Did the ERE constantly perform poorly against it's enemies despite it's resources?

[darthfanta]

Despite being a Byzantinophile myself,a thing that has always dazzled me was how entities such as Bulgaria,the Normans, the Crusaders,the Armenians,the Lombards(the ones in Southern Italy especially) etc constantly managed to outperform the Byzantines despite being outgunned by the empire in overall strength, resources and the professionalism of their troops. Does anyone else agree? I've heard other people talk about how this is because the empire's constantly attacked by enemies, but the empire has failed consistently in fighting these enemies even when other fronts were quiet. The Bulgarians consistently whipped the ERE despite being outnumbered by them in battle even if they ultimately got overwhelmed. The ERE failed utterly against the Normans despite their humble origins. They couldn't even dislodge the Normans from Antioch even though they earnestly tried to do so under Alexios I Komnenos against the Regent Tancred.We all know what happened in the Fourth Crusade. They got mauled by the much smaller Emirate of Aleppo when the Emperor decided to campaign in person and despite outnumbering them in the campaign by a large margin, losing some 6,000 troops in process. As for Armenia, they couldn't even defeat the Armenians until they tricked their king into Constantinople under the guise of peace negotiations and had him imprisoned. Finally, they couldn't even defeat a more or less splintered state of the Lombards, the Principality of Benevento, even when the Emperor(Constans II) went in person and campaigned there with all the resources he can spare from the other fronts.All of this happened despite the ERE possessing an army more professional than most of their contemporaries.I'm not saying their military is crap, there are some impressive victories, but quite a lot of history books talk as though they were hugely successful and their army's one of the best during the Dark Ages-Medieval period.

 

[Nicophorus]

In answer to your question: No.

They had their defeats, but their list of victories is long and impressive too. The fact that they survived for 1k+ years speaks for itself.

Most of those enemies you listed were at one time or another humbled by the Byzantines, and not just with force of arms. I think Byzantine reliance on diplomacy and espionage (Sicilian Vespers anyone?) and not just martial power, was one of its unique strengths and helped it to survive so much longer then other similar sized political entities.

 

[joak]

I'd generally disagree with Nicephorus, although it depends on the period of course. In the early 8th century they outperformed expectations, and the late 10th/early 11th century revival was also impressive. But of course the collapse after Maurice was assassinated, and after Mohammed, and after Manzikert, and to the Crusaders, were all impressive in a different way.

I think the problem they often had that of a relatively centralized & urban state against smaller, more agile neighbors. The Byzantines needed to juggle many conflicting priorities, including domestic ones. Their regional rivals could often devote most of their resources to their goals, though--and, if they lost, it just meant they were gobbled up by another power that became a new rival.

 

[darthfanta]

In answer to your question: No.

They had their defeats, but their list of victories is long and impressive too. The fact that they survived for 1k+ years speaks for itself.

Most of those enemies you listed were at one time or another humbled by the Byzantines, and not just with force of arms. I think Byzantine reliance on diplomacy and espionage (Sicilian Vespers anyone?) and not just martial power, was one of its unique strengths and helped it to survive so much longer then other similar sized political entities.

Problem is that the ERE either hundreds of YEARS to defeat these enemies even when they fought them with armies that greatly outnumbered them,only won because of treachery and losing a tremendous amount of men or simply just loses decisively against all odds. And no, the ERE mostly survived because of espionage and diplomacy. They are like the Austria of the Dark Ages-Middle Ages.Even then, their 'diplomacy' and espionage only works because they have the means of funding it, usually by bribing one faction or another to attack their enemies or outright buy peace.

I'd generally disagree with Nicephorus, although it depends on the period of course. In the early 8th century they outperformed expectations, and the late 10th/early 11th century revival was also impressive. But of course the collapse after Maurice was assassinated, and after Mohammed, and after Manzikert, and to the Crusaders, were all impressive in a different way.

