Byzantines - The "useless civilization"

[sennomulo]

Also the only people to be such a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire that they felt the need to scatter them throughout the whole empire to shut them up.

BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Schtum.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in.

 

[Fruidoc]

A short, fun history of the City of Byzonstanbul....yeah.

The city of Istanbul began as a small Greek fishing village (Byzantium). Later, the Roman Emperor decided to make it a place of great splendor and magnificence (Constantine) away form the barbarians threatening Rome. So he moved is capital there (safety, good trade location on the Bosphorus). It was now the center of the Roman Empire (from which it had been conquered long long ago). It prospers from there for a time. The Roman Empire splits (OH NO!), Rome and CONSTANTINOPLE rule separate ends of vast stretches of land. Rome falls. The Latin influence upon the East is diminished. From their Greek heritage and outside influences, the Empire develops in its own way. At this point, it really begins to flourish, becoming a distinct civilization the likes of which the world has not yet seen. But alas! harsh times are ahead - plague and new, determined invaders threaten. The West is reforming, but the Turks have arrived. The defeat of the Imperial Troops at Manzikert has proven the once invincible armies of the Empire defeatable, and the Turkish menace has shown itself to be more than just a thorn in the Empire's side. The inhabitants of former Western Roman Empire sack Constantinople (I thought they were our friends! Our Friends! - Curse them, We hates them!) reducing it from its former glory. Badda-bing badda-boom, the Turks resolve to take the city (under Mehmet II) and massive bombards tear down the massive (greatest fortification the world has EVER seen) Theodosian Walls and Constantinople is conquered for good. The Turks move in and establish it as their capital - a blessing for the city, making it, once more, the jewel of the slightly west of east, slightly east of west. Hurrah!

Byzantium >>Constantinople>>Istanbul
And anyway, what's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet....

And now I have been forced. Yes, forced to go into the area of military tactics and policies. I told you I didn't want to do this....but I've come up with a simple solution - I'll just compare and contrast in lists rather than in long, boring paragraphs that don't seem to get to the point.

Rome - The basis of the armies of Rome was in their Infantry. Heavy infantry carried the weight of the Empire on it's shoulders, with strict military discipline carrying victory over the disorderly masses of barbarians.

The army of Rome was, for the time, especially significant in that it did all the work it need by itself. A fort? Sure! Lets build it! This led to the wonderful system of roads that spanned the Empire.

But these Infantry armies eventually grew to be outdated. Remember, this was in a time that was before the significance of the horse. They were not used proficiently, and this aided in the Western Empire's downfall. The barbarians, especially the Franks, grew to use horses as a staple (with the invention of the stirrup) and the Roman Legions were often outmaneuvered. This was not the reason for the fall of the Empire, but it certainly didn't help.

Basically though, the Army of the West was infantry based - Heavy Legionnaires and light Velites. (I don't pretend to know all about Roman Military tactics, though. I study mostly Medieval tactics...alas...BUT I HAVE READ VEGETIUS!)

Constantinople - Ahhh now this gets interesting...Early on, the Eastern Roman Empire used similar tactics to those of the West, but soon, Eastern influences developed. Armies took on more of a horsy appearance all around Europe (In the West {Middle Ages} Cavalry was the main force, often making up the only significant part of an army). The Easter Romans used Cataphracts, a distinctly Eastern invent, which were very, VERY heavy cavalry. The armies in the Easter Roman Empire would use Scale Mail instead of Chain Mail (<More so in the West). As well as Cataphracts, the Eastern Romans also used horse archers proficiently, and these too became a staple.

The role of infantry differed from ruler to ruler, however, with a similar level of discipline reigning throughout.

-----Ok, ok, so the Military analysis wasn't as substantial as I expected. I'm having an off night, and I'm doing it all from memory. Nevertheless, military varies from region to region, but often it defines a civilization more so than one can imagine. When the Americans were fighting the British, they often refused to fight a 'Gentleman's War', using guilla tactics often. Tactics were often area specific, with different reforms defining the Army of a particular country or Empire.

