16:39
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2007 at 17:41
|
[/QUOTE] How can anyone call this the most glorious era of Byzantine history ehen this is the era when everone kicked their asses, and they were militarily weak?[/QUOTE] I suppose you forgot to use LOL LOL LOL
Lets start from the basic
Have you any idea were was the empire located? -------------
|
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2007 at 17:49
| Yes I did forget,the Byzantines/east romans of that era sucked. LOL.LOL.LOLHA,HA,HA. |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2007 at 19:11
Nope , your argument sucks. -------------
|
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2007 at 19:20
| No,my argument is the truth,your snotty,ignorent comments are the ones that suck. |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2007 at 20:01
|
go and play with your gi joe kid...
-------------
|
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2007 at 20:07
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 07:38
Really? if this was the case why did the Arabs adopt so many of the Byzantine Empires military practices and why did most invasions fail far before reaching the walls of Constantinople? Futheremore even if the enemies could not take Constantinople (only because of its Huge walls of course )
surely they could conquer every other part of the territories of
Byzantium (the parts that don't have walls that big) and reduce the
Byzantine Empire to a city state? of course this eventually happened
but it took them almost a thousand years
In fact during the majority of this period the
Byzantines did not even consider the "Franks" (an umbrella term used by
Byzantines for North western Europeans) a serius threat (there are some
exceptions such as the Normans of south Italy), indeed the
Arabs were usually considered to be far more formiddable and the Arabs
greatly respected the military prowess of the Byzantine empire.
During this time period the Byzantine Empire was usually one of the most powerful states in the world and usually THE most powerful state with significant territories in europe. During this era the Byzantines reached the height of thier power under Basil II, at the begining of this era Heraclius ascended the Throne of an empire that had lost almost half its territory to the Sassanid Persians.....at the end of the war he was in a position to attack Ctiesphon (the sassanid capital) the resulting peace treaty gave back all byzantine territory and possesions along with compensation (and Heraclius was bieng leniant). In fact at times in this era believe it or not Byzantine territory actually expanded! ------------- |
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 17:15
|
Posted By: Onogur
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 00:17
|
During almost the entire existance of the Byzantine empire it had enemies on all borders - sometimes weak, sometimes strong. The byzantine lost many battles, but won many too. Do not forget that it was situated on the the most crouded crossroad in the Middle Ages. Anyway, the strongest byzantine weapons were diplomacy and espionage, and the strongest byzantine warriors were the diplomats and the spies.
BTW, the Vardaritois were mentioned earlier in this topic as Hungarians. They had nothing to do with Hungarians, originally they were a mix of Turks from Asia Minor and Kuber Bulgars that have settled there in 7th century.
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 01:12
Stung your tone is most offensive and I would strongly advise that you change it immediately. yes during this period the Byzantines lost those territories to the Arabs however that was at the very begining of this period and occured just after the Byzantines had regained these territories from the Sassanid Persians (which were largely lost to them in the era before) and both nations were exhuasted after the largest war they had ever fought against each other and parts of these territories were recovered anyway. Finally though the Byzantines did lose some territory during some points in this time period they were still there at the end of it whereas most of there rivals didn't last that long at all. At Yarmuk the Byzantines were indeed decisevely defeated by a force that outnumberd them (name an empire that didn't lose a battle where they had the numbers) however the enemy force possesed a superior commander and higher morale (only a partial excuse as most battles are decided by leadership) but most importantly a sandstorm blew up in the Byzantine armies face
thats more then a little unlucky! Futheremore "Shadow warefare" (I
assume you mean a form of Guerrila warefare) is just as legitimate as
any other form of warefare futheremore during this time period there
were many Byzantine victories against Arab field armies such as the
battle of Akroinon and the two Arab sieges of constantinople where the
forces of the Ummayads greatly outnumbered the Byzantine forces and yes
the Bulgars did win many battles against the Byzantines during this