I think the problem they often had that of a relatively centralized & urban state against smaller, more agile neighbors. The Byzantines needed to juggle many conflicting priorities, including domestic ones. Their regional rivals could often devote most of their resources to their goals, though--and, if they lost, it just meant they were gobbled up by another power that became a new rival.

I don't think there's a problem with military failure when they are indeed under attack on all sides, but there were numerous occasions when the ERE was offered the chance to focus on a single enemy when they managed to establish peace on other fronts. Even with this, they generally fail. Between the eighth to ninth century, they were consistently offered the chance to concentrate their all to destroy Bulgaria. Even so, the ERE consistently got their armies completely annihilated even when they outnumbered the Bulgarians as well as the fact that their armies are supposedly more professional, better organized and armed.What I am trying to say here is that the ERE often just fail SPECTACULARLY even when it outspends it's enemies and the only reason why it even survived for so long was it either bribed their enemies or other groups to attack their enemies.

At any rate, what's wrong being a centralized state? I thought one of the key strength of the ERE over it's contemporaries was it's centralized form.Besides that, I found feudalism hugely unfavorable to the empire. Whenever the Empire tried to rule through a series of vassal states, it also fails spectacularly. Whenever the ERE subjugates Serbia, they would just leave the area to the rule of the local princes. Every time they do this, these princes just rebel whenever the ERE's too busy. The same with Croatia, Papal states, Venice,Antioch(especially Antioch. It always humours me that Alexios, John and Manuel all spent more than half their reign trying secure the principality even though the area could only levy around two-three thousand men at most) southern Italy(such as Naples) and Cilicia. The empire just couldn't keep the allegiance of the rulers of these areas without a local garrison in the region.Even crazier was the fact that not only did they fail to subjugate these rebellious vassal states most of the time, but ended up losing even MORE territory to them.

 

[JodelDiplom]

You guys are being ridiculous about this thing. The byzantine armies were anything but professional - they were essentially mercenaries, recruited from barbaric or half-barbaric people within the empire, or they were press-ganged peasants recruited by district commanders. The thematic armies of the early middle ages (hyped to heavens and beyond by every Byzantophile) were just part-time soldiers as well. Byzantium was a bureaucratically administered state, it had no "warrior class" sitting on top of the food chain, fighting wars or practicing for war 24/7 like, say, the Normans, the Lombards, or the various steppe peoples that poured into the Balkans on a periodic basis.

Now, please consider for a second, why would this bureaucratically administered empire with its eunuchs and clerks and priests and monks, which regarded its soldiers as a servant class, field "better" armies than the aforementioned Normans, Lombards and Bulgars, who are essentially warrior societies? This makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Enravota]

Problem is that the ERE either hundreds of YEARS to defeat these enemies even when they fought them with armies that greatly outnumbered them,only won because of treachery and losing a tremendous amount of men or simply just loses decisively against all odds. And no, the ERE mostly survived because of espionage and diplomacy. They are like the Austria of the Dark Ages-Middle Ages.Even then, their 'diplomacy' and espionage only works because they have the means of funding it, usually by bribing one faction or another to attack their enemies or outright buy peace.

A hired sword cuts just as well. The assumption that the empire had overwhelming resources is faulty. Even when it did, it lacked the ability to concentrate them on the same front and that was not always true. Another issue was the political structure and lack of clear inheritance in Byzantium, while that also had positive effects, it meant that concentration of power in officials was tricky and the emperor might be unable to dedicate himself to a prolonged campaign. By the time dynastic rule was entrenched enough, the resources available were more limited. That doesn't mean ineffective military however, but rather political entanglements.
I think that similarly to the late imperial warfare thread, you fall for a perception bias. Byzantium dispatched plenty of foes, both via military campaigns and political manoeuvring. I.e. the Pechenegs and Slavic statelets in the south Balkans are not on your list, yet they were a major troublemakers that the empire eventually overwhelmed. The Normans, Lombards and Bulgars, on the other hand, all survived to modern day in some way or form.