I didn't help this situation at all, did I....

Well, the Byzantine Empire is in, so whether it is useless or not is irrelevant.

*** I just had a revelation, so bear with me - Rome is a classical period civilization, correct? You can't really think of it as all as anywhere past that, since in reality, it defined the classical era - classical civ.

Byzantium on the other hand, is most often associated with Medieval Era and is therefore considered a medieval civ. This is -one reason- why Byzantium should be in - it defined an entirely different era in time than its predecessor.

Sorry for going back to this so often, but consider America. It reached it's peak in the modern era, becoming the most prominent country out there. It was originally just an extension of British Empire and culture, but it branched off. While Britain declined, America flourished. Britain was king in its own time, America in another.

I doubt this helps anything, but there it is.

 

[Tonifranz]

Basilisk1,

I too enjoy this conversation. It's been intellectually stimulating, and a pleasure to the mind.

For your example to be more apt, let's say that the thirteen colonies did not revolt in 1776. Now, the Americans would still consider themselves British and loyal to crown and parliament.

In 1805, Napoleon somehow was able to land his grand armee into Britain and occupied the British Isles, and the British King and Parliament fled to the North American continent. They set up shop in, say, Boston or New York, and they failed to reconquer the home islands.

Every institution of the old country was adapted wholesale into the new continent, although it would be substantially modified by the new environment.

Now, the culture of French occupied Britain and the British North America would substantially diverge in time that in about three hundred and four hundred years, the language and culture would be totally different. The British would island would speak a modified kind of French, while the North American would speak some kind of English and cling to the traditions and pretensions of Britain even if Britain isn't in their hands.

Now which of the two lands could more plausibly claim to be the continuation of the British tradition?

The reason why the United States of today is different from the UK. They consciously and deliberately separated themselves from the British and clearly and loudly shouted those distinctions to the world.

The parallel would be if the provinces of Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and Judea consciously declared their intention to secede, and call themselves the Byzantine Empire, and state that they would categorically deny any involvement with the legitimate government in Rome.

However, I don't deny that Constantinople in 1453 is far far different from Rome in 476.

Culturally, the Classical Rome and Byzantium are very different, and if civilization is defined purely on basis of culture, then Byzantium and the Rome of Augustus is different civilizations.

But a civilization is more than culture.

A Greek living in Tarentum in 45 BC could say that he is under Roman civilization.

A Greek living in Athens in AD 120 is a Greek, yet also part of the Roman civilization.

A Samnite living in Capua in AD 70 could say he is under Roman civilization.

A citizen of the empire in the time of Diocletian would be part of the Roman civilization, whether that citizen speaks Latin, Greek or Aramaic.

Simply put, Roman civilization and being Roman simply means being a Roman citizen inside the boundaries of the Roman Empire.

The state that survived the fall of the West, was, as you stated, Roman, and called the Roman Empire. The cultural mix and basis of the empire was radically altered, but the basis of the Roman civilization was not an exclusive culture, otherwise people like the Sabines and Samnites and Spaniards and Greeks and Jews could not become Roman citizens hence members of the Roman civilization itself.


So the Byzantine Empire is in fact the Roman Empire and the civilization could properly be called the Roman civilization, even if much of the civilization took from Classical Greece than from Classical Rome.

The fact is, it is possible to be Greek speaking and part of the Roman Empire and part of Roman civilization during the time of Scipio, Caesar, Trajan, Diocletian, Justinian, Heraclius, Basil, Alexander Comnenius, or even Constantine XI.

Roman civilization is not exclusive to the Latins and Latin speaking people, nor does it exclude anything Greek.

Roman and Greek are not mutually exclusive concepts during this time.

