The Zenith and Decline of Byzantine Military Science

 Its doesnt make any sense to me, I wouldnt of expected them to have been able to raise as many men as they used to, but perhaps the organisation could of been like the Roman armies of old. Hardened drilled well-trained professionals as the armies backbone, with auxillaries (now mercenaries) to add some diversity to the army, but always at the heart would be the native troops whom you could rely on.

 Surely, there were people in the empire who questioned the use or overuse of mercenaries or atleast questioned the point in reconquering territory and not utilizing the population in the army.

 I suppose the time itd take to gather and train a native army would be quite considerable, but even so surely in the 99 years of the 3 good Comneni they could have atleast began the process of phasing out the use of mercenaries and gradually building up the native part of the army.

 Rome was in dire straits more than once, it didnt stop them raising more legions of men they knew at the very least were fighting for something more than just the fact they could offer more pay. Didnt mean in times of crisis the legions could always be adequetly trained, but the intention was clear and it held the empire in good stead for many centuries.

 For all Byzantiums holding onto the past you would think they would have learned that mercenaries are not the way forward, for an empire whos future was still very uncertain.

 Afterall look at the last Roman empire, if there was ever a good example of how to ruin your army its there, fill the ranks with unreliable men (germans and other barbarians) who will probably turn on you the second they see profit elsewhere and almost never lose their born loyalty to their respective tribe.

 Still though, I wonder how extensive the peoples reluctance to fight in the army actually was, seems they wernt willing in the numbers youd expect. Really though whip up some religious enthusiasm and patriotism to your cause and the crusades are an example of what can be achieved, even beter had that been harnessed effectively instead of unleashed.

Yes, I agree.  However, didn't Michael VIII Palaeologus have at least half of the territory in Anatolia, as part of the Nic�an Empire, that the Comneni had?  I wonder what happened to this land once Michael VIII became emperor in Constantinople.   I don't think the Seljuks overan anymore of Anatolia during Michael's reign. 

Picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/300 px-Byzantium1204.png

It is not entirely unfeasible to think that he could have resurrected the Themes in that area.  After all, I was reading something today and apparently Manuel I Comnenus did set up the theme system again in the Anatolian lands that he recounquered.  Due to the fragmentary source material, we are unable to tell if it resembled the old Byzantine theme system or whether or not it effectively served its intended purpose.  I would like to think that it did because Manuel was able to raise a sizable army (of not just mercenaries) for the campaign that culminated in the Myriocephalon disaster.

Are you talking about the Comneni or the Palaeologan emperors, here?  I think that Alexius I, John II, and Manuel I Comnenus were rather strong emperors and had managed to build the Empire back up from the shambles it was in in the 8th and 9th centuries.  They managed to set the theme system back up in Anatolia, like I mentioned above.  These provided the native troops for Manuel's eastern campaigns.  And by native I don't mean Turks.  There was still a substantial Greek population in Anatolia, or at least descendants of those who were transferred or settled there.  These men had been in the Thematic levies and so now their sons were taking their places.  When you say "local warlords," do you mean the border warriors who fought the Seljuk ghazis?

The Andronici of the Palaeologan dynasy were the weak ones and they squandered what little they had left to work with.  Manuel I, John VIII, and Constantine XI had great potential but no reliable army or resources to work with.

I think the reason for establishing the system of Pronoia was to save money and to "draft" (I would use the word recruit) non-mercenary troops into the small mobile army that the Palaeologans had.  Mark Bartusis in The Late Byzantine Soldier: A Social and Administrative Study points out that there were still native troops in the army.  These were mostly the Pronoiar cavalry.

I agree.  It is startling to see how badly Manuel screwed up in the end.  He had the military potential of Basil II, but not the pragmatism.  Manuel was a bit too flamboyant at such a crucial time in the Empire's history.  If he had conserved the resources and treasury that his father and grandfather had worked hard to replenish, maybe things would have been different.  But then again, he was succeeded by a lunatic, so who knows!

Yes indeed!  Heraclius became emperor under the most terrible circumstances.  He was obviously the exact man for the job.