Talk:Byzantine army

Empty sections

• Army of Justinian I and his successors

I've just gotten my copy of the strategikon and will be going through Procopious' History of wars to correlate some data. Otherwise I'll be posting the strategikon's military organization and the information I previously noted below. Justinian1979 16:00 (GMT+8), 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Army of Justinian I and his successors

I can help with since I have access to copies of the "history of wars" by Procopious and Some parts of the Strategikon that give light to the bucellari military structure used by the Illyrian Generals. I just don't know how to proceed through this. Areas I can fill out from these books are: 1) Standard Soldier: arms, training, recruitment, roles, pay, and benefits 2) Warfare: How byzantine war is basically carried out, deployment, stratagems, SOPs, structure 3) Logistics: the empires economic state, limitations, resources and ability to produce and support armies. these are all covered by the books I cited and other sources which I can acquire. I just need to know how this basically works because Justinian's reign is my hobby and I'm new to this. Justinian1979 13:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that following sections are empty:

• The Armies of the Realms-in-Exile
• Byzantine Army under the Paleologi

Anyone with any knowledge of these topics, please help to improve this article by contributing at least something on these topics. Thanks! Bigdaddy1204 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that no one else is interested in this article, so I will have to make all changes myself. I am considering removing the huge lists of specific army units - they aren't particularly useful to the general reader, and they clutter the article as well as making it overly long. Also the article says little about what the army achieved, where it campaigned and what its successes and failures where. Where are the references to its battles? This article needs a lot more work, in my honest opinion. Bigdaddy1204 15:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested but I don't know enough to help. But this does seem like the appropriate place for a list of units and such...it's about the army itself, and info about battles and campaigns, while important, can already be found elsehwere. Adam Bishop 16:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well J. Birkenmeier's book entitled "the development of the Komnenian army" has a lot to say about battles and campaigns, so why not have them here too?

There are some other desirable sections that could be added to the article:

• Tactics
• Arms and equipment
• Unit types
• Byzantine Cavalry
• Byzantine Infantry
• Elite units

The only problem with all this is the time and research it requires, but I'll do what I can when I get time. Bigdaddy1204 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Similary to Adam Bishop my knowledge of post 1081 Byzantium is rather poor for the moment. As for the clutter we can distribute information among Byzantine articles, namely Byzantine battle tactics were we already present some tactics, arms and unit types. A Byzantine Military History article could (should) cover the campaigns and events experienced by the Byzantine military, much the same way the Roman series of articles was organised. Of course Bigdaddy1204 has named our major foe, Time. Moves and addition could be discussed here to avoid misunderstandings amongst editors. I'll see what I can scrounge up for a Byzantine Military History article. --Dryzen 17:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work on fleshing out the article Bigdaddy1204. --Dryzen 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dryzen! It's good to see someone appreciate this article. Hopefully we can get it improved over the next couple of months, possibly even to Featured Article status. It sounds difficult now, but I managed it at Manuel I Komnenos, with the help of useful suggestions and comments from User:Adam Bishop and the people at Wikipedia: Peer Review. Who knows what we can accomplish if we set our minds (and our time!) to the task! Bigdaddy1204 21:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Moirae (military)

Any of you ever hear of this Byzantine military administration? From its name I would think it a Meros (Merẽ)/Turma. From its commander's title its a Drungus/Chilliarchy and from its unit tree half the Imperial Tagmata. What ever it is it needs attention. Opinions and information is greatly appreaciated. --Dryzen 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I delete this or change it to Meros?--Dryzen 13:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if you change it. Sorry I couldn't help more though, I know too little about it. How can we get more people involved in this article? Shall we submit it for Wikipedia Peer Review? Or maybe try to get some help over at the military history project? Bigdaddy1204 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of it myself and I've done quite a bit of reading on the Byzantine military and its administration. Thats why I was asking questions, this could be made up or some anachonism/revision, where Moirae is a modern greek term but does not reflect on the Byzantine. Considering its a stub withotu activity since Febuary, exept to revert vandilism, the article was written by an Anonymous in septembre 2005, the same fellow who wrote [[Drungarios], wich in english is written are Drungary (title) or Drungus(unit), I dont think many voices will be raized now. Plus I have given 2 weeks time(of wich I have had no responces) to naswer my questions... :oP--Dryzen 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Stirrups

I would avoid the term 'Dark Ages' especially when trying to define the chronology. I would suggest the term 'Late Antiquity' or the specific century. In any case, the stirrup wasn't introduced into Europe until the Avars, long after the cavalry had expanded. Jacob Haller 05:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