 

[Antilogic]

The state that survived the fall of the West, was, as you stated, Roman, and called the Roman Empire. The cultural mix and basis of the empire was radically altered, but the basis of the Roman civilization was not an exclusive culture, otherwise people like the Sabines and Samnites and Spaniards and Greeks and Jews could not become Roman citizens hence members of the Roman civilization itself.


So the Byzantine Empire is in fact the Roman Empire and the civilization could properly be called the Roman civilization, even if much of the civilization took from Classical Greece than from Classical Rome.

The fact is, it is possible to be Greek speaking and part of the Roman Empire and part of Roman civilization during the time of Scipio, Caesar, Trajan, Diocletian, Justinian, Heraclius, Basil, Alexander Comnenius, or even Constantine XI.

Roman civilization is not exclusive to the Latins and Latin speaking people, nor does it exclude anything Greek.

Roman and Greek are not mutually exclusive concepts during this time.

I wanted to call attention to the latter part of your post--reading this inclines me to believe you have some good knowledge of history, and might even be professional. The notion of "Byzantine" is a modern one, introduced if I'm not mistaken, during the late Middle Ages. The actual "Byzantines" themselves called themselves the Eastern Roman Empire, and held onto that name until its demise.

Even still, I would vote for the Byzantine Empire's inclusion into the game. Sorry if I've said everything that has already been said before (I'm just starting to look at this massive forum for BtS, and haven't read everything since the OP). I'm not a world map player, so I don't care if there is an extra Middle Eastern Civ in the game. Or Mediterranean. Or European--because the Byzantines are all those things. They were a personal favorite from CivIII Conquests for me, so I'm glad to have them back.

 

[Tonifranz]

Even still, I would vote for the Byzantine Empire's inclusion into the game. Sorry if I've said everything that has already been said before (I'm just starting to look at this massive forum for BtS, and haven't read everything since the OP). I'm not a world map player, so I don't care if there is an extra Middle Eastern Civ in the game. Or Mediterranean. Or European--because the Byzantines are all those things. They were a personal favorite from CivIII Conquests for me, so I'm glad to have them back.

Oh yes, I agree. I love the Byzantine's inclusion in the game. If only that it would mean that there would be two Roman Empires in the games--one Latin based and the other Greek based--and there would be three Roman Leaders instead of two.

 

[Titus001]

A short, fun history of the City of Byzonstanbul....yeah.

The city of Istanbul began as a small Greek fishing village (Byzantium). Later, the Roman Emperor decided to make it a place of great splendor and magnificence (Constantine) away form the barbarians threatening Rome. So he moved is capital there (safety, good trade location on the Bosphorus). It was now the center of the Roman Empire (from which it had been conquered long long ago). It prospers from there for a time. The Roman Empire splits (OH NO!), Rome and CONSTANTINOPLE rule separate ends of vast stretches of land. Rome falls. The Latin influence upon the East is diminished. From their Greek heritage and outside influences, the Empire develops in its own way. At this point, it really begins to flourish, becoming a distinct civilization the likes of which the world has not yet seen. But alas! harsh times are ahead - plague and new, determined invaders threaten. The West is reforming, but the Turks have arrived. The defeat of the Imperial Troops at Manzikert has proven the once invincible armies of the Empire defeatable, and the Turkish menace has shown itself to be more than just a thorn in the Empire's side. The inhabitants of former Western Roman Empire sack Constantinople (I thought they were our friends! Our Friends! - Curse them, We hates them!) reducing it from its former glory. Badda-bing badda-boom, the Turks resolve to take the city (under Mehmet II) and massive bombards tear down the massive (greatest fortification the world has EVER seen) Theodosian Walls and Constantinople is conquered for good. The Turks move in and establish it as their capital - a blessing for the city, making it, once more, the jewel of the slightly west of east, slightly east of west. Hurrah!

Byzantium >>Constantinople>>Istanbul
And anyway, what's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet....