You guys are being ridiculous about this thing. The byzantine armies were anything but professional - they were essentially mercenaries, recruited from barbaric or half-barbaric people within the empire, or they were press-ganged peasants recruited by district commanders. The thematic armies of the early middle ages (hyped to heavens and beyond by every Byzantophile) were just part-time soldiers as well. Byzantium was a bureaucratically administered state, it had no "warrior class" sitting on top of the food chain, fighting wars or practicing for war 24/7 like, say, the Normans, the Lombards, or the various steppe peoples that poured into the Balkans on a periodic basis.

Now, please consider for a second, why would this bureaucratically administered empire with its eunuchs and clerks and priests and monks, which regarded its soldiers as a servant class, field "better" armies than the aforementioned Normans, Lombards and Bulgars, who are essentially warrior societies? This makes absolutely no sense.

That's not completely true. While medieval Byzantium relied on levies, so did everybody else in Europe. Mercenaries are in fact the most professional soldiers of the era. They dealt only with warfare, unlike the warrior castes that usually monopolised other duties as well. For that matter, the Anatolian aristocracy, that eventually managed to take the reigns of the state, was pretty much a warrior elite dealing mostly with warfare. The pronoia system, whilst not limited to supporting troops, also served a function similar to western feudalism. It is not due to martial deficiency that Byzantium had difficulty dealing with its neighbours, other powerful entities of the era also took them on and choked on them in a similar fashion. The Normans pwned around both in Italy and England, Lombards were able to operate as a separate entity until the Carolingian empire, the Second Bulgarian State practically ended Latin expansion in the Balkans after the Fourth Crusade.

 

[darthfanta]

You guys are being ridiculous about this thing. The byzantine armies were anything but professional - they were essentially mercenaries, recruited from barbaric or half-barbaric people within the empire, or they were press-ganged peasants recruited by district commanders. The thematic armies of the early middle ages (hyped to heavens and beyond by every Byzantophile) were just part-time soldiers as well. Byzantium was a bureaucratically administered state, it had no "warrior class" sitting on top of the food chain, fighting wars or practicing for war 24/7 like, say, the Normans, the Lombards, or the various steppe peoples that poured into the Balkans on a periodic basis.

Now, please consider for a second, why would this bureaucratically administered empire with its eunuchs and clerks and priests and monks, which regarded its soldiers as a servant class, field "better" armies than the aforementioned Normans, Lombards and Bulgars, who are essentially warrior societies? This makes absolutely no sense.

Your comment shows a completely lack of understanding of the ERE. The ERE actually maintains a lot of regular soldiers, the Tagmas that comprise quite a bit of cavalry. It also has some of the best heavy infantry in the dark ages medieval world. As for Thematic troops, they are not quite the levies you describe. Compared to other 'levies', they are well paid and better trained. There's also a better command structure, unlike real levies of the medieval period. Besides that, what gave you the impression that the ERE was governed by eunuchs, clerks,priests and monks alone? There were a lot of 'soldier-emperors' during the period.]

A hired sword cuts just as well. The assumption that the empire had overwhelming resources is faulty. Even when it did, it lacked the ability to concentrate them on the same front and that was not always true. Another issue was the political structure and lack of clear inheritance in Byzantium, while that also had positive effects, it meant that concentration of power in officials was tricky and the emperor might be unable to dedicate himself to a prolonged campaign. By the time dynastic rule was entrenched enough, the resources available were more limited. That doesn't mean ineffective military however, but rather political entanglements.
I think that similarly to the late imperial warfare thread, you fall for a perception bias. Byzantium dispatched plenty of foes, both via military campaigns and political manoeuvring. I.e. the Pechenegs and Slavic statelets in the south Balkans are not on your list, yet they were a major troublemakers that the empire eventually overwhelmed. The Normans, Lombards and Bulgars, on the other hand, all survived to modern day in some way or form.