time period but the Bulgars were formiddable oponents and at one point
during this time period were CONQUERED by the Byzantines it clearly
wasn't a one way street. Finally the Arab armies adopted many Byzantine
traits for all thier campaigns not just the ones against the turks
(besides if the Byzantine army was useless they wouldn't even do this). on a final note the
western Germanic kingdoms at the beggining of this period seemed to
have faired worse with Visigothic spain bieng conquered by a tiny Arab
force and Martel struggling to defeat the forces of a local Emir while
the the largest army ever raised by the Ummayad Caliphate was destroyed
at Constantinople by the Byzantines (with the assistence of the
Bulgars). The problem is that Byzantine defeats get a lot of press whereas Byzantine victories usually recieve next to none this is largely due to Edward Gibbon induced bias, lack of interest and the fact that we focus almost entirely on Western European history which was basicly non-existent during most of the Byzantine golden age. And so the majority of this time period is ignored as Western European history only takes off with the high middle ages when the "Frankish" (once again the generic Byzantine term) militaries became more advanced and the power of the Byzantines had declined significantly and so no attention is payed to Byzantine history until Manzikert and then Byzantium is ignored again until the Fourth crusade and once again no attention is payed until the fall of constantinople to the ottomans. The "Dark ages" (only dark for western Europe) which constitutes the majority of this era and during which the Byzantine army usually prevailed against the "Franks" is skipped over. You would do well to study the History of the Empire in detail. Regards Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 03:24
|
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 04:38
You hate Byzantium for some reason, don't you?
It was the only state in Europe in the first part of the middle ages, who had 15-20 or more enemies. And it was still standing until the death of Manuel. Noone else could do this. They made from all kind of military (inf, cavalry, navy etc) an art.
TSZ
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 09:14
The Arabs conquered the great majority of the Iberian pennisula very quickly and with a tiny force, the force that took about half of the Byzantine Empire a little while before was far larger and better supported. In short as they lossed a far greater percentage of thier territory to an enemy force that was many times smaller. I fail to see how you can call Visigothic Spain stronger than Byzantium. In regards to Martel he did indeed defeat all arab armies sent against him (not many) however my point was that this was (and by some still is) seen as THE victories that stopped Muslim expansion and was seen by the "Franks" as Huge victories. When in reality they had only defeated the forces of the local Emir, whereas the Byzantines truly stopped Arab expansion by succesfully defending Constantinople from two far larger armies (and fleets). In comparison to the second Arab siege of Constantinople Tours is nothing. ------------- |
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 17:14
| Martel defeated the same armies that faced and defeated the byzantines so consistantly,Justinian was the last hurrah for the Romans as though they exister for hundreds of years after they were never again a superpower,super powers don,t lose huge amounts of territory and are not consistanly beaten,by the 600's the byzantines had obviously declined militarily and the 600's and 700's are called by some historians the Byzantine "dark age",if the Franks and byzantines of this age had fought each other the Franks would have easily won,Martel killed Abdul Rahmen and did what the Byzantines couldn't and that was drive out the arabs,even the Visigothic rebels drove out the arabs founed their own kingdom in northern Spain,the sooner you accept the facts the sooner you will be able to move on with your life |
Posted By: Onogur
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 17:46
|
OK, let's compare both battles - the battle of Tours (732) and the second siege of Constantinople (717-718).
The battle of Tours: 20,000-40,000 arabs vs. 20,000-30,000 franks. The casualties of the franks are estimated - 1,500-2,000. The arab casualties were about 10,000 and Al Ghafiqi was killed. The result is a decisive frankish victory over the arabs.
The second siege of Constantinople: 200,000 arabs reinforced by 1,800 ships vs. 30,000 Byzantines and 50,000 Bulgars. The casualties of the arabs were about 170,000 men and less then 10 of their ships survived. The casulaties of the Byzantine and Bulgar forces were minimal. The result is a formidable Byzantine and Bulgar victory over the arabs.
What are we talking about?!
|
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2007 at 18:24
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 06:31
He faced similar armies to the ones the Byzantines faced except less motivated and FAR smaller.