And now I have been forced. Yes, forced to go into the area of military tactics and policies. I told you I didn't want to do this....but I've come up with a simple solution - I'll just compare and contrast in lists rather than in long, boring paragraphs that don't seem to get to the point.

Rome - The basis of the armies of Rome was in their Infantry. Heavy infantry carried the weight of the Empire on it's shoulders, with strict military discipline carrying victory over the disorderly masses of barbarians.

The army of Rome was, for the time, especially significant in that it did all the work it need by itself. A fort? Sure! Lets build it! This led to the wonderful system of roads that spanned the Empire.

But these Infantry armies eventually grew to be outdated. Remember, this was in a time that was before the significance of the horse. They were not used proficiently, and this aided in the Western Empire's downfall. The barbarians, especially the Franks, grew to use horses as a staple (with the invention of the stirrup) and the Roman Legions were often outmaneuvered. This was not the reason for the fall of the Empire, but it certainly didn't help.

Basically though, the Army of the West was infantry based - Heavy Legionnaires and light Velites. (I don't pretend to know all about Roman Military tactics, though. I study mostly Medieval tactics...alas...BUT I HAVE READ VEGETIUS!)

About the Legion thing.


Titus001 opinion----I don't agree with the notion that heavy cavalry made the legions obsolete. I think it's a myth that the legions had a lot of trouble with heavy cavalry and caused the demise of the heavy infantry footmen. To defeat horseman all you would need is a good leader and use the combined arms approach and most importantly a disciplined infantry. If anything the Romans had more trouble I think with horse archer armies than heavy cavalry.

It could be argued that the use of barbarian personal was nothing new. This is accurate, however such use was clearly by the Roman way of battle. It was the barbarian who had to adapt to the Roman standard and organization, not the other way around which I think happened in the 5th century or even before...... Compare the Trajan era legion with the 5th century legions-----pics----- Trajan legions http://www.legionxxiv.org/lrgftwashgrp/

Trajon legions----- http://www.legion-fourteen.com/romans2.htm

Late Empire legion picture http://www.roman-empire.net/army/legionary-late.html

It's a matter of opinion..... I think the reason why the late Roman legion looked like that was not b/c of the barbarian's in the late army-(he may of contributed in negative way though-maybe) I don't think heavy cavarly changed the look either. It was economics that forced the Romans in the west that made them look the way they did in that pic above. Rome just got poor, and I think the legions suffered from Rome's poverty.

 

[Fruidoc]

It's a matter of opinion..... I think the reason why the late Roman legion looked like that was not b/c of the barbarian's in the late army-(he may of contributed in negative way though-maybe) I don't think heavy cavarly changed the look either. It was economics that forced the Romans in the west that made them look the way they did in that pic above. Rome just got poor, and I think the legions suffered from Rome's poverty.

Oh no doubt it was a combination of factors. Economics, government, Strategic Military advantages, etc. Everything evolves, that that which cannot evolve, perishes. It is my opinion that the Western Roman Empire clung too strongly to tradition in too many aspects, therefore leading to their demise. The Eastern Roman Empire also suffered the same fate - they were unable to change quickly enough to suit the times. But they gave it a damn good try.

***Rome just got poor, and I think the legions suffered from Rome's poverty***

Funny thing there, it was actually the legions that contributed to Rome's poverty. I have to say that Constantine chose an excellent spot for the new capital of the Roman Empire - for many years, the greatest city in the world.

One quick note about the Heavy Cavalry - I was not saying that they consistently defeated the Legions, only highlighting the fact that in the West, armies were infantry based (tradition) and in the East, they were more cavalry based.

However, you are correct, it is mostly opinion. So many historians disagree on this, it's hard to get anything definative.

 

[rabidveggie]

I don't mind the Byzantine Empires inclusion and they were an important empire in history. I found it ironic though that what saved them from the western roman empires fate was their ability to change and adapt. Then near the end of its existence they were doomed primarily due to continuing to follow their tradition.