That's not completely true. While medieval Byzantium relied on levies, so did everybody else in Europe. Mercenaries are in fact the most professional soldiers of the era. They dealt only with warfare, unlike the warrior castes that usually monopolised other duties as well. For that matter, the Anatolian aristocracy, that eventually managed to take the reigns of the state, was pretty much a warrior elite dealing mostly with warfare. The pronoia system, whilst not limited to supporting troops, also served a function similar to western feudalism. It is not due to martial deficiency that Byzantium had difficulty dealing with its neighbours, other powerful entities of the era also took them on and choked on them in a similar fashion. The Normans pwned around both in Italy and England, Lombards were able to operate as a separate entity until the Carolingian empire, the Second Bulgarian State practically ended Latin expansion in the Balkans after the Fourth Crusade.

Problem is that quite a lot of the time, it WAS offered the chance to focus most of their resources on a single front. It usually ended with the imperial army getting completely annihilated despite outnumbering their enemies. This is generally true in the Bulgarian front. From the conquest of Moesia and Thrace from the ERE to their destruction by Basil, you consistently see Byzantine armies that outnumbered Bulghar/Bulgarian armies by a significant margin, sometimes even two to one getting completely massacred.The same thing happened in Armenia,against the Normans and Aleppo as well. As I've mentioned, of the first three Komnenian emperors, two of them Alexios and John spent quite a bit of time trying to annex the Principality of Antioch in one way or another and their efforts always end up in failure. The best they could achieve was to force the prince to acknowledge them as overlords and that's always flimsy at best. As for vanquishing foes like Pechenegs, I never said they never won any wars. In my first post, I acknowledged that they have some impressive victories, but the problem is that quite a lot of the time, defeat seems to have been the norm rather than the exception,and that if their rivals had as many soldiers and money as they had they would likely have been completely destroyed.

What I am trying to establish here is whether the Byzantine/ERE military deserved the fierce reputation described in history books. Quite a lot of the books I've read described how detailed the strategies are, as well as how well organised and professional their troops are in general compared to their rivals. Yet, their achievements don't really add up compared to such reputation.

 

[Nicophorus]

All these "foes" you keep bringing up were beaten (sometimes completely, like the Bulgarians) by the Byzantine Empire and they ALL failed in their collective dream of "replacing" the Byzantine Empire (and failed epically).

So who was it that "won" again?

The Byzantine strategies were sound. They did what it took to fend off all rivals for most of their history.

I suppose we'd have to add up all their field loses and compare them to their field victories? (I would be interested to see this breakdown actually) But then, who cares about battles, its the war that counts.

 

[Enravota]

Problem is that quite a lot of the time, it WAS offered the chance to focus most of their resources on a single front. It usually ended with the imperial army getting completely annihilated despite outnumbering their enemies. This is generally true in the Bulgarian front. From the conquest of Moesia and Thrace from the ERE to their destruction by Basil, you consistently see Byzantine armies that outnumbered Bulghar/Bulgarian armies by a significant margin, sometimes even two to one getting completely massacred.The same thing happened in Armenia,against the Normans and Aleppo as well. As I've mentioned, of the first three Komnenian emperors, two of them Alexios and John spent quite a bit of time trying to annex the Principality of Antioch in one way or another and their efforts always end up in failure. The best they could achieve was to force the prince to acknowledge them as overlords and that's always flimsy at best. As for vanquishing foes like Pechenegs, I never said they never won any wars. In my first post, I acknowledged that they have some impressive victories, but the problem is that quite a lot of the time, defeat seems to have been the norm rather than the exception,and that if their rivals had as many soldiers and money as they had they would likely have been completely destroyed.

