Byzantine Military Revolution: The Army That Brought the Empire to A Golden Age in the 10th Century
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 09. 2023
- Subscribe to Curiosity Stream and start exploring the world around you! curiositystream.com/sandrhoman
After the Fall of Rome in the 5th century AD, the Roman empire persisted in the east as what is known today as “Byzantine empire” or eastern roman empire. In the 7th and 8th centuries, the Byzantines underwent a period of cultural and military decline, often referred to as the Byzantine Dark Ages. Only after decades of internal struggle and military defeat, did the Byzantine Empire manage to stabilize its position in the 9th century. This was due in no small part to the defensive effectiveness of its army. Although the army was well organized according to the so-called themes, military or administrative districts and centered around the tagmata, professional standing regiments formed by Emperor Constantine V. it lacked offensive capabilities. This insufficiency of the Byzantine army stood in stark contrast with the ambitions of the emperors. They wanted to take the fight to the Muslim states on their borders. This policy, however, called for a more professional and more offensively capable army. It called for military reforms. In this Video we’re looking at the three central changes that turned the Byzantine army into the force that should bring the Empire to a new Golden Age.
Patreon (thank you): / sandrhomanhistory
Paypal (thank you: www.paypal.com/paypalme/SandR...
Twitter: / sandrhoman
Some must read mlitary history books:
Ambrose, S. E., Band of Brothers: E Company, 2001. amzn.to/438ltvZ
Baime, A. J., The Accidental President: Harry S. Truman, 2017. amzn.to/3TcDGUj
Beard, M., Emperor of Rome: Ruling the Ancient Roman World, 2023. amzn.to/49L2olR
Bevoor, A., Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943, 1999. amzn.to/4a4rqwe
Beevor, A., The Second World War, 2013. amzn.to/3wNFITu
Brennan, P+D., Gettysburg in Color, 2022. amzn.to/48LGldG
Clausewitz, C., On War, 2010. amzn.to/3Vblf5
Kaushik, R., A Global History of Pre-Modern Warfare: 10,000 BCE-1500 CE, 2021. amzn.to/49Mtqt7
McPherson, J., Battle Cry of Freedom, The Civil War Era, 2021. amzn.to/3TseYAW
Tsu, S., The Art of War, 2007, amzn.to/3TuknHA
Sledge. E. B., With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa, 2008. amzn.to/439olIK
Pomerantsev, P., How to Win an Information War, 2024. amzn.to/3Ts0YqQ
Bibliography:
Browning, Robert, The Byzantine Empire, Washington 1992.
Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565-1204, London 1999.
Kühn, Hans-Joachim, Die byzantinische Armee im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert: Studien zur Organisation der Tagmata, Wien 1991.
McCotter, Stephen, s.v. Byzantine army, in: The Oxford Companion to Military History (online).
Theotokis, Gergios, Tactical Changes in the Byzantine Armies of the Tenth Century: Theory and Practice on the Battlefields of the East, in: Byzantine Military Tactics in Syria and Mesopotamia in the Tenth Century, Edinburgh 2018.
Treadgold, Warren T., Byzantium and Its Army, 284-1081. Stanford 1995.
Subscribe to Curiosity Stream and start exploring the world around you! curiositystream.com/sandrhoman
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
.
:)
I really like your content normally SandRhoman, so don't take this the wrong way but this seems to have been a hastily researched video not sourced from the latest or best Byzantine military scholarship.
The Cataphract as it is called did not disappear, not least because the terms "Kataphractoi" and "Klibanophoroi" may have referred to a less and more armored type of cavalry, and the latter term (what you depicted as a Cataphract) may have actually been only called a "Klibanophoroi".
Some historians take a lack of mention of Cataphracts to assume they were gone, but this is a period where Byzantine military writing was basically non-existent. Between the Strategikon of the 6th century and the Tactica of the late 9th century (which this video seems to be based on) there were NO original Byzantine military texts being written, and chronicles written by priests or courtiers were notoriously sparse on the details of military equipment and tactics.
Byzantine art depicting soldiers from throughout the centuries was similarly unreliable, usually depicting soldiers in equipment of the classical age such as Phrygian and Corinthian Helmets and Muscle Cuirasses! My point is that going entirely off of the few written or pictorial sources would give us a highly distorted and inaccurate picture of the Byzantine army.
Similarly, the use of a Greek Fire "Flamethrower" outside of the context of siege works is highly questionable, if not outright science fiction, though the use of field artillery is not.
The trend of the 9th-11th centuries is a decline or decay of the Theme system in favor of professional field armies capable of offensive military operations. Service in the Thematic armies was largely replaced with a tax burden instead, which allowed the creation of more professional cavalry regiments and increased use of mercenary forces, including the creation of the Varangian Guard.
