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 June 29th, 2015, 05:55 AM   #61

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,942

It is true that Byzantine defeats weighs more heavily than their victories, but that is a misleading conclusion when we compare them to the Roman Empire and it would be unfair for Byzantines....I think they both rank at least as equal on quality and prowess...simply because of the important fact that Byzantines faced-off against much stronger, more numerous foes...Romans never faced Arabs, Turks, Bulgars....the most significant threat on core Roman lands came from Hannibal and Rome with its resouces were able to put that to an end...while for Byzantines, Arabs and Turks for example pounded their core lands continuously for centuries....

Constantinople itself is enough to resemble Byzantine valor....had it been there in 674 and 717 AD, the chances that much of Europe would be overridden would be very high...
Essa is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 5th, 2015, 07:26 PM   #62

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,365

far more rival powerful empires. and the united Roman Empire from Augustus to Augustulus had a far larger taxation system, and population. They could afford to tax people for a large standing army.
notgivenaway is offline  
Old July 7th, 2015, 04:48 AM   #63
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 8

The Emperors of Rome had a military alliance with the Bulgarians of Khan Kubrat.
The main part of the army was by Bulgarians (Sarmats) goths of river Bolga (Volga)

- "Bulgaria" is the old name of all Thracian tribes !!!

2000 BC
- Bulgarians name comes from the name of King Bolg, son of King
Collad from Phrygians (Cimmerians). Bolg- area (people of Bolg).
- The names of the nations according to their kings are:
Bolg, Britey, Gauls, Saxons, Rossi, Vary, Frankie, Bremens and others.
- A little history:
by that time Phrygia given name of the continent "Europe"
"Greek mythology" is actually a Phrygian mythology!
Christmas before the introduction of "Christmas", was sang: "Kolade le, Kolade hey Bolg is born, Koladey !!!".
Later this chorus became synonymous with "festive day" (Coleda Day = Holiday).
in that time appears the title king (tsar) and Caesar (cesar)

1000 BC
- Later all these Phrygian nations (including Bulgaria) disintegrate
so-called "Thracian" tribes
Anti, Mizzy, Medy, Geths, Goths, Mermidons, Macedons, Sarmats,
Deroni, Vedas, Vesas, Vedy, Veny, Venets, Sclav- (Slavs), p(B)ELARGS, Odryssae, Bessie,
Friezes, Belgy, Bolgy, Sakas, Rossini and others.

- A little history:
by time creating Vesas capital city of Byzantium
by time is given the name "Bolkanski" (Bolg Khan's) (peninsula of Bulgarian Khan).
by time creating the title Prince (Kanyas) Channes

500 BC
- Later in Europe come Greeks (Danaans) conquered the management of separated Thracian cities.
- In that time the Greeks gave the name "Tracians(chatter)" of the divided Bulgarian tribes, which meant "chatter"
because their speech resembled the "clatter" of the Greeks, whose speech was hissing.
- More time Thracian (Bulgarian) tribes give the name of "Greeks" of the Greeks, which means
"Garchav (Puppet)" man (weak, twisted in person).
- The Greeks adopted the ancient mythology of the local Thracians! Later to legitimize historical
renamed from Danaans to Elin!
- Announce Thracian cities Sparta, Athens and Pylos to Greek. Finally attacked Troy and end
final Thracians, creating Greece.
- The Thracian Philip of Macedonia (Macedonia) was born in Pella and lived mainly in Filipopolis
(Plovdiv - Bulgaria). A Pella also is a city of Pelgars (Bulgarians).

0000 AC
- Rome rule the world
- One third of the Roman emperors are clean Thracians. (Some of them are Bulgarians)
- Roman citizens are clean Thracians say (Some of them are Bulgarians)

300 AD
- The name "Bulgarians" again returns to the Thracians of the Balkans
- The name "Dulo" is purely Thracian means "master" of Mizzi's families
from Balkan Peninsula. This is also the same kind of name at bulgarian of Volga (Bulga).