Last time I checked Bulgarians still exist. Just sayin'.
Basil's campaign was the only one where things were relatively stable in other fronts. It was also the only one focussed on attrition warfare. I.e. Constantine V couldn't have afforded to spend multiple decades on fighting Bulgaria, like Basil II did, while John Tzimiskes managed to nearly decapitate the Bulgarian state using diplomacy alone. Ditto for other foes of the empire.
The prevailing Bulgarian strategy was to lure the Byzantine armies into Bulgarian hinterland and ambushing them in difficult, usually additionally fortified, terrain. Unlike the Byzantine war machine, where power was centralised around the general leading the expedition or the emperor himself, the local tribal aristocracy, later centrally appointed officials, in Bulgaria were able to act independently from what's going on in the capital behind enemy lines. It was not a rare occasion for the Byzantine army to find a pass they used for a foray into Moesia blocked of by palisades on the return trip. BTW both the battles of Kleidon and the Gates of Trajan were similar battles. It also worked on the crusaders at Adrianople, so not really a Byzantine fault. Considering that Bulgarian resources were not that all that limited (i.e. Krum was supposedly capable of equipping 30k heavily armoured troops) and the limited amount of resources that the empire can throw at the problem using focused and sustained campaigns, it's not really that surprising that Bulgaria could not be so easily overwhelmed. Medieval states were relatively small and relatively decentralised, not large monolithic empires. The circumstances of the era were in favour of the new barbarian states that managed to set up shop and thrive, not on ancient empires with already vast holdings. The fact that the ERE is essentially the only such empire to survive the middle ages in Europe and the Middle East without disintegrating or being broken up by invaders, should speak for itself.

What I am trying to establish here is whether the Byzantine/ERE military deserved the fierce reputation described in history books. Quite a lot of the books I've read described how detailed the strategies are, as well as how well organised and professional their troops are in general compared to their rivals. Yet, their achievements don't really add up compared to such reputation.

Their achievement is that what we now call Byzantium survived for about a millennia. That's not a small achievement. Byzantine armies may not have been fierce, but they were good enough to keep the empire going. No state was able to expand perpetually in history. If Byzantium had managed with the current list of nemeses it would have ran out of gas on the next batch.

 

[Herbert West]

I dont exactly remember where, but I read a very good article lambasting popular culture for being obsessed with roman stlye foreign policy (Rome stronk! Smash barbarian!), or at least its perception, over the much more intricate Byzantine one.

For in Byzantium, the army is but one of your tools. You use the army to stave off attacker A, use some gold to buy off attacker B, beg, bribe, and cajole attacked C to back-stab and attack their former allies, attacker D, and so on. All of this requires immense finesse (and indeed, the fact that Byzantium lasted as long as it did shows the success of this strategy), but look rather bland in a hagiography of simple, good vs bad warfare that most of popular history is.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

I dont exactly remember where, but I read a very good article lambasting popular culture for being obsessed with roman stlye foreign policy (Rome stronk! Smash barbarian!), or at least its perception, over the much more intricate Byzantine one.

For in Byzantium, the army is but one of your tools. You use the army to stave off attacker A, use some gold to buy off attacker B, beg, bribe, and cajole attacked C to back-stab and attack their former allies, attacker D, and so on. All of this requires immense finesse (and indeed, the fact that Byzantium lasted as long as it did shows the success of this strategy), but look rather bland in a hagiography of simple, good vs bad warfare that most of popular history is.

The reign of Basil II (976-1025), the longest of any Byzantine emperor, has long been considered as a 'golden age', in which his greatest achievement was the annexation of Bulgaria. This, we have been told, was achieved through a long and bloody war of attrition which won Basil the grisly epithet Voulgartoktonos, 'the Bulgar-slayer'. In this 2003 study Paul Stephenson argues that neither of these beliefs is true. Instead, Basil fought far more sporadically in the Balkans and his reputation as 'Bulgar-slayer' was created only a century and a half later. Thereafter the 'Bulgar-slayer' was periodically to play a galvanizing role for the Byzantines, returning to centre-stage as Greeks struggled to establish a modern nation state. As Byzantium was embraced as the Greek past by scholars and politicians, the 'Bulgar-slayer' became an icon in the struggle for Macedonia (1904-1908) and the Balkan Wars (1912-1913).