I can see that your tone remains offensive Stung, Please remain Proffesional. Like all long lasting empires the Byzantines had good times and bad times, at some points during this large time period the Byzantine empire was in decline, however during the majority of this time period the Byzantine state was one (if not the) strongest states in europe and during this time period the Byzantine Empire reached It's second peak of power under Basil II and under him and his predessors John Tzimisces and Nichephorus Phocas II the Byzantine army was as consistently succesful against all its enemies as the Arabs were in thier initial campaigns of conquest (slight exaggeration, but the period lasted a lot longer). This is not just about the 600's and 700's (during this time period it was the "dark ages" for western europe as well so I don't see your point), besides I would love to see Charles Martel face off against the forces of Leo III or Constantine V and win. The Visigoths saved the extreme North of the Iberian pennisula from the Arabs and lost everything else approximately 80% of thier territory, the Byzantines drove out the Arabs from Anatolia and retained about 50% (rough estimates) of thier territory see the difference? On a final note it was only during the second siege of Constantinople by the Arabs that they had Bulgarian assistence, they withstood the first one without there assistance and it was just that assistance. If the Byzantine fleet and land forces were not present the battle would have been lost very quickly, and what do you have against the use of Greek fire? does it break the medieval Geneva convention ------------- |
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 08:06
|
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 08:50
|
Those walls were build to hide behind them. The Meroving capitol (If there was just one, I think, the court moved from palace to palace in that time) was a henroost compared to Constantinople.
Byzantium's terrytori was too large and overall near by the seas, And some cases on the other banks. (Venice, South Italy etc) It was a hard job to defend it, and they had done this very well.
TSZ
|
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 12:27
|
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 13:04
| And when they became half so progressive state like Byzantium, it was broken into 3 parts almost immediatly.. |
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 13:28
|
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 13:48
|
The greeks occupied back the most part of Anatolia and Syria from the arabs, and when the seldjukc occupied back again for the islam, the franks losted "Normandia". Sorry: the western frank king "allowed" the wikings to settle down. |
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 14:21
|
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 14:37
| The frankish franks were just a part of the crusaders, seldjuks called every crusader "frank". And the frank franks were not just franks, but burgundians, normanns, bretons, wallons, other belgians etc. |
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 15:08
| Yes,but my point was true that the more powerful west europeans,won where the weak east europeans(Byzantines)failed. |
Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 15:20
Yes, but the west europeans were an united army (united armies), just with one target, and the greeks had to defend the some thousend miles long borders in other parts of the empire (in some cases agains the western knights (f. e. the terr. of todays Albania against tne italian normanns, or f. e. the war and trade ways and trade centre cities, and even the little villages against the robbering franks!)
|
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 15:41
| And the western franks soundly beat the Byzantines,driving them from italy. |
Posted By: Onogur
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 16:41
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 16:49
I feel the need to correct what I feel are some inaccurate conclusions
reached here. As this thread is well advanced and I do not have time to
respond to every statement, I will select a choice few which I believe
deserve my attention.
Actually your comparison here of the Franks defeating the Arabs to the Arabs defeating the Byzantines is invalid for a number of reasons. Firstly you are comparing the Arab armies at their most frenzied (7th century) to the Arab armies at a period of their history at their most lax and unaggressive (late 11th century). You also ignore that the Byzantines in the 7th century were facing a war with the Arabs directly after a massively destructive war against the other superpower of the age: Persia. The Frankish Crusaders, on the other hand, were attacking a far off land from a secure home base free from attack, and at a time when their military resources had been steadily built up over centuries thanks to the buffer Byzantium served as against attacks from the east.
You can't compare an Arab attack which occurs thousands of miles from the middle east, with supply lines and communication lines overstretched and being conducted with only a fraction of the main Islamic manpower; to an attack occurring on the very doorstep of the Caliphate. Byzantium was the main prize of the Caliphate and the Islamic world mobilized the bulk of its forces against it. Hundreds of thousands of troops and thousands of ships were sent against the Byzantines, the best of the Caliphate's resources were mobilised to take Constantinople and then advance across the Balkans into Europe (the natural way of invading Europe from the Middle East). The fact the Arabs attacks via North Africa is proof of the Byzantines success in Anatolia and the Balkans - the Arabs had no choice but to take a detour. You are comparing the main event in Byzantium to a side show in Spain which occurred on a much smaller scale.