400 AD
- Byzantine rule the world

500 AD
- Later summarizing the Thracians are called Bulgarians, Scythians and Huns.

681 AD
- A state of Bulgaria after the formation of a military alliance of Bulgarians
(Medi Thracians, Macedonia and Mizzi) from the Balkan Peninsula and the Thracians Asparuh
(Huno gary) goths from the river Bolg (Volga).
Bulg Frisiec is offline  
Old July 7th, 2015, 06:22 AM   #64
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,055

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenis View Post
That was not the result of raw military power but rather of a combination of things that make a state powerfull.
East Romans just proved more able to cope with the cataclysmic changes following late antiquity. They would offer brides to enemies, they would tempt them with offices, they would have their agents murder their leaders, they would support their rivals, etc. Confronting them on the battlefield was just an aspect of their defence policies.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the byzantine military had different nature in different eras. There were periods that was based on a feudal-like system of horsemen and their small armies and others based on foreign mercenaries. The first system proved very successful but it was scrapped because many provincial lords became too powerfull and they would chalenge imperial authority. At later times, assembling ad hoc armies of mercenaries seemed to them more suitable than having a standing army. Mercenaries are loyal to the one that holds the money and their barbarian leaders could not bid for the imperial seat like roman generals would do.

To my opinion the decline started with the iconomachy, a terrible and seemingly silly civil war. Another turning point was Manzikert and the entrance of turkic tribes in Anatolia. The final blow came in 1204 with the crusader conquest of Constantinople.
A pretty big aspect. Rome between the 2nd century BC and the 2nd Century AD was at it's height. They basically went unchallenged in the Western World and crushed most anyone that went to war with them. The Byzantine Empire never reached that point.
Lee-Sensei is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 02:43 PM   #65
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: The Keystone State
Posts: 154

Were the Byzantines weak degenerates? No. There certainly was a weakness when compared to the Romans of the Pax Romana but the world had moved on. Roman methods of government and organization spread to the peoples who took over the empire, Germanic tribes that had developed a lot since the days of Augustus and Marcus Aurelius.

The resulting states in western Europe were far more capable than anything the Romans had to face in the classical period. The sort of Mediterranean dominating Empire that they had could not be reestablished nor was their time. Nor could the Muslims sustain one very long themselves.

The Arabs rose out of the desert and in a resounding series of victories against exhausted and demoralized Roman troops conquered Syria and Egypt, then moving on to North Africa. However the conquest of North Africa took the Muslims a long time, even if on a shoestring budget compared to other operations such as those in Central Asia. Despite this great defeat the Romans established a military system that was flexible enough to withstand numerous Arab raids lasting over 200 years from start to finish. At times the Romans took advantage of Muslim civil wars to intervene on one side or the other to keep them off balance. This balancing act was achieved at great cost in the Balkans however, leaving most of the region in the hands of various Slavic tribes and kingdoms.

Starting with the so-called Phyrgian dynasty a Roman rebirth took place. The Arab raids had ceased in intensity and the Caliphate begin to fragment. The economy began to improve and cities began to grow again. With the ascension of the Macedonian Emperor Basil a militarily aggressive Byzantine empire began to assert itself. This came into its own in the reign of Constantine VII. Under Constantine the Anatolian military families started to see their power grow. The Phokas family was one beneficiary. Nikephoros Phokas and his nephew John Tzimiskes fought back against the Arabs, making rapid gains. They may not seem that impressive compared with the campaigns of Julius Caesar but given the resources they had to work with and the opposition they faced the Roman generals conquered vast swathes of Muslim territory, and even forcing some Muslim states in Syria and Mesopotamia into vassalage. John Tzimiskes even conquered part of Bulgaria, fighting the Russians under Syviatoslav (SIC) who invaded the kingdom during a time of civil strife.

These successes were continued by Basil II. After a resounding defeat early on against the Bulgars that saw him barely escape with his life he faced a civil war with two claimants to the throne. After a few close calls Basil ended one war then another soon after. This left him free to deal with the Bulgars. Moving slowly but certainly the Romans conquered the Bulgars in several stages. At one point he faced a situation similar to that Harold Godwinson faced in England a few decades later. While campaigning in Bulgaria he got news of a Fatimid attack. Mounting as much of his infantry on mules as he could made it from one end of the empire to another in a short amount of time and defeated the Fatimids.

