The Middle Byzantine Military (610-1204)

Originally posted by Constantine XI 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.

No the arabs were met and defeated in battle by the Khazars and no scorched earth polocy was present,the only detail of the battle was that before the battle was joined formally the two sides attacked each other with catipults,once the battle was joined the arabs army was destroyed and its leader killed,the arabs made two attempts two invade Nubia but both ended in failure,at touluse,tours and river Berre the arabs used the same speedy attack and withdrawl tactics that beat the Byzantines and Persians so consistantly exept these times they fought a higher quality army than the Byzantines and were defeated thats all, many powers in history have conqered large territories but at some point they all get beat by somebody,for the Persians it was the greeks,for the arabs it was the Franks and others,and for everybody's favorite the Mongols it was the Mamelukes,face it no one can win all the time

Originally posted by Athanasios Originally posted by stung The other areas faced the same arab forces as the Byzantines just with better results   Not really... Originally posted by stung  at touluse,tours and river Berre the arabs used the same speedy attack and withdrawl tactics that beat the Byzantines and Persians    Those tactics were a piece of cake for the Byz.Arabs just fought better this time and won.What does that means according to you?     Originally posted by stung so consistantly exept these times they fought a higher quality army than the Byzantines   ................     Originally posted by stung ...and were defeated thats all, many powers in history have conqered large territories but at some point they all get beat by somebody,for the Persians it was the greeks,for the arabs it was the Franks and others,and for everybody's favorite the Mongols it was the Mamelukes,face it no one can win all the time     Face it , Franks were hardly a first class state , it was the "easy choice" to beat for the Arabs , after their crushing defeats ...But not that easy after all i have to admit...

The Franks were clearly a cut or two above the Byzantines,your just an dillusional little Byzantine fanboy holding on to his fantiseis

Originally posted by stung The Franks were clearly a cut or two above the Byzantines,your just an dillusional little Byzantine fanboy holding on to his fantiseis

Edited by Akolouthos - 04-Mar-2007 at 00:02

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.

Again you simply make generalisations without any supporting facts, references, citations or anything which gives credibility to your argument. Continue to make points if you wish, but you have thoroughly failed to give your arguments any weight so do not be surprised if people simply dismiss or ignore your comments in future. I, for one, have more substantial posts to give my attention to.

After discussing the matter with moderators, stung has been warned and may no longer access this forum. Please continue with the discussion.

Admiral depth of language, inappropriate application of it. If only each of us could be so brilliant....

Originally posted by Kapikulu Can someone translate the text above?

I could, but I won't waste my time. This guy is a banned user who continuously posts with excessively complex language just for the sake of it.

Are you referring to the Late Period specifically, or throughout all periods?

Quick overview:
- Armenian troops recruited from Byzantine controlled Armenia
- The Armenians were encouraged to migrate throughout the empire
- From the 400's onwards the Byzantine military was composed largely of Armenians (either from origin or 'culture')
- Elite troops were selected from the Armenian ranks
- The most formidable and courageous of those would form bodyguard units, such as the guards of the emperor's palace
- Numerous, well trained and well armed too
- Played a major role in the conquests and campaigns of 800's and 900's
- Squadron of 2000 veteran Armenian cavalry were sanctioned in the Balkans, while Armenian troops were placed on the frontiers as border guards
- There were also many Armenian generals and emperors of Byzantium, like Heraclius

This is an extremely basic overview. I am not the best to answer this, someone like Constantine, Byzantine Emperor or Praetor would be adept at answering your query wholly.

Regards,

- Knights -