Legend of the Bulgar Slayer: Win via A, B, C, D.

Wait a few centuries.

Let bloodthirsty nerds who were never near the battles drool over the over-the-top brutality of an extremely dubious myth.

"Basil was so Bulgarslayery that he killed their king just by making him look at what he'd done!"

Sounds like a medieval Chuck Norris meme to me.

 

[Semper Victor]

The ERE's survival of the catastrophic events of the VII century alone should be enough to dispel any doubts about their ability to resist in front of stronger foes.

In the first decade of the VII century, the Empire had to withstand attacks on all its borders: the Visigoths in Spain, the Lombards in Italy, Berbers in North Africa, Sklavenoi and Avars in the Balkans and Sassanians in the East. And after they managed to survive that, they had to withstand the Muslim conquest, and just the fact that they managed to keep Anatolia and resist two great sieges of Constantinople against them is nothing short of a a miracle.

 

[Lord Tim]

All these "foes" you keep bringing up were beaten (sometimes completely, like the Bulgarians) by the Byzantine Empire and they ALL failed in their collective dream of "replacing" the Byzantine Empire (and failed epically).

So who was it that "won" again?

That would be the Ottomans.


Considering how long a period we're talking about, it's not really surprising that there are periods where the army looks good and others where it looks weak. Compare the Roman empire, the various Chinese dynasties, the Caliphate, ancient Egypt or Assyria and they all have good and bad periods, with the primary difference being that some of them don't recover the way the Byzantine state frequently managed to.

 

[darthfanta]

The ERE's survival of the catastrophic events of the VII century alone should be enough to dispel any doubts about their ability to resist in front of stronger foes.

In the first decade of the VII century, the Empire had to withstand attacks on all its borders: the Visigoths in Spain, the Lombards in Italy, Berbers in North Africa, Sklavenoi and Avars in the Balkans and Sassanians in the East. And after they managed to survive that, they had to withstand the Muslim conquest, and just the fact that they managed to keep Anatolia and resist two great sieges of Constantinople against them is nothing short of a a miracle.

They survived...but lost the bulk of their territories and became a shadow of their former self.Every time they make some sort of 'resurgence', they somehow always managed to lose even MORE territory than they got soon afterwards.That's some pretty 'impressive' resistance*sarcasm*.

That would be the Ottomans.


Considering how long a period we're talking about, it's not really surprising that there are periods where the army looks good and others where it looks weak. Compare the Roman empire, the various Chinese dynasties, the Caliphate, ancient Egypt or Assyria and they all have good and bad periods, with the primary difference being that some of them don't recover the way the Byzantine state frequently managed to.

Problem is that throughout the period, the ERE had a pretty large professional army aside from the 7th century when the empire's control over the east just collapsed. That didn't stop them from getting consistently slaughtered by armies largely consists of peasant levies(Latins) and adventurers(Turks and the Normans).

 

[Nicophorus]

They survived...but lost the bulk of their territories and became a shadow of their former self.Every time they make some sort of 'resurgence', they somehow always managed to lose even MORE territory than they got soon afterwards.That's some pretty 'impressive' resistance*sarcasm*.

Problem is that throughout the period, the ERE had a pretty large professional army aside from the 7th century when the empire's control over the east just collapsed. That didn't stop them from getting consistently slaughtered by armies largely consists of peasant levies(Latins) and adventurers(Turks and the Normans).

Latins, Turks, and Normans. The Byzantines defeated and outlasted many flavors of all three in its long history.

One person cannot be all things, by the same token one civilization cannot be renown for all things too. Was the Mongol Empire a bastion of religious thought, Philosophy , or science? Is rich Switzerland known for large empire and conquest? Is the autonomous monastic state of Athos famous for prayer and spirituality or field battles?