The 9th and 10th century sees a dramatic enlarging of the "Tagmata" regiments, and the creation of new Tagmata forces. The Tagmata were almost entirely Cavalry. Cavalry was still the focus here.
8:31
While true, military manuals of the time do ascribe to procure better armor such as mail shirts, greaves and higher quality helmets to seasoned troops or troops in the frontal ranks of a formation.
While infantry was more disciplined, cavalry was the striking power of the army and infantry were more a mobile camp and rallying point for the cavalry, as well as garrison troops as your video seems to imply.
great docu recommendation, thanks
Can you do a video on kalvin rus? Military
I liked this video. It's a rare look into Byzantine armies. Hey have you ever made a similar video involving the Mongol or the Medieval Samurai armies.
My neighbour just accused me of being a barbarian. I'm gonna use this classic tactic against them! That should show them!
I don't think your neighbour would be expecting that
not sure that would be legal though. the police might frown on using greek fire.
Barbarian!
Show em! Make sure to focus on the flanks.
Do not trust the Armenians, Slavs and Bulgarians. They will betray you and join the Arabs
It would've been fascinating had the Eastern Romans survived into the modern era with arquebuses and muskets.
Roman soldiers with muskets lmao
Eastern Romans were Greeks with Roman citizenship and last time I checked Greeks still exist.
I always wondered what their uniforms would have looked like in the early 1700s.
@@gilpaubelid3780But their Empire did not survive till pike and shot era unfortunately.
they did , we call them Janissaries
"We had a military revolution, yes, what about second military revolution?" -Peregrino Tookpoulous
Eastern Roman tactics were indeed very complex and far more evolved than earlier Roman tactics, which only shows the amount of danger they faced on all directions, litrally on the battlefield as well as on the map.
No sorry traian army was definitely more complete
After the death of Basil II, the Anatolian-Land aristocracy wanted emperors who would undo the heavy taxes placed on them by Basil. Also, after the death of Basil II, the aristocracy was allowed to buy up land from the peasants which undermined the Thematic System which had been in place for hundreds of years. Instead of farmer-soldiers, the empire employed mercenaries. And their loyalty to the empire was only based on money and nothing else.
You should read "streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade" by Anthony Kaldellis. The whole "Anatolian aristocracy" theory is pretty much debunked. It's yet another Gibbionism that has survived until modern times.
@@lordcherrymoore5252 so what could be happened?the aristocracy,like happened in 5th century in western Roman Empire, didn't have too much Power?
@@alessandrogini5283The lack of a strong authority that could unite the Army and the Civil bureaucracy in Constantinople that has grown exceedingly unwieldy.
Basil? Someone actually named their son Basil with the intention they'd become an emperor?
@@olivere5497what? Did you know the name Basil originates from the Greek word "Basileus" which means "King"? That is literally *the* most apt name you can give to a prince who is expected to become the Emperor.
I really didn’t expect flamethrowers to make an appearance in this video.
You need to read about the flamethrower of boaotia
Ah yes, the "noob box"
Just a bit on the menavlion: As I understood it, the menavlion was primarily *thicker* than the normal spearman's spear. These spears were braced to the back foot and pointed slightly upwards with the offhand left free for a secondary weapon, the menavlion was thus more or less a "portable stake" whose task was to be pointed at the chest of charging horses. In the event of a cavalry charge (that actually hit the infantry), the weight of horse and rider would drive the point into the horse's body.
The "hoplitoi" or spearmen that made up the bulk of the infantry also had *much* longer spears than normal. I don't remember the actual length, but even the formations suggest they were significantly long. Why else reinforce the front with an extra row of hoplitoi (@6:45) if not to maximize the number of spearpoints directed at the oncoming cavalry?
You called the regular regiments Tagmata, that would be the reserve in the capital, the local regiments of the military districts were called Thema (Theme system)
Siege machines were not used in pitch battles, because they are well... for sieges. They are far too bulky, heavy, often immobile, and ammo is inconvenient, big, heavy, doesn't do that much damage to people as it does to walls. They did have some "cousins" which were occasionally used in field battles, mostly ballistae and its derivatives such as springald, but it wouldn't be correct to call them "siege" machines.
they invented the noob square
the consistency in the quality of this channel is beyond any other mil history production i've found on youtube. im really greatful for all your hard work, thank you
Glad you enjoy it!