This article needs a lot of work. As I read through I often get the impression that it contains text from somebody's academic devoir. It also makes many unverified and/or simply erroneous claims. For exampe, the laughable claim about the Byzantine military's pure ancient Roman heritage which is repeated in several sections (including the lead), or the claim that the Varangian guard ended in 1204, which a mere view and not a fact. The article lacks vital information on the Empire's Greek-hellenistic root which was almost as important as the Roman root, plus the various Germanic and Asian influences received throughout the centuries. Information on various sporadic units such as the Tsakonians or the Cretans (the latter being the 15th century replacement of the Varangians) are completely missing as well. And what is the deal with the Immortals (Byzantine)? The article should be called "athanatoi" which is my knowledge the most popular term, and its claims should be verified. Cheers. Miskin 00:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Many (if not most) Byzantine articles need some good clean ups and much further work. Often times, a major source of error commes from its constant devellopement over its long existance. And hte fact that information is not as readily available as it is for other medieval puissances. Not to mention some editors being influenced by video games or novels, or taking what was was common in one century as common in all centuries. But I should not talk ill, I've hardly been able to put the information that I'dd want into these articles. Therfore although not part of the problem, my part in the solution has been meager. --Dryzen 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Propose the move or it can wait till later on I will. I think you have a very valid point. Most other Byzantine unit names are based either on there greek or latin origins. The rticle itself also needs some working...--Dryzen 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should mention video games. I have a confession to make. I was i=only first interested in Byzantium because of video games! But of course, I do not use them at all, er hem.Tourskin 05:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm only interested in them because of video games too. Which one got you interested in them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.117.222 (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

I'll admit I've done much more research on Late Roman and Barbarian armies than on Byzantine armies. I'm not an expert in the latter field. Some of my edits involved tightening the prose. Important edits included:

• Removing the reference to Hellenistic armies. The Byzantine army and its structure was directly derived from the Late Roman army with its structure (Magistri Militum commanding field armies, which later become themes, Duces commanding border armies, etc.). There were several centuries between the last Hellenistic armies and the Byzantine ones, and no organizzational connection except through the Roman army.
• Correcting Missionary to Mercenary. Jacob Haller 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Byzantine armies had a strong Greek-hellenistic origin which was alien to the Roman armies of Italy, does not contradict the fact that they had a Roman origin too as their basis - so citing sources to prove the existence of a Roman origin does justify your reverts. The article makes no claims on which root was stronger than which, but the Roman one is mentioned first. Really, I don't understand what your problem is, this comes from a very specialised source ("Romano-Byzantine Armies 4th - 9th Century") which devotes an entire section on describing how the Greek-Hellenistic element on the Byzantine armies made them different than the Roman armies. It also regards the themes as an important Byzantine innovation and not simply as something adapted from the Romans. I'm reverting you again for clear violation of the WP:NPOV policy. I'll correct 'missionary' myself. Miskin 09:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about the Byzantine Army which was a military/adminstrative organization inherited from the Roman Empire, not Byzantine Culture in general which mostly reflects Hellenistic roots. AFAIK, Treadgold's Byzantium and its army, 284-1081 is the best-regarded work on the subject. Treadgold, p. 23 states:

These themes were simply the mobile armies of the previous period, now stationed in specific districts also called themes. Since Greek had become the empire's dominant language, the armies had Hellenized names. The army of Armenia became the Armenian Theme in eastern Anatolia. The Army of the East became the Anatolic Theme - meaning "Eastern" rather than "Anatolian" - though it had retreated to central Anatolia after what had been the East was mostly lost. The army of Thrace became the Thracesian Theme, in western Anatolia where Heraclius had withdrawn it. The two praesental armies, recently known as the Obsequium or "Retinue," became the Opsician Theme in northwest Anatolia and southern Thrace...

Treadgold p. 24 attributes the land grant policy to Constans II. Jacob Haller 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the use of Greek (at first in addition to, later instead of Latin) affects organization, tactics, etc., nor how other specifically Hellenistic influences could do so. The Roman army of course recruited non-Roman troops, copied non-Roman weapons and tactics when they worked, etc. and the Byzantine army continued to recruit non-Greek troops, copy non-Greek weapons and tactics, etc. Jacob Haller 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Some additional material

The equipment section is unclear, it seems to refer to just the Late-Roman scene. Middle Byzantine representations of armoured troops are very common, if stylised. The Middle Byzantine, and later, general purpose sword was the spathion, which was straight, from c. 1150 illustrations also show a single edged sabre, with a very slight curve, which may have been called a paramerion. Military treatises, such as that of Leo the Wise, describe armour and weapons with some precision, such as "chalkotouba" greaves, face-covering mail aventails and the unit-specific uniform items such as shield colours and plumes.

The difference between the kataphract and the reintroduced klibanophoros of Nikephoros Phokas is not highlighted. The klibanophoroi were far more heavily armoured than contemporary Western cavalry and it was not until c. 1200, if not slightly later, that the Western knight became definitively more heavily armoured than the most completely armoured Byzantine cavalry. Anna Comnena describes her father, Emperor Alexius I, pulling his mail aventail from his face when escaping from the disasterous Battle of Dyrrachium in 1082, no Westerner had completely face-covering mail defences at this time.

The radical change in the army between the defensive thematic force and the army used for offensive actions from the time of John Kurkuas, is not commented upon.