Who needs to win every battle against "peasant levies and adventurers" when you have the intelligence to do this instead:

He sent Michael Palaiologos and John Doukas, both of whom held the high imperial rank of sebastos, with Byzantine troops, 10 Byzantine ships, and large quantities of gold to invade Apulia (1155).[4] The two generals were instructed to enlist the support of Frederick Barbarossa, since he was hostile to the Normans of Sicily and was south of the Alps at the time, but he declined because his demoralised army longed to get back north of the Alps as soon as possible.b[›] Nevertheless, with the help of disaffected local barons including Count Robert of Loritello, Manuel's expedition achieved astonishingly rapid progress as the whole of southern Italy rose up in rebellion against the Sicilian Crown, and the untried William I.[2] There followed a string of spectacular successes as numerous strongholds yielded either to force or the lure of gold

And guess what? It worked for them and kept them going far longer then anyone expected.

 

[darthfanta]

Latins, Turks, and Normans. The Byzantines defeated and outlasted many flavors of all three in its long history.

One person cannot be all things, by the same token one civilization cannot be renown for all things too. Was the Mongol Empire a bastion of religious thought, Philosophy , or science? Is rich Switzerland known for large empire and conquest? Is the autonomous monastic state of Athos famous for prayer and spirituality or field battles?

No they did not. They lost utterly against all three. The Latins ended up destroying the ERE in 1204. The Turks ended up destroying the ERE AGAIN in 1453. Even before then, there were significant losses against the Turks.Even at the height of their power, the Komnenian emperors NEVER succeeded in retaking all of Anatolia from them, only the coastal parts. They failed utterly when they decided to decapitate them once and for all in 1176. As for the Normans, they lost Southern Italy PERMANENTLY to them and never recovered Antioch from the Normans despite major efforts by the Komnenian emperors apart from establishing some sort of on paper over-lordship over the city. Barely even survived Norman attacks in their homeland.

Who needs to win every battle against "peasant levies and adventurers" when you have the intelligence to do this instead:



And guess what? It worked for them and kept them going far longer then anyone expected.

And they lost that campaign spectacularly in the end.

 

[FredricBastiat]

Constantly? No. Sometimes? Yes. You are talking about a civilization that lasted more than a thousand years. It had a few ups and downs. The more narrow the time-frame you are talking about the more precise and meaningful answer can be given.

 

[Semper Victor]

They survived...but lost the bulk of their territories and became a shadow of their former self.Every time they make some sort of 'resurgence', they somehow always managed to lose even MORE territory than they got soon afterwards.That's some pretty 'impressive' resistance*sarcasm*.

Problem is that throughout the period, the ERE had a pretty large professional army aside from the 7th century when the empire's control over the east just collapsed. That didn't stop them from getting consistently slaughtered by armies largely consists of peasant levies(Latins) and adventurers(Turks and the Normans).

Frankly, I don't know up to which measure do you measure the Eastern Romans' performance. Decades? Centuries? Millenia? Eons? Maybe they should have had to live up to their own propaganda about being the state chosen by God? No political creation is ethernal. How many states that existed in 395 AD (last partition of the Roman empire between East and West) were still around in 1453 AD? Not even China, as in 395 AD the unified Han empire was long gone, and during that period a unified China came and went again under the T'ang, and also under the Mongols and finally by the Ming. By your measure, the Chinese were a bloody disaster .

Their control over the East did not "collapse" suddenly in the 600-610s. They lost that control after a long and bloody struggle against the military powerhouse that was the Sassanian Empire, while also trying to defend all their other borders simultaneously (for once, this time their usual diplomatic crafts did not work as expected), they managed to recover somehow and then lost them for good to the Muslim Arabs (who by the way were so militarily incompetent that they only managed to get to the Loire in the West and the Indus in the East) ..... but they survived. The murder of emperor Mauricius which marked the beginning of the last Roman-Sassanian war happened in 602, and the battle that marked the end of the immediate military threat to the survival of the Empire took place in Akroinon in 740. Losing those territories after 138 years of (almost continuous) war on the eastern border against stronger foes is not a "sudden collapse" by any means.