 

[Basilisk1]

Hi Tonifranz-

I've enjoyed our conversation alot, but I'm going to have to say my final piece here, and if you want the last word, you're welcome to it.

Before I respond to your last post, I'd like to say that for gameplay reasons alone, I think the major reason Byzantium was included in the expansion as a separate civ is that when we say "Rome," we all really mean classical Rome, from the time of the Punic Wars through the expansion, up to the last Western Emperor and the subjugation of Rome by Theodoric and the Ostrogoths.

The Praetorium, the Forum UB, and Caesar and Augustus all point to that.

I admit I'm ultimately very glad Byzantium is in the game, and that it is very personal to me.

I'm Greek, and modern Greeks have much more cultural investment in Byzantium than we did with Homeric Greece, Classical Greece, or the Hellenistic Age. When we attend Greek Orthodox church services on Sunday, we sing the same hymns that were sung in the cathedrals of Byzantium, and we seek to preserve the same traditions that were protected by the stalwart monks of Mount Athos after the fall of the Theodosian Walls.

Greeks are proud of their Classical past, and I personally have attended plays at the ancient amphitheatre of Epidavro, performed much as they were performed then, but for all Greeks, Byzantium is much more a part of our living history because during that 1000 years, from the fall of Rome to the fall of Constantinople, the beautiful Orthodox Christianity that, for all its faults, is the unifying force and the lifeblood of the Greek people, was formed and nurtured.

So, ultimately I'm biased, and I've been honest about that from the beginning. But no one is going to convince me that the unique melange of Greek, Roman, Oriental and Balkan influences that formed Byzantium did not constitute a unique and vibrant civilization.

For anyone who is interested in exploring this past, if you are ever in Italy, go to the cathedral at Ravenna. On a sunny day, the golden mosaics that line the walls literally shine like stars. That cathedral, in all its splendor, was part of a vital and vibrant culture while the classical Rome of Caesar and Augustus lay in ruins. Byzantium merits its own place in history, and in Civ too.

Thanks for listening.

 

[andrewlt]

One quick note about the Heavy Cavalry - I was not saying that they consistently defeated the Legions, only highlighting the fact that in the West, armies were infantry based (tradition) and in the East, they were more cavalry based.

However, you are correct, it is mostly opinion. So many historians disagree on this, it's hard to get anything definative.

Well, the West in the medieval ages concentrated more on heavy cavalry while the East concentrated more on horse archers.

Tonifranz: Where do you draw the line, however? Celts occupied Britain and France back then. Why should they be separate from Britain and France? It's essentially the same people with a different mixture. Just because you call yourself something new doesn't mean you are new. Just because you call yourself the same thing doesn't mean you haven't changed.

 

[Titus001]

I don't mind the Byzantine Empires inclusion and they were an important empire in history. I found it ironic though that what saved them from the western roman empires fate was their ability to change and adapt. Then near the end of its existence they were doomed primarily due to continuing to follow their tradition.

It might of been the adapt part.. But you got to remember that the west was always poor compared to the east in Constantinople. Less gold you have the less you are able to fund your troops with great equipment which I think what happened in the west of the empire. Basically the Empire was divided into two unequal halves with the empire of the east in Constantinople getting the best of everything.

Just look at this link and check out how many more troops the east had compared to the west. I guess the Romans wanted to protect the rich cities of the East like Constantinople.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Rome

 

[Gaius Octavius]

The East also had more troops because the Persians were always a much greater threat in the minds of the Emperors than the Germanic tribes along the Rhine and Danube were. The Persians were a sophisticated civilization, organized, with a standing army, unlike the Germanic warrior cultures in the North.

 

[Titus001]

The East also had more troops because the Persians were always a much greater threat in the minds of the Emperors than the Germanic tribes along the Rhine and Danube were. The Persians were a sophisticated civilization, organized, with a standing army, unlike the Germanic warrior cultures in the North.

I agree 100%