Urselius 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Great

This article is fantastic. I salute those who made it!!!Tourskin 01:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of the Byzantine Military Collapse

I'm pretty sure this section violates the "No Original Research" policy... 134.82.109.53 11:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Akritoi added

Hi, I added Akritoi to troop types. I can't really find many sources on them, the main source I have is from Osprey MAA195. See the Akritoi article if you have any comments or additions to make. Wiki1609 13:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I hope one day that this becomes an FA. Well I am going to seriously expand the intro so hope you guys will edit as you see fit - though by "see fit" I don't mean mercilessly remove it Tourskin 08:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I made this one http://nik1979.deviantart.com/art/Byzantine-Horse-Archer-51866965 would this be helpful? Justinian1979 (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As strange as it sounds only once have I see a picture of a Byzantine soldier, with his horse, armor and sword, which I did not think was too accurate. Does anyone have pictures or representations of their infantry, heavy calvary, light calvary, etc? Kostantino888Z (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute?

There is a neutrality dispute tag in the "Byzantine military philosophy" section. It wouldn't hurt if whoever put it there would share a few words with us as to the reason of the dispute. Otherwise I think we could remove it.Steloukos (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Soldier numbers - armies too big

The numbers quoted for Byzantine army sizes are far too big. Theodore Laskaris could barely scrape together 2,000 to 3,000 men for the Battle of Antioch on the Meander in 1211. We know the standing army of Michael VIII was 6,000, and that this was reduced to 3,000 under Andronikos II.

Even in the 10th century, when the Byzantine Empire controlled the whole of Anatolia, Emperor Nikephoros II was writing that the imperial army should have 8,200 riders. Whittow estimates that the entire cavalry of the 10th century empire was 10,000 and the number of infantry 20,000.

The lower numbers make far more sense, considering that by 1282 the empire had been reduced to a small strip of coast in Anatolia and the Balkans. I feel that the table should be changed to reflect a more realistic Byzantine army of 6,000 in 1282 - and many of the other numbers should be reduced too. A reasonable estimate could look something like this:

• 963 30,000
• 1025 40,000
• 1081 10,000
• 1143 25,000
• 1282 6,000
• 1321 3,000
• 1453 1,500

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The numbers quoted are mainly from Treadgold's works. I completely agree that some of his numbers seem far too big (especially those after 809), however I have yet to find a secondary source with estimates as detailed as these. Hopefully someone can find more recent estimates and replace those listed accordingly.

For example in Paul Magdalino's collection, "Byzantium in the Year 1000", it was estimated that the total number of soldiers (not including navy) under Basil II was about 110,000. To me this figure seems more accurate than 250,000. Also I think with your estimates are very reasonable, but (correct me if I'm wrong) they seem to be estimates of the army's field strength rather than total strength all throughout the empire. If we choose to use those then we will have to change the rest of the numbers too.

Thank you for all your contributions to Byzantine history on Wikipedia, Bigdaddy1204. Archangelos1180 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Regular vs. Reserve

Archangelos; without getting into the specific numbers, the issue is the difference between its standing army--The Tagmata--and the Thematic 'Armies'. These are really collections of (as I know you know) settled veterans, but as I recall they inherited family liabilities for service. So we can argue about the size of standing armies, but the TOTAL number of men liable for service and actually deployable would be large and variable depending on a whole range of conditions (time of year, place, harvest, financial conditions of the Empire, etc). You might have a large army for a specific battle, but perhaps only a fraction would be professional soldiers, the rest being mobilised reservists. Or perhaps only a small force of professionals or smaller one of reservists. This being said, I think you are absolutely right to insist on lower numbers. Pre-modern armies are--almost as a rule--never as large as source texts insist, for a whole host of reasons. A good book on this is Engel's "Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army" which computes mathematically upper limits for the size of horse- and ox-driven armies. The number of horse you can deploy in a single place is determined by fodder and water very in very strict measures. I recommend a read. KC Gustafson (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

660?

What is the significance of the year 660 (in the infobox)? Srnec (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Byzantine army/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs better structure, copy-editing and citations.--Yannismarou 17:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 10:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Byzantines and "Holy War"

Under the heading "Byzantine military philosophy" is the following statement: "It is worth noting that the Empire never developed or understood the concept of a 'holy war'".

This is highly interesting. Now I'd like to see some evidence for this bold statement. As far as I remember the Byzantines had no problems calling the crusaders for help. A crusade is a 'holy war'. I have a problem not to interpret this as direct contradiction to the first statement. 2003:CA:A3CE:C73E:3C5A:EA60:B4C:69D0 (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The whole section is dubious opinion verging on nonsense, with no sources. I’ve taken it out and replaced it with a couple of simple but mainstream sentences from the lede of Byzantine battle tactics. It needs developing though. DeCausa (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byzantine army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110216085159/http://www.levantia.com.au/military/Fit_for_the_Task.pdf to http://www.levantia.com.au/military/Fit_for_the_Task.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)