Oplitarhis means leader of the hoplites (hoplite is the dude with a oplo which means weapon)
Taxiarchi is a term used even today in the millitary but the size has changed a few times, today its the formation of 3 thousand men if i remember correctly
Menevlatoi i have no idea how it translates cause we dont use it in modern Greek
Trigonos parataxis straight up translates to triangular formation
The heavy cataphracts were called Klivanarioi which means Klivanos wearers ,klivanos translates into furnace because they wore too much armour and it was very hot
Catapult comes from the Katapeltis which comes from Kata and pelto, kata meaning against and pelto meaning to throw , therefore the thing that throws against the enemy
Appreciate the in-depth depiction of Byzantine military revolution, particularly the emphasis on infantry. Komnenian army next ?
I wrote around 80% of the Wikipedia article on the Komnenian army, I think it is fairly good, but I would say that wouldn't I?
@@urseliusurgel4365wow thank you for your work. Much appreciated. Must be especially hard since information is harder to find for the Komnenian army.
@@zippyparakeet1074 Thanks for the appreciation! Luckily, I managed to get hold of a 2nd hand copy of the Birkenmeier book, which helped a lot.
Sowing the dragon's teeth. Ive waited for kings and generals to discuss the byzantine square. But it was you who delivered.
The characteristics of the menavlion that are known are only two: it had a thick shaft and a long head. No definitive assessment of its properties or how it was wielded is possible. The kontarion was a long pike-like spear used to ward off cavalry attacks. Therefore, the menavlion as a type of pike seems redundant, plus a pike is a thrust only weapon, a long head on a pike just adds weight to the end of a long pole, making it unwieldy, most pikes have relatively small spearheads.. The thick shaft - thickness is particularly useful for lateral, not longitudinal strength - combined with a long spearhead suggests a cutting weapon. In Norse accounts there is a weapon called a 'hewing spear', the menavlion was probably similar, a cut and thrust weapon, not unlike a bill in use, useful for dealing with cavalry who had broken through the hedge of kontarion- armed infantry. Someone armed with a long and unwieldy pike-like weapon would have been of little use in such a situation.
"if saplings of one piece can not be found, let them be made from wood cut into sections, but they must be made of hard wood and just so thick that hands can wield them." "... one hundred must have menavlia with a length of one and a half or two ourguiai, while their spear points must be one and a half or two spithamai..." That's 2.74 to 3.66 meters, some times made of two pieces of wood with a spear point on top of this. That doesn't sound like a bill-like weapon at all. A charging horse will shatter a normal spear. This appear to be thick stakes made of complete or separated, solid branches of oak or cornel wood.
If it had a thick shaft and a long head it could only have been used to thrust repeatedly until its wielder was overcome with an extreme sense of fatigue
@@PolluxA I said, like a bill in its use, i.e. a cut-and-thrust weapon, I did not mean it would resemble one in shape. There are a few Byzantine pictorial representations of spears with unusually long and quite broad heads, one of which shows the spearhead with wavy edges (flamberge). They are generally quite like the Carolingian winged spear in appearance. A long spearhead adds no extra functionality to a pike. Pikes have only one means of functioning to inflict damage, the thrust. A long spearhead is only useful if the long sharpened edges are intended to cut, while such a spear, obviously, retains its thrusting ability. Pikes also have to be used in massed formations, a pikeman on his own or in a loose formation might as well drop his pike and draw a sword, for all the use his pike would be. The 15th/16th century Swiss recognised that, in the case of a breakthrough of the enemy past the pike-hedge, arming the rear ranks with more pikes was folly. They armed their rear ranks, and the guards of their standards, with a shorter cut-and-thrust weapon - the halberd. The Swiss were not stupid, neither were the Byzantines.
As mentioned in the video, Georgios Theotokis is the man to go for further knowledge on this topic.
honestly turning the infantry into essentialy a big bunker inside of which cavalry can hide sounds like a good idea when playing bretonnia in total war warhammer
Byzantine military and SandRhoman, name a better duo.
It seems that much of the kingdoms and empires of Europe that tried to focus on infantry to counter the powerful cavalry of their neighbors in the Middle Ages and in the first two centuries of the Modern Age, always ended up basing themselves in some way on the tactics of the Romans and Macedonians or try to make a perfect combination of the two, being in this case the Byzantine version. I would love that you also talk about the tactics of the Eastern Roman Empire used in the times of Justinian the Great, since in my opinion it is more interesting for having managed to reconquer a large part of the old Empire with Belisarius and Narses, besides that I know that they used different variations of formations, where infantry and cavalry could optimize the mixed role they had at that time (basically all units were capable of using the bow, in addition to attacking with power in the Melee).
