Should the byzantine army be entirely men at arms?

[treb]

It's probably a well known fact at this point due to it being brought up ad nauseaum in threads on the Byzantines, that they were not a feudal state and had a professonal standing army that was distributed and ran by governors who ran portions of the empire on behalf of the Emperor.

Assuming they don't stick to ck2's vice royalty system what would you like to see? Easiest idea i have is the viceroys get men at arms instead of levies. Bigger cap for men at arms the more militarily inclined they are.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

It turns out men-at-arms in CK3 aren't a standing army like the previous retinues (not that the themata was one either). I'm not frankly sure who they are supposed to represent. They are contrasted with "levy" but the major component of the feudal levy, the armoured cavalry, seems to fall under men-at-arms. I think they are supposed to be some kind of arbitrary cool dudes. Like, is a Swiss part time rural militiaman of 14th century part of levy or men-at-arms in game terms? I have no idea.

 

[IAmNotAmused]

Throughout much of the CK era, the Roman army relied on the themes. Each theme had a central core of professional soldiers on the imperial payroll (which paid a big bag of gold to the strategos or dux of the theme who then used that to pay the proffessionals). These proffessionals were typically from well-off families. How else could they afford the horse, weapons and armor?

The bulk of the theme armies were, essentially, conscript farmers. These men would only be called up in a crisis, otherwise they were free tomoive their lives. They'd likely be provided with basic armor and a weapon, paid for by their family (if able) or community (equipping a solider was part of the community's tax obligations) occasionally by the empire.

Finally, you had the tagmata. These were full time soldiers in the direct employ of the emperor. Some, like the Scholai (the elite cavalry of the army) were usually native Romans. Others (the Varangians) were foreign mercenaries.

If all this sounds sorta like the composition of a feudal kingdom (noble knights, peasant levies, king's retinue + mercenaries) you've been paying attention. It *was* compositionally similar. The difference in mainly that all the gold paying for this went through Constantinople first, before being sent down through the domestics and strategioi.

So how much of the Byzantine Roman army was a professional? Probably about half. And of that half, a large chunk of that stayed in Constantinople. E.g. the Numeroi, whose ~4,000 men manned the Theodosian Walls with support of contingents of the other tagmata. This "home army" also acted as the police for the queen of cities in-between sieges.

At its peak, the Byzantine army probably had around 60,000 combat soldiers (plus an equal number of support staff), and maybe half were proffessionals and half of those were field troops and half of those stayed in Constantinople.

By extension, a field army of 25,000 (roughly the biggest army Constantinople could muster) would likely be about half professional. Less pros and more scrubs if it was a defensive battle in the themes. Infantry are great in the mountains. More pros and less conscripts in the offensive wars to retake Antioch, as the open land of the Levant is rewarding for cavalry and risky for infantry.

TL;DR: An accurate Byzantine army would probably be ¼ retinue, ¼ men at arm's, ½ levy. Some of that retinue would never leave Constantinople.

 

[Atalvyr]

I agree with what IAmNotAmused said.

The Men-at-Arms represent the professional soldiers of an army that are not knights. This could be the kings own retinues, his vassals retinues and any mercenaries currently on payroll. For most feudal realms that would maybe be a quarter to half the army (if bringing in a lot of mercs). As they are equipped by a central authority, they can specialize their composition and tactics.

Levies are all the less organized elements of feudal army. Peasants, conscripted militia, random sellswords etc. They mostly arm themselves and have no specific training. Their tactics are more general and I think it is fair for CK3 to consider them one generic "type" of troops.

Based on what I've read on the forums from our local Byzantophiles, I think it could be argued that their armies probably consisted of a larger part Men-at-Arms than eg. France or England. They were not necessarily expert swordsmen, but if we limit a certain share of their Men-at-Arms to "simple" types such as spearmen, I think it captures the troops that were better equipped/trained than typical levies, but not quite professional swordsmen/cataphracts. It allows the Byzantine armies to be more organized than feudal armies, but without opening the doors to 50% cataphract murder-stacks.

 

[treb]

Throughout much of the CK era, the Roman army relied on the themes. Each theme had a central core of professional soldiers on the imperial payroll (which paid a big bag of gold to the strategos or dux of the theme who then used that to pay the proffessionals). These proffessionals were typically from well-off families. How else could they afford the horse, weapons and armor?

