The Late Byzantine Military (1204-1461)

Arithmos was initially corps of the imperial guards. Theophanes mentions during 791/792 that Empress Irene sent the 'Droungarios of Bigla' Alexios Mouzelis to suppress the rebels of the Theme of Anatolia.

Edited by Perseas - 16-Aug-2006 at 14:04

I do not think those maps are wrong. They are gathered with ultimate preciseness for the exact date of the beginning of that year. Things that might have happened one year before or after do not affect the map.

Originally posted by Datuna In the begining of 13th century trebizond was conquered by georgian queen ''Tamar" who named it as empire setting there her close relative alexy comnenos as a king. Before that georgia encluded the whole region of south caucasus, north tribes were giving tribute so Georgia needed a strong gate through the region from the west, that kingdom was trebizond which was under georgian enfluence for over a century. During this time it blossomed just like other regions of Georgia and our relations became vital to both of us.

As far as the sources indicate, the Georgians did not conquer Trebizond. But as mercenaries/allies under the BYZANTINE leadership of Andronicus' grandsons David and Alexius they did. The fact that Georgian cultural and political influence was negligible and not as penetrative means that the Trapezuntines was just a splinter Byzantine microcosm and not so much a state establshed by Georgians as previously claimed. Moreover, the Trapezuntines were vassals of other powers like the Mongols and Turks who did indeed have a great influence on them in terms of their military equipment and apparel and but not so much by Georgian military norms.

Edited by Nestorian - 25-Aug-2006 at 06:27

Originally posted by Nestorian its out of print at dumbarton oaks :(, I'm waiting for their "bookstore" to open. There may be a small chance of securing a copy.   Tell me, how good is the Praecepta Militaria for middle period Byzantine units?

Originally posted by Batu i dont know much about BYzantine military but i guess they suck becouse they've lost every war they fought with Seljuks and Ottomans although they were always superior in numbers!!

Matter of tactics rather than "sucking"...

Byzantine Empire seemed generally never really successful against mounted armies...From Adrianople 378 to Malazgirt(Manzikert) 1071...

The decisive battles lost to the Seljuks distorts the Byzantine ability to respond to light cavalry archer attacks. 2 decisive battles only show us 2 decisive battles but not the overall picture of how Byzantium fares against such armies. Byzantium has tactics against such armies and when followed correctly, usually results in a good result.

Let's just analyse Manzikert and Myriocephalon

Manzikert: The disintegration of the Byzantine army came before the Seljuks even attacked the main body of the army. Treachery and the inexperience of the army led to the belief that the Emperor was dead. Nothing disintegrates an army quicker than the idea of the leader's death.

This is not to discredit the Seljuks in anyway, they did the right thing by taking advantage of the situation as it presented itself.

Myriocephalon:

The Emperor Manuel was ambushed in mountainous terrain not on a pitched battle on a plain against horse archers. THis battle does not show how Byzantine military tactics would fare against horse archers but rather how a easily one can get ambushed by lack of precautions by using scouts, etc, etc.

Again, this is not discredit or decrease the value of the victory, but it does not exactly show the superiority of horse archers over the Byzantine army. We must look at the specifics and conditions of each battle and in each battle, the scenario to pit nomadic horse archery against Byzantine tactics is simply not there.