Merits of the Byzantine Empire

[Nestorius]

Interesting, especially the thread you refered me too. I guess I don't quite see Rome as a spirit or culture, so much as I see it as an actual government that ruled things. Yes, culturally the West retained its 'latin' character, but the East retained 'Rome' itself, in that it was the least damaged and most prosperous area of the Empire so it was more able to carry on tradition, and continued to be ruled by the Emperor. Also, I still disagree with your contention that the themes were an example of Byzantine feudalism... the old Roman armies were conciously settled in a feudalistic manner during very extenuating military circumstances, creating the themes, but then they were eventually replaced with the Tagmata standing armies. But, I don't want to bother you too much, as I'm looking forward to reading your next installment of your article.

 

[cuchulain]

I see both sides of the arguement, and although have traditionally thought of Rome and Byzantium as being distinct, I had not previously considered the fact that Rome changed a lot during its existence so what makes it a different civ now. However, I would like to point out that as early as Charlamagne, western European kingdoms that were formerly part of the Roman Empire did not view the "Byzantine Empire" as being the same as the pre 476 Rome. Thats why some sought the title "Holy Roman Emperor", regardless of whether or not the title had any real meaning. Another related note about this debate, "culture" and "Civilization" are words that are tossed around a lot and have virtually no set meaning.

 

[Nestorius]

Certainly the Vatican and Italian city-states like Venice remembered as they had continous interactions with Byzantium thorughout the dark ages. Charlemange came very close to marrying his daughter to the son of Empress Irene 'the Khazar' of Byzantium, which would have been interesting had it came about. In any case, for the western aristocracy, marrying a Romanii princess was very desirable and prestigious.

 

[balthamael]

If People had thier way, there would be every single country to ever exist in the entire passage of human history clumped in.

 

[Reprisal]

If People had thier way, there would be every single country to ever exist in the entire passage of human history clumped in.

How is this a bad thing?

 

[Xen]

Part Two: Arts of War, and Civ 4

The military aspect of history is often the most interesting segment of it to anyone, but particularly people who are just breaking into history, its often the feats of war that are the most interesting- I myself am no exception to that rule, though my interest in history had broadened considerably over time.

The Byzantines were eventually conquered- doesn’t this mean they were weak?

Spoiler :

Far from it! Indeed, the reason Byzantium fell was complex- military losses were more of a symptom rather then a cause in many cases. Though unlike the Roman empire before it, which fell primarily due to economic reasons, Byzantium’s had more to do with politics and religion, then anything else.

What sort of army did the Byzantines have?

Spoiler :

The Byzantines went into the dark ages with some major advantages, which is why they could be considered for most of their history to be one of the main players on the world stage- and one of these advantages was that they inherited the Late Roman military, which for all its faults, was still vastly superior to anything the rest of the world had at the time- at least, when you had a stable economic system to actually fund it, as the Western Roman empire found out the hard way.

The basic set up of the Byzantine empires’ military was that of the late Roman empire- local lords appointed by the emperor would rule over a swath of land they often owned portions of, and act as the local governor and military commander for provincial troops- these troops would be used to harass, and slow enemy forces by use of guerilla tactics and skirmishes until the main Imperial army arrived to do battle. The primary changes to this set up were more in how this system was supported, rather then a change in how it was implemented, and the creation of the thematic system- a very important development for the Byzantine empire, was important because it made the traditional system more reliable, and easier to implement- but more then anything, it was more easy to support financially.

For most of the history of Byzantine empire, the elite of the elite in terms of troops was the heavy cavalryman known as the “Cataphract”. The Roman Cataphract that was inherited by the Byzantines was a fearsome sight- heavily armed and armored trained to use lance, sword, mace and bow, these heavy cavalry had their origins in the army of Roman Emperor Trajan, and had gradually increased in their usage thought Roman history, eventually superceding the infantry by the 4th century in importance and tactical usage. Though it would take it the last eastern Romans to refine the Roman cataphract to include archery among his skills, by taking example from the huns- further refinement on these troops was had during the Byzantine period directly.