The bulk of the theme armies were, essentially, conscript farmers. These men would only be called up in a crisis, otherwise they were free tomoive their lives. They'd likely be provided with basic armor and a weapon, paid for by their family (if able) or community (equipping a solider was part of the community's tax obligations) occasionally by the empire.

Finally, you had the tagmata. These were full time soldiers in the direct employ of the emperor. Some, like the Scholai (the elite cavalry of the army) were usually native Romans. Others (the Varangians) were foreign mercenaries.

If all this sounds sorta like the composition of a feudal kingdom (noble knights, peasant levies, king's retinue + mercenaries) you've been paying attention. It *was* compositionally similar. The difference in mainly that all the gold paying for this went through Constantinople first, before being sent down through the domestics and strategioi.

So how much of the Byzantine Roman army was a professional? Probably about half. And of that half, a large chunk of that stayed in Constantinople. E.g. the Numeroi, whose ~4,000 men manned the Theodosian Walls with support of contingents of the other tagmata. This "home army" also acted as the police for the queen of cities in-between sieges.

At its peak, the Byzantine army probably had around 60,000 combat soldiers (plus an equal number of support staff), and maybe half were proffessionals and half of those were field troops and half of those stayed in Constantinople.

By extension, a field army of 25,000 (roughly the biggest army Constantinople could muster) would likely be about half professional. Less pros and more scrubs if it was a defensive battle in the themes. Infantry are great in the mountains. More pros and less conscripts in the offensive wars to retake Antioch, as the open land of the Levant is rewarding for cavalry and risky for infantry.

TL;DR: An accurate Byzantine army would probably be ¼ retinue, ¼ men at arm's, ½ levy. Some of that retinue would never leave Constantinople.

You are incorrect on them being conscript farmers, thematic troops were soldiers given a parcel of land owned by the state to farm in peacetime with the proviso that it would pass to any children he had provided they were soldiers too. This had a dual purpose, negating part of the salary on the side of the state and much reducing the need for conscription of men. The majority of the army was professional soldiery given land grants to work in peace time.

 

[Atalvyr]

You are incorrect on them being conscript farmers, thematic troops were soldiers given a parcel of land owned by the state to farm in peacetime with the proviso that it would pass to any children he had provided they were soldiers too. This had a dual purpose, negating part of the salary on the side of the state and much reducing the need for conscription of men. The majority of the army was professional soldiery given land grants to work in peace time.

A man working the fields for most of the year is by definition not a professional soldier. He is a part time soldier that is enlisted into a militia when the need arises, contrary to being part of a standing army. Better equipped than a feudal levy, perhaps, but not a professional in the sense of retinues or mercenaries whose only job is carrying a sword.

 

[Denkt]

Given that Byzantine Empire is likely going to be richer than anything to the West, they should be able to afford more men at arms.

Making complete different Rules for byzantine empire is problematic due to balance issues, likely they Will either be pretty overpowered or too weak.

 

[IAmNotAmused]

You are incorrect on them being conscript farmers, thematic troops were soldiers given a parcel of land owned by the state to farm in peacetime with the proviso that it would pass to any children he had provided they were soldiers too. This had a dual purpose, negating part of the salary on the side of the state and much reducing the need for conscription of men. The majority of the army was professional soldiery given land grants to work in peace time.

That was the Komnenian army, mostly . Prior to Manzikert, soldiers didn't get land in exchange for service unless it was newly conquered land. Even then, the emperor took the best land (e.g. Melitine) as his personal estate. I'd also note the Komnenian period was a period of reconquest, so all that land paid to soldiers isn't *that* out of the ordinary. It was conquered land, so sharing the spoils is in the Byzantine tradition.

The high Byzantine period is defined by community taxation. That is, an entire community is given a tax burden from the assessors. That burden can be relieved by A) gold B) able bodied, equipped soldiers, C) barter (grain for the capital or manufactured goods for the state), D) combination of the above. The entire community was given the burden (and allowed to figure out how it will pay) to ease the cost on individuals who may have good or bad years.

