Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Chilbudios
Arch Duke
Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Which was the superior half of the Roman Empire? Posted: 23-May-2006 at 08:21 |
Notitia Dignitatum is quite a large list. Using some Ms Office tricks I counted 94 occurences of "seniores" for the Western half and only 23 such occurences for the Eastern half.
It would be interesting to know how many soldiers are there, because each body may have a different size.
After reading a summary compiled by others (Philippe Le Maitre, Pierre Riche, 1953-1996) ND accounts forabout 500,000 total number of soldiers. Yet this summary claims some inbalance and that many of these army bodies are only on paper. For instance, it is claimed that between Jura mountains and Atlantic there are only 17,000 soldiers and that for Britannia, Spain and Africa only 45,000 soldiers are ready to defend them.
Edited by Chilbudios - 23-May-2006 at 08:23
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-May-2006 at 07:40 |
In the early medieval period almost no defined nation state was able to
hold itself together for very long, while remaining ahead of most of
its neighbours in most fields of human progress. Comparitive to her
environment, Byzantium was a state which was certainly in a position of
primacy for a respectable period of her history.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2006 at 20:10 |
Actually, the western side had more "Senior Units" than the east at 400 AD.
The west had slightly more infantry units but the east had slightly more cavalry units.
The Notita Dignitatum: http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~halsteis/notitia.htm
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2006 at 19:02 |
To go back to the question........ The latin terms seniores and iuniores (senior and junior) were used for the military units split to serve in the separate sections of the Empire. In most cases the 'senior' unit was the one stationed in New Rome (the city we call Constantinople). Thus, technically, the Eastern half was the 'senior', from the first tetrarchy onwards.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
Bosniakum
Knight
Joined: 12-May-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 76
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2006 at 15:06 |
Yes of course, but one has to understand that the Byzantine Empire pretty much inherited its power and wealth from Rome, so it really only had to survive, while Rome built itself from a mere city-state into an enourmous empire. And yes the Byzantine Empire did exist in a totally different world than did Rome but I think a Empire should be judged by its time and standards and its power and influence in its time. For example the USA is the strongest country today and probably in history too by today's standards. But when comparing the US with empires of the past, and their power and influence in their time, then the US does not seem that powerful really.
|
"I krv svoju za Bosnu moju"
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-May-2006 at 01:11 |
Very good point there, Bosniakum. But I think the thing is that the
Byzantine Empire had to survive in a very different world to the one
Rome was a part of in the 1st century AD. This is critical in making a
comparison between the two, the pressures and resources which weighed
on those two Empires were very different and our assessment of how
virile those nations were should be made with that taken into
consideration.
|
|
Bosniakum
Knight
Joined: 12-May-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 76
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-May-2006 at 18:06 |
I think the problem with this topic is that some people compare the western and eastern part ot the Empire after the split, while others compare the Byzantine and original Roman Empire whose central power was in the west.
When comparing the West and East after the split, then of course the Eastern was more powerful or it would not have survived. When comparing the original Roman Empire whose center of power was in the west to the later Byzantine Empire, then of course the Roman Empire was stronger in every way I think.
|
"I krv svoju za Bosnu moju"
|
|
Achilles
Pretorian
Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-May-2006 at 15:50 |
Originally posted by EvilNed
Originally posted by Reginmund
Oh, but it is true, the West did bear the brunt of the German
tribes. Now wether it bore the brunt of barbarian invasions in total,
that's another matter. Not counting the Sassanids, they were hardly
barbarians. |
The sassanids were non-greek, thus they were barbarians, and
considered barbarians by romans (since the romans considered all
non-ROMANS to be barbarians).
|
The term Barbarian in latin means a Bearded One. (from the
Latin-Barbaros, meaning beard.)Later it began to mean a foreigner, and
then a non-roman. So depending on which version of the
translation you use, the Sassanids were barbarians.
|
Der Erste hat den Tod,
Der Zweite hat die Not,
Der Dritte erst hat Brot.
Fur immer frei und ungeteilt
-always free and undivided-
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-May-2006 at 07:58 |
They conqured the Parthian capital 3 times in the second century AD.
|
|
J.Caesar
Janissary
Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 23:40 |
Belisarius did make the Vandals and Goths look like very inept fighters when he retook N.Africa and Italy. His numbers were so few. Just think that the Germa and Goths were seriously over rated. Roman legions in their prime decimanted them just like Belisarius did, with the excpetions of a couple of traps. The old emprire had much dificulty with parthia however, losing most of their battles there against the horse archer of Parthia. Eastern empire had to contend with them and their successors forever. Also, Rome was not really much of a city in the 5th century when the Goths came. It was seriously depopulated due to plague and malaria. This was an enormous impact on the west. The Easterners had more imunity against these deseases .( prolonged exposure for centuries earlier) Howver, comapring the Byzantine forces against Roame in her prime would be very dificult. If it was hand to hand inafntry of course the west would win.
|
|
TheodoreFelix
Colonel
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 23:28 |
While the east did get hit very hard from Barbarian invasions but never did they head into Constantinople itself. While in the west, the germanic tribes did. They sacked it, and even settled within the empires land.