The Byzantine empire otherwise specialized their soldiers in differing groups, as the Romans had before them, including light cavalry, Heavy Infantry, light Infantry- and mercenaries. While unlike western Rome, Eastern Rome had never turned to mercenaries to be the mainstay of its field armies (by the end, only around 5-7 out of every 10 troops was of Roman origin in the west; though that same number was probably also had by the Ostrogoths in their own armies before the eastern Romans claimed Italy) But the use of mercenaries as further speciality troops was well established- by the Byzantine empires end it too, like western Rome would have huge portions of its field army made up by Mercenaries, some forced by the loss of Anatolia. (many theories predominate about why it was never reclaimed, including that doing so would have given local lords too much power over the emperor) The mercenaries were often grouped by their home region- units such as “Latins” (Italians, and Occitanians), “Inglinvarrangoi” (English Saxons forced out by the Normans), “Massagetoi” (Christian Turks, among other steppe peoples) - and many, many others- but the most famous of these Mercenary forces, would be the well known “Varangian Guard”- made up of Scandinavians and Russians (though most often Russian Scandinavians)- the Varangians being known for their loyalty to the emperor, and eventually becoming his personal body guards (because of their loyalty to the emperor, and general unpopularity with the people made the Varangians have to stay loyal to the emperor, so that they might not be kicked out of the city) The Varangians proved themselves in 1203 when the all of the other mercenary contingents refused to fight for lack of pay- however, despite this, the Varagnians seemed to have never recovered from the essential death blow this was, and they are no longer recorded as contingent of any status after 1204, though other Mercenaries such as The Latins and Massagetoi among others continued to be service.

Overall, the Byzantine army can be split into two periods- there are more divisions possible mind, including some major one, but for the novice this is all one needs- pre Manzikert is essentially the Thematic army evolved from the late Roman system, post Manzikert is the increased use of Mercenary regiments in the empire

What sort of great Military feats did the Byzantins accomplish?

Spoiler :

Many! Over a reign falling somewhere between 800 and 1000 years, the Byzantine empire knew many victories -many losses as well, but you don’t get a thousand year empire by losing all the big ones, do you? Given this, I’ll list some of the Greater Byzantine military feats of strength!

*607-627 : Byzantium defeats a huge alliance between the Avars in Europe, and the Persian Empire in Asia; not only are the Avars repelled, and their domination over several Slavic peoples in the region broken, but the Persian empire is forever shattered, and it is made, for a time, a vassal state of the newly emerged Byzantine empire under Heraclius; however, nearly a century of constant warfare brought to a head in this, that last and greatest struggle between Persia and the Eastern Empire/just having become Byzantium left both sides too weak to full combat the Arabs now unified and made energetic by the emergence of Islam.

*860: while Germany France and England at the mercy of the Norsemen, the Byzantine empire is easily able to fend off the seaborne pillagers on this their first attack; all future attacks by the Vikings would also end in Byzantine victories.

*1002-1018: Basil II “The Bulgar Slayer” totally reverses the trend in Europe not onyl defeating the powerful Bulgar Khanate, but reclaiming a border all the way up the Danube to the fragmented, and unorganized “Holy Roman Empire” in Central Europe

How can the Byzantines be represented in Civ 4?

Spoiler :

Easily, that’s how! The Byzantine empire already lends itself towards inclusion in a game such as civ 3, where eastern European nations are nearly non-existent aside from Russia and Greece, and one fo the most important symbols of their capital city, the Hagia Sophia, is already a wonder in the game. Given that a national Icon already exists for them, its really only a matter of who to choose as its leaders, and what to choose as its UU... With that, I submit the following as Candidate for who should be leader of the Byzantine empire.