This period of great military success came with some problems however. Leaders got complacent, assured that all threats were dealt with. The Seljuks proved them wrong. A few border skirmishes resulting in minor cessations of territory to the Seljuks came to an end on the fields near Manzikert. The ruling Emperor Romanus Diogenes was caught out by a superior Seljuk force and Michael Doukas's rearguard retreated in the confusion of battle. This allowed Alp Arslan to surround the Roman army and Romanus was captured. Romanus was released after agreeing to cede territory to Alp and was murdered on his return home. This led to a civil war that allowed nomadic Turkmen to settle wide swathes of Anatolia, with the conquest of all but a small strip of territory across the Bosporus completed by the ascension of Alexios Komnenos. Alexios tried to stop the bleeding but the Normans, unsatisfied by their conquest of southern Italy, launched an invasion. The Normans got the upper hand but at the last moment left to help the Pope against Henry IV. Before they could resume the attack Robert Guisicard died at the age of 70 to fever. The Byzantines at the end were left incredibly weak, requiring the help of the Crusaders to restore control over the Anatolian coast.

Alexios and his son and grandson were able to build their military power back up by it was too late. At the death of Manuel the Empire entered a serious decline that invited the 4th Crusade and even further decline. At this point we can truly call the Byzantines the weaklings they have long been considered to e.
Slaytaninc is offline  
Old February 22nd, 2018, 08:38 AM   #66

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 895

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulg Frisiec View Post
0000 AC
- Rome rule the world
- One third of the Roman emperors are clean Thracians. (Some of them are Bulgarians)
- Roman citizens are clean Thracians say (Some of them are Bulgarians)
Apart from everything else the term bulgar as people doesn't appear in ANY historical source before 400 AD.

To claim thracians are bulgarians is like claiming that sumer is iraqi.

P.S. Please stop embarrassing bulgarians.

Last edited by TupSum; February 22nd, 2018 at 08:43 AM.
TupSum is offline  
Old February 26th, 2018, 04:59 PM   #67
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2018
From: US
Posts: 118

Due to a variety of factors beyond just typical military concerns, Byzantine power was very fragile, and has been mentioned, they were opposed by far stronger rivals than Rome ever had to face. Other than Hamilcar and Hannibal, both of whom were somewhat hamstrung by internal discord, Rome never had to fight a comparable foe. It's really eye opening to compare the extreme odds in the campaigns of Belisarius and Heraclius to that of say Caesar in Gaul.

Overall the Byzantines performed fantastically well, but contrary to Rome, they could not recover from defeats whatsoever. You should view the Byzantines as having very little innate robustness, while the Roman advantage was the exact opposite. The Roman Republic could shrug off the catastrophes of Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae happening within 2 years of each other and still maintain an army to shadow Hannibal in Italy and an army in Iberia. And there were plenty of others besides this. Hannibal's later victories like Herdonia, Varus's ambush in Germany, the battles of Arausio and Noreia, Julian's Parthian expedition, Carrhae, etc. Rome's list of major defeats is far far longer than the Byzantines. Part of Byzantine military strategy evolved to where they would not let their foe have the opportunity to inflict a major defeat unless they were already maneuvered into a large disadvantage.

Byzantine suffered only a few catastrophic defeats in over half a millennium, but each of those defeats either undid centuries of effort or required heroic campaigns to recover from. Heraclius managed to salvage his defeats against the Sassanians, particularly the battle of Antioch, by a couple of miraculous campaigns using a completely new level of military strategy in the west. But just the battle of Yarmuk took centuries to recover from, and Manzikert was a crippling blow.
Yuyue is offline  
Old February 27th, 2018, 01:50 AM   #68

Kirialax's Avatar
Megas Domestikos
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Blachernai
Posts: 4,392
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuyue View Post
Due to a variety of factors beyond just typical military concerns, Byzantine power was very fragile, and has been mentioned, they were opposed by far stronger rivals than Rome ever had to face. Other than Hamilcar and Hannibal, both of whom were somewhat hamstrung by internal discord, Rome never had to fight a comparable foe. It's really eye opening to compare the extreme odds in the campaigns of Belisarius and Heraclius to that of say Caesar in Gaul.