The Byzantines did regain their status of superpowers, being the most powerful European state until the end of the 12th century. In the 11th century the second most powerful state was the German Empire, which could field a total of 40,000 men - 1/3 the size of the effective Byzantine standing army of the day. If you study a bit closer, you will see that the Byzantines did repel many Arab attacks. They consolidated their hold on Anatolia, which the Arabs were unable to conquer. The Byzantines weathered the shock of the explosion of Islam (something the Visigoths and Franks only had to deal with in a much diminished form, because the Arab attacks on them were far smaller than those on Byzantium), and then the Byzantines followed an intelligent policy of consolidation and reconquest. They were able to get the upper hand over the Ummayads and then Abbasids, retaking the Balkans, Armenia, Iberia, Cyprus, Crete, Northern Syria and Lebanon. They did this in spite of possessing far inferior financial and manpower resources to the Islamic Caliphates. In the link I am providing you can clearly see the Byzantines possessed only a small fraction of the financial resources of their Islamic enemies, and yet they managed in the 9th-11th centuries to defeat them and expand at their expense. http://www.tulane.edu/%7Eaugust/H303/handouts/c850.htm - http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/handouts/c850.htm ------------- |
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 17:30
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 19:04
|
Your logic is totaly childish -------------
|
.Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 19:13
|
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 19:18
|
truth is like a coin, has to sides... -------------
|
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 19:49
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 20:01
And you never responded to my post either. Do you have any evidence or citations to back up your claims, or simply bold generalisations? To answer the question you posed Athanasios, the answer is simple. The Byzantines were the very first line of defence against the Arabs, being the first obstacle to Islam's expansion. The Byzantine territories in the Middle East directly bordered the Arab homeland, so the Arab war with Byzantium was the major and most demanding theatre of operations, and saw the majority of major conflict. The other theatres, by contrast, were typically distant from the main source of Arab power and must be considered sideshows to the main conflict. ------------- |
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 20:17
| The other areas faced the same arab forces as the Byzantines just with better results |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 20:32
Incorrect. In Spain the Visigoths faced an enemy of far smaller size, whose army had changed composition from Arab to being a mixture of Berber/Moor/Arab. The equipment, training, cohesion, numbers, lines of logistics and communication were inferior to those enjoyed by the Islamic forces operating close to home in the Middle East. You are comparing a sizable expedition to a major invasion followed by prolonged border warfare. ------------- |
Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 20:40
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 20:50
You fail to answer my earlier post. Take a look at it for a while. It contains evidence, citations and reasoning. Your posts contain broad generalisations without so much evidence. I am sticking by my view regarding the Arab invasion of Spain, the forces used were a fraction of the size which were sent against Byzantium. So unless you have sources to prove otherwise, my point stands. The Khazars had the advantage of being able to retreat into sparsely populated territory, use scorched earth and conduct especially impressive maneuvers. This was because the Khazars, unlike the Byzantines, were a largely nomadic civilisation. They could retreat at will. And even so, the Khazars suffered their fair share of defeats at the hands of the Arabs. Nubia was out of the way of the main Arab thrust for conquest. The Arabs were aiming for the rich and well populated lands of the Mediterranean, Europe and Asia. Sub Saharan Africa offered little which was attractive. And in anycase the Prophet specifically called upon Muslims to abstain from attacking the Ethiopans because of the support these people provided the Muslims in the time of the hegira. All these nations you mentioned suffered serious defeats at the hands of the Arabs and saw a decline in their power. None of them, however, was the main object of the Arab attacks. None of them had to face even half the number of Arab soldiers that the Byzantines did. None of them either, were able to perpetuate the late antique urban culture and keep alive the fruits of civilisation so well as Byzantium did in those dark centuries. Again, you are simply making unfair comparisons. ------------- |