The Middle Byzantine Military (610-1204)

Originally posted by Tar Szer�nd And when they became half so progressive state like Byzantium, it was broken into 3 parts almost immediatly..

The question was about their military and clearly their military of the period was more powerful than Byzantium

Originally posted by Tar Szer�nd 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.

And when the Byzantines were beat yet again this time by the Seljuks,it was the western "Franks"who in turn beat the Seljuks most of the time,but not all the time,but more often than the Byzantines,with the first crusade,so once again the Franks were more powerful than the Byzantines.

 Yes,but my point was true that the more powerful west europeans,won where the weak east europeans(Byzantines)failed.

 And the western franks soundly beat the Byzantines,driving them from italy.

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.

Originally posted by stung The facts don't lie kids the Byzantines of this period were consistantly defeated by the arabs and losy Syria,egypt and north africa,and no amount of historical revisionism from byzantine fanboys will change historical facts,at Yarmuk the byzantines were beaten by an arab army 1/4 its size,clearly the byzantines were weak,they only held onto aria minor by relying on "shadow warfare" and avoiding arab field armies,they also lost many battles to the bulgers during this time,the arabs only adopted byzantine tactics when facing turkic tribes to the east,and the arabs in turn were beaten by frankish armies smaller than themselves,so clearly the franks could do what the byzantines couldn,t and were theirfore more powerful,the arabs clearly didn't respect byzantines militarily or they wouldn't try to invade in the first place,the arabs were like anyother power in that they only respected the armies that beat them those being Khazars,nubians,franks and dailimites,even the tribal berbers gave the arabs a tougher fight than the byzantines,face facts people and don't try to make up facts because the byzantines are your favorites

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.

Originally posted by stung Spain was in the middle of a civil war and was almost as weak as the byzantines during this period,i say almost because the rebel Palayo drove the arabs from northern span so they must,ve been a littl stronger, also Martel didn't struggle to defeat the arabs he twice soundly defeated arab feild armies that outnumbered his own,something the byzantines could not do without the help of greek fire.

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.

Originally posted by stung 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

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/~august/H303/handouts/c850.htm

Your logic is totaly childish .

truth is like a coin, has to sides...

Originally posted by stung Originally posted by Athanasios truth is like a coin, has to sides... No,i'm talking historical facts here,also you never answared my question,how come the byzantines had so many loses to the arabs,but other people the arabs attacked resisted them?in short if the Byzantines were so strong why did they lose so much?

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.


Edited by Constantine XI - 03-Mar-2007 at 20:09

Originally posted by stung  The other areas faced the same arab forces as the Byzantines just with better results

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.

Originally posted by stung Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by stung  The other areas faced the same arab forces as the Byzantines just with better results 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. Thats not true,they picked up a berber along the way but it was still a strong arab army,also you didnt give an explanation for the victories of the Nubians,Dailimites and Khazars.

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.