Overall the Byzantines performed fantastically well, but contrary to Rome, they could not recover from defeats whatsoever. You should view the Byzantines as having very little innate robustness, while the Roman advantage was the exact opposite. The Roman Republic could shrug off the catastrophes of Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae happening within 2 years of each other and still maintain an army to shadow Hannibal in Italy and an army in Iberia. And there were plenty of others besides this. Hannibal's later victories like Herdonia, Varus's ambush in Germany, the battles of Arausio and Noreia, Julian's Parthian expedition, Carrhae, etc. Rome's list of major defeats is far far longer than the Byzantines. Part of Byzantine military strategy evolved to where they would not let their foe have the opportunity to inflict a major defeat unless they were already maneuvered into a large disadvantage.

Byzantine suffered only a few catastrophic defeats in over half a millennium, but each of those defeats either undid centuries of effort or required heroic campaigns to recover from. Heraclius managed to salvage his defeats against the Sassanians, particularly the battle of Antioch, by a couple of miraculous campaigns using a completely new level of military strategy in the west. But just the battle of Yarmuk took centuries to recover from, and Manzikert was a crippling blow.
On the contrary, if Dyrrachion (1081), Anchialos (917), Versinikia (813), Pliska (811), and Anzen (838) don't demonstrate Byzantine robustness, then nothing will. The problem is with the historiography: only Yarmouk and Manzikert ever get written about.
Kirialax is offline  
Old February 27th, 2018, 01:51 PM   #69

Naima's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Venice
Posts: 2,118

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancaisP View Post
Compared to Western Romans? I believe Byzantines were the shadow of the former Roman empire when it comes to military and battle prowess.

They were easily defeated by Huns, Arabs, Turks and some Balkanites that arrived from North. How come they were so weak?
Seriously?


Mons Lactarius 552
Nivenah 627
Battle of Syllaeum in 677 AD
Kleidon 1014

Andmany many more victories for the eastern Roman empire...

Simply the western remained more "famouse" for Western Europe .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_battles
Naima is offline  
Old February 27th, 2018, 01:52 PM   #70

Naima's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Venice
Posts: 2,118

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuyue View Post
Due to a variety of factors beyond just typical military concerns, Byzantine power was very fragile, and has been mentioned, they were opposed by far stronger rivals than Rome ever had to face. Other than Hamilcar and Hannibal, both of whom were somewhat hamstrung by internal discord, Rome never had to fight a comparable foe. It's really eye opening to compare the extreme odds in the campaigns of Belisarius and Heraclius to that of say Caesar in Gaul.

Overall the Byzantines performed fantastically well, but contrary to Rome, they could not recover from defeats whatsoever. You should view the Byzantines as having very little innate robustness, while the Roman advantage was the exact opposite. The Roman Republic could shrug off the catastrophes of Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae happening within 2 years of each other and still maintain an army to shadow Hannibal in Italy and an army in Iberia. And there were plenty of others besides this. Hannibal's later victories like Herdonia, Varus's ambush in Germany, the battles of Arausio and Noreia, Julian's Parthian expedition, Carrhae, etc. Rome's list of major defeats is far far longer than the Byzantines. Part of Byzantine military strategy evolved to where they would not let their foe have the opportunity to inflict a major defeat unless they were already maneuvered into a large disadvantage.

Byzantine suffered only a few catastrophic defeats in over half a millennium, but each of those defeats either undid centuries of effort or required heroic campaigns to recover from. Heraclius managed to salvage his defeats against the Sassanians, particularly the battle of Antioch, by a couple of miraculous campaigns using a completely new level of military strategy in the west. But just the battle of Yarmuk took centuries to recover from, and Manzikert was a crippling blow.
Sorry but thats a pile of lies, Rome never fought comparable enemies?
LOL ...
Naima is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
byzantines, fighters, military, records, unimpressive, weak



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WWI military records help Davidsmom93 American History 1 March 3rd, 2012 11:05 PM
Official Records on CD-Rom Mosin History Book Reviews 6 January 23rd, 2012 03:40 PM
Byzantines? stung Medieval and Byzantine History 99 November 19th, 2009 12:22 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.