Even after the wide opening left by Andrianople. The Goths and Vandals simply took a nice gold payout and left. The very next year, the East emperor already had replaced the legion with a goth army. The west was far too instable for such things and did not get as nice of a treatment, it was, Rome was sacked continously. On top of that it was broke. Vandals took Carthage. Britain, France and Spain never compared to the richness of the east, which had thriving cities such as Antioch and Alexandria. On top of this these lands had overall higher populations ie better recruiting ability.
Edited by Iskender Bey ALBO
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 23:11 |
I wouldn't say the Western Empire was WIDE open to invasion. Yes, the Western Empire had to face the wrath of the Goths and Huns, but the Eastern Empire had to face their full brunt first. Perhaps the West would have done well to learn from the invasions suffered by its Eastern sister. But the actuals borders of the West open to serious invasion (i.e. the Rhine, Upper Danube and Britain), were shorter than the lower Danube, and enormous eastern front which confronted Byzantium. Also, the enemies faced by Byzantium were typically more numerous, better equipped, better organised and more varied in their military composition.
|
|
TheodoreFelix
Colonel
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 15:25 |
They were richer provinces. The east was undoutably richer than then west was.
|
|
dorian
Consul
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 14:33 |
Excuse me? The eastern half was across the Thracian strait? I suppose that youre talking only about the wider area of Constantinople coz as you know the Byzantine Empire included Balkans, Minor Asia, Egypt, modern Iraq, Syria, Libanon, Israel, Caucasus. So why its borders were easier defendable?
|
"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 07:16 |
Originally posted by dorian
I don't think so. Byzantine Empire had more dangers
to face up. First of all the most important danger came
from the Persians. Sometimes these two Empires managed to
cooperate but the wars between them were frequent. The germanic tribes
were also dangerous specifically after the Byzantines had conquered
Italy. It was easier for the nomadic tribes of Eurasia to reach the
Byzantine Empire because of its borders in Asia. The Slavs was a
big trouble for the Byzantines just like Arabs and Avars. And
after all these, the Ottoman Turks. |
You don't understand. The Byzantine half had more easily
defendable borders than the western half, so while under attack of both
the Huns and the Germans, the empire was wide open and a perfect target
to attack, unlike the eastern half, which was across the Thracian
strait and really sitting by well off as their brothers in the west
were slaughtered.
|
|
dorian
Consul
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jun-2005 at 12:36 |
Originally posted by TheSicilianVespers
This really isn't a fair comparison, because by the time there were separate Western and Eastern empires, the empire was in serious decline, and furthermore, the western empire faced much stronger and constant attacks than the east, and was more open to invasion. What I mean by this is that the majority of the eastern half was not in Europe, so the Balkan peninsula almost always served as a barrier for the empire when the Goths and Huns invaded. The western half, on the other hand, was almost entirely in Europe, and the frontier was wode open to invasion, which caused more damage and hastened the empire's decline. |
I don't think so. Byzantine Empire had more dangers to face up. First of all the most important danger came from the Persians. Sometimes these two Empires managed to cooperate but the wars between them were frequent. The germanic tribes were also dangerous specifically after the Byzantines had conquered Italy. It was easier for the nomadic tribes of Eurasia to reach the Byzantine Empire because of its borders in Asia. The Slavs was a big trouble for the Byzantines just like Arabs and Avars. And after all these, the Ottoman Turks.
|
"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians.That's who we are!We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia�Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" Kiro Gligorov FYROM
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jun-2005 at 07:50 |
This really isn't a fair comparison, because by the time
there were separate Western and Eastern empires, the empire was in
serious decline, and furthermore, the western empire faced much
stronger and constant attacks than the east, and was more open to
invasion. What I mean by this is that the majority of the eastern half
was not in Europe, so the Balkan peninsula almost always served as a
barrier for the empire when the Goths and Huns invaded. The western
half, on the other hand, was almost entirely in Europe, and the
frontier was wode open to invasion, which caused more damage and
hastened the empire's decline.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jun-2005 at 14:13 |
Originally posted by Laelius
Eh the Eastern Empire was but a paltry shadow next to the greatness that was Rome. |
Hey everyone! It's Edward Gibbon!
|
|
Laelius
Consul
Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jun-2005 at 12:08 |
Eh the Eastern Empire was but a paltry shadow next to the greatness that was Rome.
Edited by Laelius
|
|
GENERAL PARMENION
Knight
Joined: 07-Jun-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 75
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jun-2005 at 05:26 |
The Hellenic Byzantine Empire ofcourse !
|
"There is no doubt, that Macedonians were Greeks."
(Robin Lane Fox "Historian-Author" In Interview with newspaper TO BHMA)
|
|