Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Athanasios
Colonel
Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546
|
Quote Reply
Topic: The Middle Byzantine Military (610-1204) Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 21:05 |
No, you are talking about some battle results, your arguments that is to say, are based on incidents.you do not calculate a lot of parameters that tοοκ part before and also at the duration of the campaigns. Parameters that judged not only the battles against the Arabs but likely many of the others that you ascribe to the Byz. The loses to the Arabs (Egypt, Syria) was a matter of time, since the Roman rulers were very unpopular among the population. Well ,that was known from the ancient times to the governors but progressively it get worse because of the monofysism, an heresis wich wasn't follow the orthodox christian dogma of the age...
As you know the central goverment was placed in Constantinopole, the Patriarchat also. The distance was huge , so the appointment of centrifugal tendencies was intense by the time the central administration could not intervene immediately to stop them. The habitants of Egypt and Syria did not resist they did not react massly and organised, because of the antipathy for the central administration and the disappointment for the high taxation ,which were so much intense that did not see hostily an Arabic domination. Even the Islam-the new religion- for them was more near from orthodoxy( some dogmatic reasons had a major role for this). And the Arabs wouldn't be able to do anything by their own if they were not inspired from a new hopeful religion and a very important leader such as Muhammad who unified them. It is funny when the same people (Arabs ) were not in able to threaten even an Orthodox monastery(of those in mount Shina) if the gates were closed and the key was kept in a safe place...
That was a very quick summary of the loses background(not to mention the centuries of fighting against Sassanid empire!)
In conclusion , the byzantine victories against arabs were more than the looses , especially after the 10th century in land and of course in the sea.
Actually the Arabs became a type of military "guinea-pigs" for the Byzantines.Ok, that is exegerated but i surely put the Byzantines on the top of military power of medieval europe(middle era) and i can hardly put Franks above Bulgars but guess! I won't ! I'll put them in the same scale as the Khazars and Nubians because according to you, you've scorred the same achievements: beating the Arabs...
eventhough the two above had better fighting skills than the cumbersome and constipated Franks of the time.
I would have to agree with all your above statements only if you were refering to the era between 12th-15th centuries ,but obviously you confused the topics...
|
|
|
stung
Knight
Suspended
Joined: 24-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 21:09 |
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
|
|
Athanasios
Colonel
Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 21:28 |
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 ...
|
|
|
stung
Knight
Suspended
Joined: 24-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 21:39 |
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
|
|
Athanasios
Colonel
Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 23:41 |
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 |
Blah,blah,blah a.k.a. out of topic, out of topic, out of topic....
|
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 23:59 |
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 |
How old are you?
I'm not as interested in this thread as I may have been back in my days of studying secular history, but I would be interested in seeing a reasoned, researched response to Constantine XI's earlier post. Simply rehashing broad generalizations over and over won't cut it, I'm afraid.
And please stay away from using phrases like "little Byzantine fanboy." Not only is it rude, it's tacky.
-Akolouthos
Edited by Akolouthos - 04-Mar-2007 at 00:02
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 02:47 |
Originally posted by stung
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 |
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say the Arabs were
never defeated by the Khazars, only that the Arabs did defeat the
Khazars on occasion. This is exactly the same situation with the
Byzantines. I even have a link to prove it:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/13trib01.htm#The%20Thirteenth%20Tribe
Again your tone is proving to be one which is rather immature. You
respond to reasoned and referenced statements with broad
generalisations which are easily proven to be baseless. Refer to the
guidelines for posting in the military forum:
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15453
3. In topics where a claim is made which is not universally accepted as
fact, members who do not provide a credible source for their claim do
not need to be taken seriously. This is an honour standard, not
necessarily incurring a disciplinary punishment, those who fail to live
up to this standard are simply looked down upon by fellow members.
4. Do not simply copy/paste information. If you do, provide your own
comments or views on the post you have made. If you copy something
which is not your own work and post it, reference it.
By posting in the Military Forum, members agree that they abide by
these standards. Finally, I may simply request on a personal level that
members do their
best to keep discussions up to a high standard, make use of scholarly
material and refrain from behaviour which is contrary to AE's high
level of intellectual discussion. Many thanks.
Constantine XI |
It is time you cleaned up your act and began posting in a manner more
befitting scholarly and intellectual discussion. Sweeping bold
statements jjust won't cut it here and your arguments are ruining your
credibility here.
|
|
Tar Szernd
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 04:08 |
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. |
The arabs occupied the older khazarian capitol two times. After that moved the Khazar royals to Itil. Everyone else could defeat arabs: so what is the reason why they could even beat the chinese by the Talas valey? How could they get there? 3-4000 km-s far avay from Arabia?
TSZ
TSZ
|
|
stung
Knight
Suspended
Joined: 24-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 07:00 |
It's not that the arabs could't beat the Khazars in pitched battles,they clearly could,it's just that unlike the Byz the opposite could and sometimes did happen as the Khazars could fight the arabs equal power,also,everything I've said is the truth people,sorry for being a little rude,but the facts don't support your argument that the Byz were strong by this period.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 08:07 |
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.
|
|
stung
Knight
Suspended
Joined: 24-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 08:15 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
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. |
No,your running away from an argument you lost,you were making up lies about things like the arabs having plenty of victories over the people I mentioned,when in fact they did not,maybe i should open a new topic for the more intelligent people on this forum to answar if they wish to.
|
|
Hellios
Arch Duke
Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 11:09 |
|
|
Tar Szernd
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 11:45 |
Stung, please post some of the victories agains the arabs. (except of Poitiers and the reconquista)
TSZ
Edited by Tar Szernd - 04-Mar-2007 at 11:46
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 15:47 |
After discussing the matter with moderators, stung has been warned and
may no longer access this forum. Please continue with the discussion.
|
|
PyrrhusofEpirus
Immortal Guard
Suspended
Joined: 16-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 20:55 |
This was not the plenipotentiary, apogee, apotheosis of the Grecian Byzantines for they were debellated and pessundated of the exarchate of Africa by the Nabadaeans on 670 A.D, the exarchate of Ravenna on 751 A.D and the catapanate of Italy on 1071 A.D. Soon after the Komnenian obsequious, morigerous hegemony, suzerainty: 1081-1180 A.D with the peregrinations, ultracrepidations and absquatulations at Levounion; 1091, Beroi: 1122, Sirmium: 1167 and Myriokephalon: 1176 A.D, there was a ditrichotomous autonomous conglomeration of autarchies: the despotate of Epirus: 1205-1471 A.D with its debellations at Ioannina: 1430, Arta: 1449, Angelkastron: 1460 and Vonitsa: 1476 A.D, the Niceans and Trebizond: 1204-1461 A.D, each inimical to any amelioration of the Diadochi/Epigoni.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 03:11 |
Admiral depth of language, inappropriate application of it. If only each of us could be so brilliant....
|
|
Kapikulu
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 09:10 |
Can someone translate the text above?
|
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
A Strange Orhan Veli
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 09:57 |
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.
|
|
Arm-Legionary
Immortal Guard
Joined: 19-Apr-2007
Location: Armenia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 04:07 |
Hi everyone I have a queation
What do you know about armenian forces in Buzantine army?
Iread that almost 30% of Buzantine army consists from armenians
I'd like to discuss this issue
|
|
Knights
Caliph
suspended
Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 04:37 |
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 -
|
|