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 October 2nd, 2012, 06:30 PM   #1

Bamboozle's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Oregon
Posts: 88
Byzantine victories


What were some of the large, significant battles that the Byzantines won? Even after hard researching, I can't seem to find a whole lot compared to their defeats.

Also: how significant was the battle of Kleidon? It made the Byzantines the masters of the Balkans for the next 170 years, but is there more to it?
Bamboozle is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 2nd, 2012, 11:55 PM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,206

Kleidon came as what was largely a conclusion to a devastating war both for the Bulgarians and Romans, Samuel and Basil literally fought each other from their teenage years to when they were old men, they basically fought half a hundred years war all by themself. and the back and forth raids devastated both all of Bulgaria and most of the Byzantium Balkans as well.

So it was to much extend a pyhrric victory for Basil, the first Bulgarian Empire was finally totally destroyed, but so was half of the Empire. This combine with the overextension of the Empier (though largely due to it's annexation of Armenia ) really already laid the foundation of the disastors that await them in the next half century.


Another major victory is the battle of Acradiopolis in 994, where the Byzantiums staved off the potential horror of the Rus people under the then invincible Sviatoslav annexing Bulgaria.
RollingWave is offline  
Old October 9th, 2012, 06:34 AM   #3
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Oregon, USA
Posts: 60

I'd argue that Leo III's defeat of the Second Siege of Constantinople (or third? with a nod toward Kirialax) in 718 was one of the greatest turning points. Had the Byzantines failed to withstand the siege, that would have been pretty much the end of the Empire as they knew it. It was also such a devastating defeat for the Muslim armies that they made no further serious attempts to conquer the city for centuries. For one of the great turning points of history, with enormous significance for European and Middle Eastern history, the siege of 717-18 gets surprisingly little attention.
Joshuaspoppa is offline  
Old October 9th, 2012, 11:26 AM   #4

Sumrbrez's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: South Carolina, USA
Posts: 287
Rus


Quote:
Originally Posted by RollingWave View Post
Kleidon came as what was largely a conclusion to a devastating war both for the Bulgarians and Romans, Samuel and Basil literally fought each other from their teenage years to when they were old men, they basically fought half a hundred years war all by themself. and the back and forth raids devastated both all of Bulgaria and most of the Byzantium Balkans as well.

So it was to much extend a pyhrric victory for Basil, the first Bulgarian Empire was finally totally destroyed, but so was half of the Empire. This combine with the overextension of the Empier (though largely due to it's annexation of Armenia ) really already laid the foundation of the disastors that await them in the next half century.


Another major victory is the battle of Acradiopolis in 994, where the Byzantiums staved off the potential horror of the Rus people under the then invincible Sviatoslav annexing Bulgaria.
When I went to research the battle of Acradiopolis, your post came up at the top of the page. I used Meta crawler search engine. However the date of the battle is given as 974, not 994. And according to Peter Heather in his book Empires and Barbarians, Sviatoslav was ambushed in 972 and beheaded. So he could not have led the Rus in this battle. Heather also states that the Rus population around Kiev at that time was around 10,000. So the Rus could never have fielded an army of 30,000 as that article on Wikipedia states. Sometimes, Wikipedia can not be relied on as factual history. The Rus may have led the battle, but most of the combatants were Slavs and Bulgarians.
Sumrbrez is offline  
Old October 9th, 2012, 03:15 PM   #5

Bamboozle's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Oregon
Posts: 88

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumrbrez View Post
When I went to research the battle of Acradiopolis, your post came up at the top of the page. I used Meta crawler search engine. However the date of the battle is given as 974, not 994. And according to Peter Heather in his book Empires and Barbarians, Sviatoslav was ambushed in 972 and beheaded. So he could not have led the Rus in this battle. Heather also states that the Rus population around Kiev at that time was around 10,000. So the Rus could never have fielded an army of 30,000 as that article on Wikipedia states. Sometimes, Wikipedia can not be relied on as factual history. The Rus may have led the battle, but most of the combatants were Slavs and Bulgarians.
Sviatoslav didn't lead the army at Ardiocopolis, but he did spearhead the invasion of Bulgaria.

And you're saying the entire population of the Kievan Rus' was 10,000?
Bamboozle is offline  
Old October 9th, 2012, 04:07 PM   #6
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 758

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamboozle View Post
What were some of the large, significant battles that the Byzantines won? Even after hard researching, I can't seem to find a whole lot compared to their defeats.
first of all you must analyse the defeats for comparing with the victories.

if we take the defeat of a battle as a something that reffers exclusively to military, as you do,[as also if we do the same for the battles won] then you will see the opposite than that you refer.

as forexample the battle of matzikert which was a defeat, opens the gates to the seljucks not because of the loss of the battle but of the civil war which appeared after but its roots existed from before.
even to that defeat the emperor made a good deal, but to Roman/Byzantine empire what played the major role are the internal conditions , revolutions etc and not so, the loss of any significant battle, ===> except 2 : the 1204 capture of constantinople from latins and the 1453 from ottomans.= loss of the capital =disaster , but even those have their social background.

as an example ,if you study for example the life of alexios comnenos you can find how many defeats and wins has , so to compare, and see yourself the significance of each. in the most periods roman/byzantine empire fight for its surviving and this history travel pass 1000 years of surviving, so you can see how the defeats played role. > my opinion is that the romans/byzantines/romaioi have eliminated the results of great defeats, and when the internal conditions were ok that worked, when not, they had great loss .

even to the 1204 capture of constantinople from latins and the 1453 from ottomans, you have to study the internal conditions because they played very significant role and drove to disaster.