Basil II “The Bulgar Slayer”

Basil II “The Bulgar Slayer”

While I could write a nice summery of the feats of Basil, some time ago I came to fancy this summation of Basil II in general, and so will defer to it, rather then writing my own on him- though suffice to say, I firmly believe that Basil II is probably THE best person to represent the Byzantine empire

Basil was a short, stocky man who cared little for the pomp and ceremony of the imperial court, and typically held court dressed in military regalia. Still, he was a capable administrator, who unique among the soldier-emperors, left a full treasury upon his death. He was worshipped by his army, as he spent most of his reign campaigning with them instead of sending orders from the distant palaces of Constantinople, as had most of his predecessors. He lived the life of a soldier to the point of eating the same daily rations as any other member of the army. He also took the children of deceased officers of his army under his protection, and offered them sheltering, nourishment and education. Many of those children would later grow to become his soldiers and his officers, and came to think of him as a father.

Besides being called the "Father of the Army", he was also popular with country farmers. This class produced most of his army's supplies and offered him most of his soldiers. To assure that this flow of supplies and men continued, Basil's laws protected small agrarian property and lowered their taxes. His reign was considered an era of relative prosperity for the class, despite the almost constant wars. On the other hand Basil increased the taxes of the nobility and the church and looked to decrease their power and wealth. Though understandably unpopular with them, neither of them had the power to effectively oppose the army-supported Emperor. Basil never married or had children that we know of - a womanizer as a young man, Basil chose to devote himself fully to the duties of state upon becoming emperor. Unfortunately, this meant that he was succeeded by his brother and his family, who proved to be ineffective rulers. Within 50 years of Basil's death, the empire had once again fallen to the status of a second-rate power, and had lost almost everything he regained

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



Now, there are numerous other candidates for whom might be considered to represent the Empire- Emperor Heraclius, or Empress Zoe I are prime examples; though whomever is chosen, it will hopefully be far removed from either Emperor Justinian, or Theodora.


The other main partof depicting a civ in Civ 4 is of course the UU- and for the Byzantine empire, little argument can really be had for any trooper other then the mighty cataphract- dromons or varangians don’t come close to how important the cataphract or its derivative troops were for the Byzantine empire, nor do any of them come close in matching the feats the Cataphracts attained on the battlefield for Byzantine arms


A Byzantine Cataphract

Thats all for now- though perhaps a 3rd part will come showing some of the other choices for Byzantine leaders, or a more detailed description of the cataphract, and why it should be the proper Byzantine UU

 

[Xen]

If People had thier way, there would be every single country to ever exist in the entire passage of human history clumped in.

but few civilizations have made quite the impact that Byzantines have made over the course of thier history.

 

[Nestorius]

Great article!

 

[Reprisal]

Excellent presentation!

Where did you find that magnificent picture of the Cataphract in model form? If it was in 25mm scale, I'd think about ordering a couple myself!

 

[Xen]

well, I found the pic a few years ago, when i was defending the merits of the Byzantine empire for one of the civ 3 x-packs from a google search- I'll take a quick look over my book marks, and see if I have it somewhere- if I find it I'll be sure to give a PM (Private Message, in case your unfamiliar with the term) with a link

 

[Minoan]

Basil II is really just an awsome leader. Heraclius was a good Emperor... He deserved to have a reign less disastorus. But it was mared with catastrophes. First of all, Heraclus's wars with Persia, may have broken Persian power (and the Persians orignally fought the war to abenge the coup that killed Maurice, who had put Chrosroes II 'The Great' in power), but in the end the war was a draw, Heraclius, reclaimed the frontiers of the Empire, but he didn't gain much territory from Persia.

Leo the I may be another choice, but, I supose thier is little point in putting him in... Any member of the Dynasty of Alexis is certainly eligible... Despite the fact that the Empire was in bad shape, they manged to delay its decline...

Back on the subject, I don't think you mentioned a myth of Basil... According to it, he caputered the Bulgarian army, and blinded all of them but about 100, whom he had blinded in one eye, so as to lead a group of twenty back to Bulgaria.... The leader of the Bulgarians died of a heart attack upon seeing his blinded army.

 

[Cataphract887]

Very nice write up-only skimmed it though. I am of course forced to agree that byzantines are very worthy of being in civ. esspecialy the UU as cataphract. dromons were a little boring in civ3.

If People had thier way, there would be every single country to ever exist in the entire passage of human history clumped in.

Europa Universalis has hundreds of nations without them all being there at the same time. A system sortof like that for civ could be pretty nifty.

