Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 29th, 2017, 12:07 AM   #31

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 21,591
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
Don't forget that at the time of the Ostrogoth takeover the ERE was paralysed by fear and actions of of the Vandals by sea from Carthage. They had more to worry about than Italy and it wasn't easy to transport materiel.
The first proper "Kingdom of Italy" [the "Regnum Italiae"]. We've got a chronicle by Magni Aurelii Cassiodorus Senator [who was a Roman Senator in the age of the Ostrogoth Kingdom] ... in Latin [Cassiodorus: Variae II].

Yes, it was evident that the ERE had no possibility to aid the Western Romans in the brief term [they would have come later]. On the other hand, the Ostrogoths showed a great political intelligence administrating the peninsula and the Dalmatia. They kept the Roman administration [and the Senate] and they left the local population live well. Keeping just the command of the Army. Theodoric has reminded as "the Great", because he was a great monarch for real.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 29th, 2017, 12:13 AM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Anywhere
Posts: 1,169

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
In a few words, the Normans were in their "best moment" while the other powers [the HRE, the ERE, but also the Muslims in Northern Africa] weren't in their most marvelous moment. And the Crusaders were going on ... keeping them busy in Middle East.

Friedrich II of the house of Hohenstaufen would have changed the situation, but in early XII century, the Normans had all the room they wanted.
Not only their best moment. But the use of Norman Knights (both military and chivalry) in the regions were becoming a new sight to see. So the ERE and HRE had to think of a way to adapt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
Don't forget that at the time of the Ostrogoth takeover the ERE was paralysed by fear and actions of of the Vandals by sea from Carthage. They had more to worry about than Italy and it wasn't easy to transport materiel.
That is true. But the ERE had to focus on the Eastern front as the Sassanids were enforcing its troops ever closer to the roman border. And the Vandals became a distraction as it'll be evident that they'll just soon feel the scorn of Justinian's expiditionary force.

Last edited by Azarius Balios; December 29th, 2017 at 01:32 AM.
Azarius Balios is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 03:35 AM   #33

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,406

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
The first proper "Kingdom of Italy" [the "Regnum Italiae"]. We've got a chronicle by Magni Aurelii Cassiodorus Senator [who was a Roman Senator in the age of the Ostrogoth Kingdom] ... in Latin [Cassiodorus: Variae II].

Yes, it was evident that the ERE had no possibility to aid the Western Romans in the brief term [they would have come later]. On the other hand, the Ostrogoths showed a great political intelligence administrating the peninsula and the Dalmatia. They kept the Roman administration [and the Senate] and they left the local population live well. Keeping just the command of the Army. Theodoric has reminded as "the Great", because he was a great monarch for real.
Indeed so and the Ostrogoths were at this time a powerful unit. Under Theodoric they were in effect 'senior' to the Visigoths who were a mighty powerful unit themselves. But it's all about organisation and leadership - Theodoric had the skill to be able to take over the WRE and organise the remnants of the empire in the north and west. The Visigoths had no such leader in the post-Vouille period and Theodoric filled the vacuum. The Ostrogoths rarely came into hostile contact with the Vandals as the latter couldn't fight the Ostrogoths on the land and they couldn't match the Vandals by sea. I think there was amission/treaty of some type but I'd have to go and look it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azarius Balios View Post

That is true. But the ERE had to focus on the Eastern front as the Sassanids were enforcing its troops ever closer to the roman border. And the Vandals became a distraction as it'll be evident that they'll just soon feel the scorn of Justinian's expiditionary force.
I think it's fair to say the death of Genseric was the beginning of the end for the Vandal kingdom. Another king who should rightly be called 'Great' he could, understandably, never be matched by successors.

A perfect storm of events destroyed the Vandals. The death of Genseric, treaties with the Ostrogoths and ERE which put an end to the source of sea-borne booty. Consequently the disatisfaction of their Mauri soldiers (pacified by Genseric for decades) with the lack of booty and employment, their subsequent attacks and demands on the Vandals. And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, the rise of Justinian.

As is often the case with 'Conquerors', there weren't actually very many of them when it comes down to it. Down to leadership again. Tales of vast amounts of soldiers employed by Belisarius are just ridiculous. Not needed. They were very nearly conquered in 468, even with Genseric still alive - but the genius of Genseric combined with the incompetence of Basiliscus made the expedition to Carthage yet another of history's catastrophic defeats.

Last edited by johnincornwall; January 3rd, 2018 at 03:45 AM.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 01:04 PM   #34
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Anywhere
Posts: 1,169

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post

I think it's fair to say the death of Genseric was the beginning of the end for the Vandal kingdom. Another king who should rightly be called 'Great' he could, understandably, never be matched by successors.

A perfect storm of events destroyed the Vandals. The death of Genseric, treaties with the Ostrogoths and ERE which put an end to the source of sea-borne booty. Consequently the disatisfaction of their Mauri soldiers (pacified by Genseric for decades) with the lack of booty and employment, their subsequent attacks and demands on the Vandals. And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, the rise of Justinian.

As is often the case with 'Conquerors', there weren't actually very many of them when it comes down to it. Down to leadership again. Tales of vast amounts of soldiers employed by Belisarius are just ridiculous. Not needed. They were very nearly conquered in 468, even with Genseric still alive - but the genius of Genseric combined with the incompetence of Basiliscus made the expedition to Carthage yet another of history's catastrophic defeats.
Belisarius proved to be much of a great general and commander that Justinian himself was afraid of one day he'll be overwhelmed by his general's popularity with the Roman Army. (But! Belisarius stated he was no usurper.). however Belisarius did have his own private army the Bucellarii. Along with Hunnic mercenaries (the same huns who drove the vandals and goths from their homelands) that were employed by the empire. However! i guess it could've been psychological fear that the use of huns as swords for hire would've have played a role.

Also I have read that the Eastern Romans were viewed too oriental by some accounts. Wasn't sure its true or it could be that they were too professional, complex, and clean cut to look ragtag compared to the Ostrogoths or Franks. Since the Eastern Roman troops like Comitatenses and Legionnaires had the same armor and weapons (like lamellar made of iron or steel) that the goths couldn't afford to have. Yet! I guess the Ostrogothic didn't took a good look at their own army and thought that manpower and brute strength was the only way too win. Since I know mail armor was expensive to make and the use of leather armor was possibly worn by the majority. Sure soldiers had mail, but basically was reused. while all finance was directly sent to the church and monarchy.
Azarius Balios is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
ere, italy, lose, times



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aurangzeb The Cruel King of his times r The Great Emperor at his times ashfaqkinqz Asian History 207 April 22nd, 2018 09:09 AM
Why didn't Italy & Japan lose massive amounts of their territory after World War II? Futurist General History 37 October 20th, 2015 04:31 AM
What made France lose interest in Italy? bartieboy Medieval and Byzantine History 15 August 20th, 2015 07:19 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.