------------------------------

Last edited by ANAX; October 9th, 2012 at 04:12 PM.
ANAX is offline  
Old October 9th, 2012, 08:26 PM   #7

Bamboozle's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Oregon
Posts: 88

To clarify, my definition of battle is a pitched battle between two armies on a battlefield. The events of 1204 and 1453 were battles in a sense, but not in the traditional way: they were sieges/city assaults.

I meant "defeats" as in battles that altered the course of Byzantine history, not civil wars and revolts. Indeed the Seljuks did not begin to raid when until 1073 when Michael IV (I think it was him, not sure) stopped paying tribute.

I'm saying there were times when the outcome depended solely on the battle, not on what preceded or followed it. Mantikert is a good example: a huge, well-trained Byzantine army was crushed - not because of civil wars or anything, since those wouldn't directly affect a battle, but they were just bettered on the battlefield. While it did not immediately hurt the empire, it did so in the long term.
Bamboozle is offline  
Old October 9th, 2012, 10:47 PM   #8
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,206

The invasion of Bulgaria by the Kievan Rus was not a pure Rus invasion, as Sviatoslav has just recently destroyed the Khazar empire so he was then also the defecto leader of the Steppe people, so much of the army was nomadic Pechengs and other tribes that had been previously associated with the Khazars, an Empire that certainly was considered a rival by both the Byznatiums and (before their demise) the Sassinids.

According to "Byzantium's Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204" by Paul Stephenson (Cambridge Press) the year of the battle was 970 which I got wrong yes. but that was before Sviatoslav's demise (which came as he was pulling out of the Balkans). it is unclear is Sviatosalv was himself leading that battle, but it seems possible.

Eitherway, it is difficult to understate the importance of John I successful defense against said invasion, it was not as you seem to assume, a simple Rus invasion of a very limited number, but it was a combined nomadic invasion reminescent of those that came to define the late Antiquity Early Medieval period such as those by Attila and later the Goths etc..
RollingWave is offline  
Old October 11th, 2012, 03:32 PM   #9

M.E.T.H.O.D.'s Avatar
Eochair Feasa Foghlaim
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Gaillimh (Ireland)
Posts: 4,213
Blog Entries: 5

If you are interest in the age of Justinian, the Battle of Taginae(part of the Gothic War) is considered a brilliant victory for the forces of Byzantium.
the battle was a showcase of Narses' tactical skills; it was also politically important, being an instrumental event that led to the end of the Ostrogoth domination in the Italian peninsula.
M.E.T.H.O.D. is offline  
Old October 13th, 2012, 01:26 AM   #10

Irnik's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 519

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshuaspoppa View Post
I'd argue that Leo III's defeat of the Second Siege of Constantinople (or third? with a nod toward Kirialax) in 718 was one of the greatest turning points. Had the Byzantines failed to withstand the siege, that would have been pretty much the end of the Empire as they knew it. It was also such a devastating defeat for the Muslim armies that they made no further serious attempts to conquer the city for centuries. For one of the great turning points of history, with enormous significance for European and Middle Eastern history, the siege of 717-18 gets surprisingly little attention.
It's not a pure Byzantine victory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm View Post
Michael the Syrian says in his chronicle:

"Then the whole army of the Arabs was positioned on the western coast against the Golden Gates. He [Maslama] ordered that a ditch be made around the camp—one between it and the city and another one behind them [the Arabs], from the side of the Bulgars. From the left and from the right the camp was abut upon the sea, in which were the ships, loaded with an army—from ten thousand of Arabs and Egyptian soldiers—them he placed at the sea to fight the Roman ships; he sent a 20,000 strong army to guard the camp against the Bulgars; and he placed that much from the Syrians.
The Arabs were attacked by land both by the people from the city [Constantinople] and by the Bulgars, and in the sea - by the Roman ships, and on the other side of the sea [on the coast of Asia Minor] by the Roman vanguard. They couldn't get out of the camp to a distance greater than two miles, while they were forced to search for wheat. The Bulgars attacked the Arabs and slew them; those latter [the Arabs] feared the Bulgars more than they feared the besieged Romans. The winter came, but the Arabs were afraid of retreating: first - because of their king, second - because of the sea and third - because of the Bulgars. The wind of death grabbed them. Maslama lied to them, as he was saying that soon reinforcements from their king would arrive. The Romans were besieged, but the Arabs were no better than them. The hunger oppressed them so much that they were eating the corpses of the dead, each other's faeces and filths. They were forced to exterminate themselves, so that they could eat. One modius of wheat was worth then ten denarii. They were looking for small rocks, they were eating them to satisfy their hunger. They ate the rubbish from their ships."
Irnik is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
byzantine, victories



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Most outnumbered Military victories Revolution War and Military History 304 June 28th, 2014 10:13 AM
Most unlikely military victories Rasta War and Military History 71 June 28th, 2014 07:19 AM
Mixed victories diddyriddick War and Military History 48 June 26th, 2012 12:17 PM
Greatest British Victories general.wolfe War and Military History 60 January 12th, 2011 01:45 AM
Greatest American victories. srb7677 War and Military History 23 December 19th, 2010 07:13 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.