 

[Xen]

Basil II is really just an awsome leader. Heraclius was a good Emperor... He deserved to have a reign less disastorus. But it was mared with catastrophes. First of all, Heraclus's wars with Persia, may have broken Persian power (and the Persians orignally fought the war to abenge the coup that killed Maurice, who had put Chrosroes II 'The Great' in power), but in the end the war was a draw, Heraclius, reclaimed the frontiers of the Empire, but he didn't gain much territory from Persia.

well, he didnt have to- remember, Heraclius got the ultimate prize- he had put a puppet ruler on the throne of the Persian empire; in effect, anythign Persia had that Heraclius wanted was his, and he could have it without having to spend the money of ruleing Persia directlly- at least, that was the theory, and then the arabs steam rolled over a weakend Persian empire.

 

[Aramazd]

I agree that the Byzantines should be included, but you didn't provide any traits. My guesses for good traits would be:
Basil II: Aggressive and Expansive(I don't think any other trait would belong here that is in currently, but my knowledge of Byzantium is limited.
Heraclius: Aggressive and Spiritual?(I think he did something with religion, but as I said before my knowledge is limited)
Justinian(despite you dislike of him, my guess is he will be in): expansive and organized?

 

[Minoan]

I agree that the Byzantines should be included, but you didn't provide any traits. My guesses for good traits would be:
Basil II: Aggressive and Expansive(I don't think any other trait would belong here that is in currently, but my knowledge of Byzantium is limited.
Heraclius: Aggressive and Spiritual?(I think he did something with religion, but as I said before my knowledge is limited)
Justinian(despite you dislike of him, my guess is he will be in): expansive and organized?

I think Basil should be Expansive and Orgagnized. Really, his conquest of Bulgaria, was to retake terriotires and reclaim frontier. Plus, the Bulgars were constantly raiding Byzantium, so Basil was only retaliating. Heraclius, if included, also should not be aggresive. Perhaps, Expansive and Spirtual?

Justinian, maybe, Expansive and Creative (he did commision the Hagia Sophia, which, in my twisted opinon, is the most beautiful building on earth...

The Byzantines would maybe have.... Fishing and Agriculture to start with? They definitaly had a powerful navy, and had a good farming system to supply metropolisies like Constantinople, and, for a time, Alexandria.

Though, looking at the 1000 AD scenario, we may have Basil the I as the Byzantine leader... He wasn't that accomplished, though he did found the Macadonian Dynasty, which would include Basil the II... But... Meh.

 

[Nestorius]

I like Irene the Khazar. She was the one who started sending settlers into Greece and Thrace for recolonization, and almost made Charlemange an official Roman Emperor.

 

[Riothamus]

We definetly need the Byzantines in, they're always a fun civ to play as and against.

Not to mention the historical and cultural reasons why they deserve to be in.

 

[Xen]

I like Irene the Khazar. She was the one who started sending settlers into Greece and Thrace for recolonization, and almost made Charlemange an official Roman Emperor.

on the flip side, Charlemagne may have made a Byzantine king of Franks- came close to marrying one of his daughters of a Byzantine (though was too controlling over them- in the end, he never let any of them marry)

 

[Minoan]

on the flip side, Charlemagne may have made a Byzantine king of Franks- came close to marrying one of his daughters of a Byzantine (though was too controlling over them- in the end, he never let any of them marry)

Irene isn't a very good candidate... She kinda stole the throne. She was regent to her son Constantine the 4th, but then she was banished for trying to keep the regency. She came back and took the throne and ruled for another five years before being disposed. My memory may be hazy, but I think she brought an end to Leo III's (come to think of it... He wouldn't be that bad a candidate, he did defeat the Sarecens when they tried to seize Constantinople) Iconclasm incident.

Constantine the 13th, would be an awful choice, but he was very heroic in his attempts to defeat the Ottamans at the seige of Constantinople. Indeed, he died fighting. But of course, he didn't win...

 

[Fife]

I love the Byzantines. They are my favorite civ! I just wish that Justinian's conquests did not fall to invaders within a couple of centuries after his reign.