Why do you love this leader? He failed in all his wars against the Persians. He made Justinian pay money to the Persians
@@user-cg2tw8pw7j Battle of Dara? Cope
@@baccadaa This is not a battle, this is a siege, but after that he fought the Persians and lost, so Justinian took advantage of this by isolating this leader.
@@user-cg2tw8pw7j Persia has nothing to do with this, not even the Roman Empire in all its splendor managed to conquer it before (so it doesn't make any difference what Justinian achieved there against the Sasanians), the point of admiring Justinian is that he recovered his territories from Western Europe and Africa, Does that seem little to you? Justinian's plan was to put up with the Persians and reach a long enough peace (even if it was not profitable), to carry out his western campaigns and in that he did succeed; it was the closest the Byzantines ever came to reconquering the Western Empire. Reducing their management only to the conflict with Persia, where they did not have much success against Belisarius either, since the front remained practically the same despite the defeats (the war was more equal than what you want to say), is to look at it in a very subjective way the history of that emperor.
@@user-cg2tw8pw7j The Persians still lost the siege and then failed to push further into Roman Syria. Justinian paid off the Persians while reconquering Italy, Africa and parts of Spain with Belisarius. You are coping
Would love to see a detailed breakdown like this of Han Chinese armies.
Formations are so important to how warfare is conducted at the tactical level and I rarely come across such in-depth explanations of how they worked. Thank you!
That's why the Byzantine almost has a full army tech tree, especially human units.
I think you guys know what I am talking about.
Impero?
@@johntitor_ibm5100 AOE 2 :3
Another informative AND entertaining documentary. Great work!
Once again, a superb video sir. I truly enjoy your work.
The Byzantine Empire being the gateway into the middle east, the Levant and North Africa is one of the aspects that fascinates me. The intermingling of cultures and evolution of the army whilst looking to the Romans for inspiration of their professional standing army.
Just like how the Northmen that settled in Normandy had a complete cultural evolution from viking Norse men, infantry using longboats ,round shields to form shield wall formations and sacking monasteries to Norman Knights on horseback wielding kite shields that went on crusade for Chritendom , so to did the Eastern Roman Empire Evolve into the Byzantine Empire.
The Early Roman Empire had a distinct culture , Helinistic architecture ,tunic wearing nobility, legionaries fitted with Lorica segmentata, a Gladius and a scutum. At the split of the Empire into west and east, the separate governing bodies went about doing so in differing manners. The west still relying on the regular legionaries but faltering, thus using more and more mercenaries and adopting their shields, swords and armour such as Gothic armour and such at the end of the day the western Empire fell and this severely expedited the evolution of Eastern Rome into Byzantium.
With all connection to Rome in the west lost, the Eastern Empire utilised more and more soldiers from the region in their Empire. Soldiers from Greece, Anatolia, the Levant, some western parts of Mesopotamia and all across North Africa.
Thus their building material, their architecture and even their army was vastly different from the West because they adopted the effective practices and cultures of the people whom were subject to the Empire.
Thus the Eastern Roman army evolved into the Byzantine Army using lamellar armour coats of scale mail , cuirasses, casques and greaves of steel adopted from Persia.
Their shields evolved from oval auxiliary shields to enlarged round shields and then it evolved further into kite shields that were highly effective on foot as well as horseback.
Similarly their Swords evolved from the Gladius, to the Spatha and when they encountered the effectiveness of the shamshir of the Persians and kilij of other ME armies, they adopted this eloquent design into their swords thus the spatha gave way to the curved Paramerion sword.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramerion
You can see this clear evolution in their navy as well, the rectangular sailed Greco-Roman triremes were replaced by galleys , these galleys were revolutionised by the Byzantine invention of the Lateen sail.
A triangular sail set on a long yard mounted at an angle on the mast, and running in a fore-and-aft direction. This being the sail that most people to this day see as Middle Eastern sails. These sails were so revolutionary and effective because it allows a boat to tack "against the wind".
The Byzantine Empire consisting of the ME and North Africa caused this knowledge to be adopted by the Arabs and other ME + African kingdoms such as the Swahili. This sail was also later adopted by the Portuguese as seen on their Caravelles, this enabled the commencement of the age of discovery.
Brief notes on the Byzantines.
docs.google.com/document/d/1juSa0tBr49TJxy5n08mwpapOLscNuNTAnQGTa_A8mSw/edit?usp=sharing
There were Arab adventurers entering Roman lands, but they said that they did not differ in appearance from Muslims, and this is strange
the Byzantines had exterminated the Greeks of Greece for centuries
they themselves were called Romans and for the Greeks of Greece they used the diminutive Greki or elladikus
they were not used in the army because they considered them enemies and did not want to learn the art of war
So much misinformation in a single comment, honestly amazing.