This was a reform over the late antiquarian/early Byzantine period where individual landowners were given a tax assessment due in gold. The reform was necessary due to the deterioration in the financial infrastructure of the empire.

I want to say Nicephorus implemented this reform, but either my memory or the history itself is unclear.

 

[treb]

That was the Komnenian army, mostly . Prior to Manzikert, soldiers didn't get land in exchange for service unless it was newly conquered land. Even then, the emperor took the best land (e.g. Melitine) as his personal estate. I'd also note the Komnenian period was a period of reconquest, so all that land paid to soldiers isn't *that* out of the ordinary. It was conquered land, so sharing the spoils is in the Byzantine tradition.

The high Byzantine period is defined by community taxation. That is, an entire community is given a tax burden from the assessors. That burden can be relieved by A) gold B) able bodied, equipped soldiers, C) barter (grain for the capital or manufactured goods for the state), D) combination of the above. The entire community was given the burden (and allowed to figure out how it will pay) to ease the cost on individuals who may have good or bad years.

This was a reform over the late antiquarian/early Byzantine period where individual landowners were given a tax assessment due in gold. The reform was necessary due to the deterioration in the financial infrastructure of the empire.

I want to say Nicephorus implemented this reform, but either my memory or the history itself is unclear.

I think you're confusing the Pronoia system and the Theme system. The Pronoia was the later Komnenos system where the state traded temporary fiscal rights of something to a person or group, and holders had no military obligations unlike the Themes. They were often rewards for military service, not apart of the military service.

 

[IAmNotAmused]

I think you're confusing the Pronoia system and the Theme system. The Pronoia was the later Komnenos system where the state traded temporary fiscal rights of something to a person or group, and holders had no military obligations unlike the Themes. They were often rewards for military service, not apart of the military service.

First paragraph is certainly summarizing the later stages of pronoia. The rest preceded that invention by centuries. I glossed over the transitory period of the early Komnenian period, which restricted temporary grants to the nobility.

Which, my bad on not being 100% clear. First rule of Byzantine history is be very clear what timeframe you're talking about, because there's so much time to cover.

 

[Byzantium2000]

I feel it should be said IAmNotAmused is using the lowball numbers for the size of the Byzantine military forces. Should also mention The Provinical Tagmata who were full time professional troops stationed in the Themes to replace the reliance on Thematic troops under the solider Empeors. Which is relevant to the 1066 start.

The Theme system itself was always a evolving thing( with the provinces getting smaller and more centralised as time went on)though I'd say our conscious image of it is primarily based on the 800s.

That said I definitely would not call Thematic troops Professionals at all but based on how Man at Arms work so far in CK3, I would say there closer to them then generic levies.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

That said I definitely would not call Thematic troops Professionals at all but based on how Man at Arms work so far in CK3, I would say there closer to them then generic levies.

By what metric though? That's what the earlier Swiss example was about: a common part time infantryman with an actual battlefield worth closer to a knight. Is he levy by means of recruitment, or man-at-arms by competence? If battlefield performance is the most important difference between men-at-arms and levy then arguably how a group of soldiers is recruited and maintained is close to irrelevant in determing who is man-at-arms. Instead the thematic troops should be compared to, say, the Normans and how well Normans compared with their other foes like Arabs and Anglo-Saxons.

 

[Byzantium2000]

By what metric though? That's what the earlier Swiss example was about: a common part time infantryman with an actual battlefield worth closer to a knight. Is he levy by means of recruitment, or man-at-arms by competence? If battlefield performance is the most important difference between men-at-arms and levy then arguably how a group of soldiers is recruited and maintained is close to irrelevant in determing who is man-at-arms. Instead the thematic troops should be compared to, say, the Normans and how well Normans compared with their other foes like Arabs and Anglo-Saxons.

That’s why I agreed with your post it’s a hard measure to judge. But I don’t think the Thematic Troops fit the conscripted peasants forced to be your meat shield that the dev diary describes. Depending on the Theme they could range from light cavalry to stand in heavy infantry. But since there isn't a in between levies and Man at Arms or Knights they'll probably just end up being levies. I wonder how the Varangians will fit in it.