 

[darthfanta]

Frankly, I don't know up to which measure do you measure the Eastern Romans' performance. Decades? Centuries? Millenia? Eons? Maybe they should have had to live up to their own propaganda about being the state chosen by God? No political creation is ethernal. How many states that existed in 395 AD (last partition of the Roman empire between East and West) were still around in 1453 AD? Not even China, as in 395 AD the unified Han empire was long gone, and during that period a unified China came and went again under the T'ang, and also under the Mongols and finally by the Ming. By your measure, the Chinese were a bloody disaster .

Their control over the East did not "collapse" suddenly in the 600-610s. They lost that control after a long and bloody struggle against the military powerhouse that was the Sassanian Empire, while also trying to defend all their other borders simultaneously (for once, this time their usual diplomatic crafts did not work as expected), they managed to recover somehow and then lost them for good to the Muslim Arabs (who by the way were so militarily incompetent that they only managed to get to the Loire in the West and the Indus in the East) ..... but they survived. The murder of emperor Mauricius which marked the beginning of the last Roman-Sassanian war happened in 602, and the battle that marked the end of the immediate military threat to the survival of the Empire took place in Akroinon in 740. Losing those territories after 138 years of (almost continuous) war on the eastern border against stronger foes is not a "sudden collapse" by any means.

Yes, even though I'm chinese by descent, I too believe that the military history of China is largely disastrous,especially against foreign enemies.More like the empire collapsed quickly after the war with the Arabs, which they have the excuse of losing because of military exhaustion.The problem was that even after they've retreated beyond the Taurus mountains and were able to lick their wounds, they still got whipped consistently,not by the Caliphate, who were pretty well organised, but by Bulgarians,Lombards in Italy and even isolated parties of adventurers.

 

[Nicophorus]

The Latins ended up destroying the ERE in 1204. The Turks ended up destroying the ERE AGAIN in 1453.

Stopped reading right there. The simple fact that you had to use destroyed twice , with 200 years between them, shows the resilience and greatness that was Byzantium.

The various "Turk" tribes, clans and quasi-nations that Byzantium exterminated and destroyed are many. The opposite can be said only once, Ottomans.

Normans were beaten in the Balkans, humbled in the holy land and made to kneel down before the Emperors, and their state in Italy lasted a blink of the eye compared to the longevity of Byzantium. You are impressed the Normans took over southern Italy, but not impressed that in the same time Byzantine Greeks ruled an area and population several times as large?

It sounds like if you can't be impressed with a Empire that lasted a thousand years..... then the only thing that would impress you is mythological lands?

Are you asking or questioning WHY Byzantium sometimes lost battles? Because they were an Empire of humans, and not angels, is your answer.

Was Byzantium more successful then basically any other state from late antiquity to the late middle ages? Yes. And that's impressive enough without a flawless victory battle ratio.

p.s. why is it a "utter" and "total" failure if Byzantium failed to destroy EVERY enemy the ever had? If that's the case Byzantium was surrounded by epic failures of nations for one thousand years because they ALL failed to destroy Byzantium, right?

Normans tried how many times to take over the Byzantine Empire? Three times? AND THEY FAILED UTTERLY!!! omg we must now analyze why Normans were so pathetic and incompetent, I mean they could not even keep a toe hold in the Balkans , much less realize their goal of taking over!!

Turks first appeared when? Sometime in late antiquity proably in the form of barbarians steppe peoples above the Black Sea? so THEY FAILED so HARD because despite their wish to have all that gold in Constantinople it took them over 900 years to finally get it! Just think of it, over 10 generations of complete failure Turks!!

(see what I did there?)