@@zippyparakeet1074 The Romans loved the Middle East and were racist towards the Europeans. Man, when a German diplomat from the Holy Roman Empire came to make the daughter of the Roman ruler marry the son of the Holy Roman Emperor, the Romans treated him with disgrace and called them barbarians and expelled him twice.
@@zippyparakeet1074 this is what the written Byzantine sources say
we also have the Muslim and Byzantine alliance against Greek cities, e.g. Philadelphia
as well as the alliance of Byzantines and crusaders against Greeks in mainly Greece, e.g. in the revolution of Leon Sgouros
Thank you both for the informative video!
I am loving your videos on the Byzantines and their army - you explain all of the tactics, formations and so on in a very detailed way and no other CZcamsr comes close to this! Seriously good stuff, would love if you covered even more Byzantine history and armies (am biased tho!). And maybe contemporary armies in Europe compared to the Byzantines (late 800s to late 900s) or little know battles?
Anyways, great video, love it!
Ausgezeichnetes Video vielen dank.❤
informative in interesting as always. thanks and keep it up.
Great video as always!
Always happy to see you upload man. Going through COVID atm so i'm catching up on your older ones.
Its always amusing, seeing experts who've read one blog on this period getting all wet in the knickers about the use of the term 'Byzantine' for the later (East) Roman Empire. Yes, its not what they were called at the time. No, it doesnt matter a damn to those of is seriously well read on the period, its just a recognised shorthand.
Excellent video very informative thank you
Glad you enjoyed it
Fantastic video, mate! Nice and informative, love the stuff on formations
Much appreciated!
Very nice summary :)
This is so interesting! I didn’t have any idea there were military reforms to go along with Basil’s and later emperors’ conquests.
Great video! I hope we can find it soon on your german channel too!
Great video!!
This hilariously reminds me of the noob box formation in total war. It seems to have been historical 🤣
It's also a bit reminiscent of the Tercio IMO. Nothing wrong with going defensive historically, so long as you take the drawbacks into account
Almost as effective as the Noob Corner Defence where the magic red lines secure your flanks.
The art is amazing, where can I see it in more detail?
the offensive hollow square reminds me of the 1500’s era pike /musket formations of western europe. I wonder if the Latins ever translated any of those primary sources during the renaissance to gain inspiration for the Tercio?
Very nice video, I have never seen such a detailed description of the Byzantine army before. Learned a lot of new things. It is striking how the role of infantry had changed from the Classical period to the Medieval. They went from being the main part of an army supported by a few cavalry, to being a support element of a cavalry force. It kind of reminds me of a Bronze Age army of chariots supported by some infantry. Anyway, well done.
Of course it should be said infantry still made up 75-80% of a Byzantine Army.
@@tylerellis9097 well obviously because foot soldiers were cheaper to train and equip and were easier on logistics. Plus infantry was always needed to hold ground. Cavalry was the hammer, infantry was the anvil or whatever else it needed to be in order to support the cav.
@@zippyparakeet1074 Yeah….I know that
@@tylerellis9097 I'm just adding to what you wrote. Not disputing or anything like that.
Loved this video
Love it!
AFAIK the heavy Cataphracts also had long darts (Plumbata) they could throw as they advanced. I imagine the weighted darts would really help breaking up the infantry prior to the charge as well.
Another great video
Excellent video a research.
Byzantines adopted the Noob Box to great success
Please make a video on Brugundian Army of Charles the Bold.
Liking the new art style, are you the one who made it?
Very cool. Thanks! As much as I know about Byzantine history I didn’t know about these reforms.
This reminds me of wwii aircraft carrier warfare in a way. having a sturdy defensive “home base” of a ships convoy (in this case infantry square) from which the planes (cavalry) strike from and return to reorganize and regroup.
a defensive base and a strike force
I really like the new artistic style.
Nice video
Great, detailed analysis. Thanks, SandRhoman. The part detailing the cavalry tactics was especially interesting. I think such detailed descriptions of deployment and use in battle were what your video about hussars lacked.
Anyway, do you think it is possible you could go over the ways knights were formed and deployed during the Middle Ages and how it changed depending on the time and region of Europe? A big task I know, but it could form a basis for an entire series. If you also find that interesting.
he covered that in the infantry revolution video, at least a little bit.
@@clintmoor422 Yeah, I remember but as you yourself pointed out it was only a surface-level depiction of medieval cavalry. Adicute for the purpose of that video, of course.