 

[IAmNotAmused]

That’s why I agreed with your post it’s a hard measure to judge. But I don’t think the Thematic Troops fit the conscripted peasants forced to be your meat shield that the dev diary describes. Depending on the Theme they could range from light cavalry to stand in heavy infantry. But since there isn't a in between levies and Man at Arms or Knights they'll probably just end up being levies. I wonder how the Varangians will fit in it.

There wasn't one level of "thematic troops". There was the permanent staff, including the strategos, his lieutenants, cavalry officers and what we'd call senior non-coms who would command and drill the infantry.

This group is basically the men-at-arms described in the diary.

Then you'd have what were effectively reservists who'd only get called up for war. The effectiveness of these troops varied considerably by theme, as a lot of the western Anatolian themes would rarely see action unless there was a particularly large invasion. These men would be better equipped than a feudal levy, but not necessarily better trained.

Treating that latter group as a levy, with a modest bonus for the better equipment, is the most straightforward solution.

 

[Denkt]

Treating that latter group as a levy, with a modest bonus for the better equipment, is the most straightforward solution.

Levy quality could be influence by buildings.

 

[Byzantium2000]

There wasn't one level of "thematic troops". There was the permanent staff, including the strategos, his lieutenants, cavalry officers and what we'd call senior non-coms who would command and drill the infantry.

This group is basically the men-at-arms described in the diary.

Then you'd have what were effectively reservists who'd only get called up for war. The effectiveness of these troops varied considerably by theme, as a lot of the western Anatolian themes would rarely see action unless there was a particularly large invasion. These men would be better equipped than a feudal levy, but not necessarily better trained.

Treating that latter group as a levy, with a modest bonus for the better equipment, is the most straightforward solution.

I would say more organized or better trained then better equipped as the actual factor but otherwise I agree that’s probably for the best.

 

[Denkt]

I would say more organized or better trained then better equipped as the actual factor but otherwise I agree that’s probably for the best.

I could see the byzantines being able to hold more duchies and thus get more duchy level buildings:

Spoiler: Screenshot

 

[IAmNotAmused]

I feel it should be said IAmNotAmused is using the lowball numbers for the size of the Byzantine military forces.

The high-ball numbers usually lump in people who wouldn't engage in combat. An actual army would have 1 attendant per officer (including all the cavalry), and an extra horse for each rider. Plus the baggage train, medics/nurses, administrators, and however much of the court the emperor wanted to bring along. So the 25,000 soldiers I quoted would have at least 20,000 men supporting it.

The Theme system itself was always a evolving thing( with the provinces getting smaller and more centralised as time went on)though I'd say our conscious image of it is primarily based on the 800s.

Yes and no. It started off as very centralized, with the 4 original themes corresponding to the previous field armies/diocese. That concentrated too much power and caused too many revolts, so they progressively broke up the original 4 into a dozen new themes, each directly reporting to the emperor.

At some point, the themes stopped representing the top level of military administration in their area. You'd get a dux in charge of multiple themes, eventually a domestikos in charge in each of Europe and Anatolia.

 

[Byzantium2000]

The high-ball numbers usually lump in people who wouldn't engage in combat. An actual army would have 1 attendant per officer (including all the cavalry), and an extra horse for each rider. Plus the baggage train, medics/nurses, administrators, and however much of the court the emperor wanted to bring along. So the 25,000 soldiers I quoted would have at least 20,000 men supporting it.

Well I’m more talking about how multiple campaigns had fighting numbers in the 30000s to (rarely and debateable)40000 at peak. Vassal forces that often included Slavs,Armenians Lombards, Hungarians Turks, Crusaders should also be taken into account, a good example being the battle of Myriokephalon. Could also include the Akritoi who would cover the advance of main Armies. 20000 support crew is definitely exaggeration I’ve read like 5000 at most.

Also that’s sounds like the definition of centralization to me(under the Emperor) plus the Domestic actled like the Commander in Chief he didn’t rule over multiple themes, often just leading campaigns in the Emperors Name. Plus I’m pretty sure most Duxs didn’t lead multiple themes and there was also the Katepans.

 

[Denkt]

The English army at agincourt 1415 may have been completely men at arms in game terms: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/agincourt/0/steps/8842

And England during this time was a rather weak 3-4 million population kingdom, Byzantine Empire had a much larger population on its height and thus more resources.