WHERE CAN I GET YOUR ART? 😁🍻
This is very interesting and it humorously mirrors the most effective single player strategies in the videos games "Rome total War" and "Rome 2 Total War"
I'm guessing there's a variety of methods to counter that developed over the years. Excellent video.
Will definitely use this when I play total war. Thanks!
Danke das ihr ein Video über die Byzantinische Armee erstellt habt! Ich intressiere mich sehr für die Byzantinische Armee und deshalb habe ich auch das Strategikon des Maurikios gelesen, was ich nur weiterempfehlen kann!🦅🍻
Really wish to see a hypothetical battle between a 9th century Byzantine Army vs. a 9th century Tang army.
The Romans and Chinese would probably be allies rather than enemies since they fought the same opponents.
@@Shimra8888That's why I wish to see those two fight each other. We already have historical accounts of how both of them fared against the Muslims.
There is a book by D. Graff "The Eurasian Way of War: Military Practice in Seventh-Century China and Byzantium" that compares both military systems of early Byzantine era with China.
Not vey deep, but there are some interesting remarks there nonetheless, especially regarding military writing in both cultures.
Marvellous analysis and optics. Hopefully we'll get another one with the army of the late 13th to early 15th century, which is much more obscure, but definitely more interesting, as influences from both Frankish and Turkic armies are visual.
Would like to see you make a series on the seven years war in North America
Always a like for Byzantine content
There iS a typo in your description: it says rome fell around 500 bc, should be AD. Anyway enjoying the video
thanks, should be corrected now.
@@SandRhomanHistoryplease do on foregin troops in the Eastern roman army
@@ajithsidhu7183?
Been reading about ancient chemical and biological warfare. Could you do a video on those subjects to help my understanding of the ancient art of warfare?
It must've been expensive to pay for all the additional training and equipment that was necessary for the new military doctrine.
Seeing how the empire was at an historic all-time low at the time, the coffers must've been pretty empty for a lack of tributes from conquered territories. On the other hand, the shortened frontline and supply chains might have helped with that. It probably also helped that only core provinces, that were more loyal and less likely to rebel, were left.
Empire was not at any all time historic low during this period. 900s were the period of recovery of economic strength.
The Empire was certainly less rich than in its days of spanning across the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean, but by the 900s Byzantium can't be called poor anymore. Actually very rich in comparison with contemporary states in Europe and the Levant.
After the aftershocks and recurrent waves of the Justinianic plague ebbed away in the mid-700s, the slow disintegration of the Caliphate and the mostly successful financial reforms of the Emperor Nicephorus I, the Romans were on a pretty significant financial rebound by the time the 10th century began. Certain areas of western Anatolia had not been raided or attacked for years and were enjoying the benefits of sustained population growth.
There were many successful economic reforms during this period and its no surprise that this period of military reform and improvement coincides with a period of economic boom for the Empire. It was incredibly rich. By the time of Basil II, he had managed to amass enough wealth to rival the Empire's wealth during the time of Anastasius in the 6th century while lacking rich provinces of Egypt, Syria and the Levant and being constantly at war.
This level of wealth would no be seen again in Europe until the early modern period. Seriously. The Byzantine Empire was super rich and its lands were the most productive in all of Europe and the Middle East, not because they were super fertile but because the well oiled Byzantine bureaucracy- that they had inherited from their Roman past- ensured the land yielded good taxes while not exploiting the farmers. It was an excellent system and it resembles a modern nation state more than a medieval Kingdom.
The charge of the Byzantine Cataphracts was at a low speed and not at a high speed " gallop " like the European knights. and the opinions differ on which one was more effective , some refer to the superiority of the Norman knights over the Byzantine cavalry but some say that this superiority was at the time of weakness of the Byzantine cavalry and if the Norman knights faced the Byzantine cataphracts from the era of Basil II they would have been defeated , also Napoleon's cavalry charged at low speed like the Byzantine cataphracts and unlike medieval European knights
The Norman and most other European knights were definitely better than the Cataphracts, and this is evidenced by the early Norman victories over the Byzantines in southern Italy soon after Basil's death, but also by their very numerous victories later in the 11th century, when the Normans invaded the Byzantine Balkans, also during the Crusades, even though they had suffered some defeats, mostly because of the interference of the Seljuk Turks. That's not to say that the Cataphracts were weak, it's just that the Knights were better.
With regards to high speed versus low speed charge, high speed charge was generally better, except for particular occasions, and this was shown great many times even later on in history during the Early Modern Era and after the Middle Ages.
The Napoleonic cavalry performed both high and low speed charges, depending on the needs of the situation, but I think the same applies to the Knights, too, or the Polish Winged Hussars, as they would also perform as needed and required.
@@andreydragomirov8559 According to what I researched, low speed is used to maintain formation even after colliding with the enemy and continue to advance as infantry does , while high speed is used to cause a quick strong shock then retreat and attack again
But what is difficult for me to understand is how the knights could charge a pike formation directly while the horse was not armored, as was the case with the early European knights and the Polish Hussars. Did they accept the sacrifice of horses in exchange for achieving a quick victory? And also how could several rows of knights attack together without colliding with each other when hitting the enemy especially at full speed
The Byzantines did almost defeat the Normans at Dyrrachium until the Varangians broke formation and would continue to use them effectively against the Hungarians, Pechenegs and Seljuks.
What’s left of the Macedonian was smashed and destroyed at Dyrrachium though.
The Norman couched lance shock charge was a revolutionary change however and the Byzantines adopted it themselves afterwards and made use of Western Knights.
You can see the beginnings of pike and shot here. The greek fire flamethrowers, the catapults, the shock cavalry returning with Adolphus and able to shield behind infantry if needed. It's just a super primitive version of it.
Hi SandRhoman History, can you make a video about portugueses battles in aljubarrota and Diu ?
Interesting how similiar thisconcept, to me, looks like the later Spanish tercios
In a way the later Tercio is somewhat similar to this tactic, minus the double face.
The best video and representation I have seen on this topic. Can we hope something similar on komnenian army and or nicean?
Parte 2..porfavor
I just love your videos mam
interesting how the infantry developed. Seems sorta like an early version of the Spanish tercio, with them focusing so much on the pikemen
Someone has been reading new books ;D. This is fascinating, it predates pike and shot tactics! and its a clear forerunner but with medieval weapons!
What books are we talking about? I might have to look into them myself!
fascinating stuff they basically created a proto tercio
Could you please do a video on ancient-early modern chemical and biological warfare?
watching this for some ideas in regards to playing cavalry factions in total war games , very interesting indeed
Cimmeria = Strong + Civilised
nah... the worst thing in total wars is the fact that every reatreating unit is seen by the mechanics as "it lost the battle". I've tried a legit, well known and typical for some factions tactics (throughout the centuries) of cavalry scavengers, scouts and skirmishers and none of the Total War games (and I mean really, neither 1st Rome, Medieval, Empire, Napoleon, Shogun 2 and any newer) allowed me to make this tactics valiable. I scattered a couple of 3-4 stacks of light cavalry, like normal, sane and historical commander, into the enemies land and engaged in short battles with their supperior forces, burned villages (in TW that still allowed it like Medieval 2) and "siege" undefended cities with some milltia and every time I've ran from a battle or even played it and did some harassment and killing into their archers due to superior manouvers - but than retreated. Every time, no matter what and what game, the engine saw it as a "defeat" and send my "defeated stacks" into the nearest friendly city or at full extend of their range this turn. When in fact I should be able to choose when I want to retreat and hide to harass this army once more in the next round or mayne retreat and do something else. Sorry but the complex strategy does not exists in Total War campaigns xD
@@wlaba272 i actually wish i had actual reasons to retreat more often , i want to lose battles lol just so i feel like im at war , but yeah i used to interecept moorish reinforcements with hordes of jinetes
@@wlaba272 Also my biggest gripe with Total War. It just boils down to hammer and anvil your way through as well as possible, and continously try to surrend. Fancy formations, retreating into ambushes etc is all incredibly hard to pull off and not rewarding. Shame, for a game that focusses on ancient warfare they should definitely allow for more complex tactics.
perhaps you can try to divide your army into two before attacking. One of the smaller force attack while the larger army standby, that way even after harassing the enemy the former retreated back to the safety, the next division can still attack/do tactical maneuver @@wlaba272
Heck, that's how I play bannerlord also.
Makes me want to play Civ as Basil.
Civic (y) 🎉
สุดยอดมากครับ
500-770s AD was an era in which Roman Empire used heavy armored or light armored fast moving horse archers. It was much easier to use diplomacy and bribes and take advantage of heavy blows inside the enemy territory or destroy their infrastructure. Navy was also a powerful tool which combined both professional troops and a variety of levies (who trained in specific times during the year). It was better to have less troops but more experienced rather than draw levies from the populace. When the Empire managed to stabilize its control over its heartland in Europe, it was then the time to progress the military reforms which enabled long lasting wars.
Excellent job about presenting these reforms!!!
The Romans don't do this because they like civil wars
@@user-cg2tw8pw7j It had to deal with enemies in every front! They did what they could with the means they had.
@@peterlorios612 Even if a strong person appears, he will have a civil war and his eyes will be cut out
More Eastern Roman videos please!
Genuinely thought the hollow square was a much later formation in the 175) and 18th centuries
It was used in many ages. Already Romans at the times of Republic were using it sometimes. Wagenburg used by Hussites and then many other infantry units was also kind of hollow square just enhanced with wagons.
History of Anatolia is almost always a good watch let's see this one too
How tightly packed where are these formations of heavy Byzantine cavalry?
I see some pro player use this battle tavtic in attila total war.
IRL tactics dont really work in total war games since they are just stat based games while real life is mostly about morale
@@tsniperhd4405 I see player can beat a.i. Hun by large ornagel in block of soldier czcams.com/video/2-pMw_kiVTA/video.html
great
6:26 That sounds odd to me.
Ordering troops from the back line to front, some even carrying long weapon, through many other infantry like that sounds like it's gonna take a long time and cause disorder amongst the ranks.
10:50 confuse me a bit too. I guess if the gap betwen horsemen is big enough? Still, letting arrows loose in the middle of a charge still sounds like a recipe for friendly fire.
yet as you see, it didn't :)
as was mentioned in the video, the main focus of the training was to instill discipline on the recruits so it was done in orderly manner.. or else.
@@dimas3829 I haven't rewatch full video, but the ones I've timestamped said it as something you should do in said situation *(when facing cavalry), not [just] training to instill discipline.
Edit: inside [] and ()
Drills are important for perfecting simple maneauvers. Pre mechanisation it was all about how to march effectively and carry out basic changes in formation. In a professional army this would be done very frequently so the new recruits could learn from the surviving vetrans and keep the unit cohesion and experience. Feudal levies were only as effective as the regular muster, drill and experience. Hence the reliance on fortefied positions, sieges and relief forces. You can't risk a campaign outcome by being overly creative with unskilled, undisciplined people. So put them in a simple position to succeed. The professional military are always the core that any levy or conscription must build around. Nomads effectively are practicing survival craft and hunting as a unit so there is a military advantage here that allows them to march through lands and survive. But even they drill and practiced their skills.
9:38 I think it was Leo the wise to made imperial order to the cavalry to dress and arm as the way the Avars do.
It predates that. Maurice's Strategikon talks about the Avar patern of garment ect. It is in the first chapter. The Romans also adopted the pavilion tent from the Avars that then moved through Europe and characterised the middle ages.
@@gm2407 proper. you mean the "jurta" i presume.
@@ZakkWyldeman Can't see me using the terms 'proper' or 'Jurta' in my comment. I see one comment. Is there another one I left that has been deleted or hidden? I do not know the name of the clothing garment off the top of my head. Just that it was a cloak.
Not at all...that was Maurice, Leo's main influence in tactics, arms, and armor were the ancient Macedonian and Hellenic armies...he has an entire section dedicated to it in his Taktika
"By late antiquity, there was a single Greco-Roman Empire, but perhaps today we see more clearly the continuity of its dual nature than the ancients did. Both civilizations co-existed and both survived through the Middle Ages down to the present day;"
RONALD MELLOR, THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN GREEK AND ROMAN IDENTITY, p.118
The only thing not great about this video is that it's just 14 mins long.
I love the video! It looks like you took a Quora answer I made regarding the 10th century Byzantine army and turned it into a video 😂. Given the source material, it makes sense that we would discuss the same details.
From a greek thank you for this video!
They called themselves the Romans.
@@daddust Well you are right. That period Romei and the country Romania. But it is ok. Modern Greeks consider Byzantine Empira as part of their history for some good reasons the language to be the most predominant of these.
@@daddust Greeks where called 'Ρωμιοί' romans until 19th century. It was a greek empire, they where speaking Greek the people where Greek , their culture where a compination of Roman-Greek culture. So Denmark and Norway can't say that have viking heritage; Germans don't have a heritage from holy roman empire; those people weren't Bulgarians ,bulgarians had their own empire, Serbia was a vasal state at this time. Who was at that time Roman;
@@iwannisbalaouras1687 It’s the Greek nationalists. I bet you think Indo-European doesn’t exist. And the Greeks didn’t learn anything from the Egyptians.
@@daddust i said a thank you, because i like youtube creators talk about history of my people. Every civilization took things from the other. Where are you from;
They developed the noob box?
😢
To be fair, it wasn't the noob box back then. And then the Macedonian dynasty used it so well that it was copied by noobs everywhere.
Roman mindset of
Improvised, Adapt and Overcome still carry on to the Byzantine
I wonder how the capitol changed from Justinian times to the golden age. It must have been fairly vibrant.