I love the sound of all three elements of that sentence
This should be good
Hope it lives up to expectations!
Legend
Both Ioannes, particularly Ioannes VII, had a distinctive personality that defined their respective reigns. Ioannes VII, despite lacking in many of the finer qualities that make for a good ruler, seems to have been a genuinely nice person. His campaigns against the Berber Pirates, while economically sound and offering opportunity for political expansion, which are no doubt the reason the Advisory allowed them to happen, were steeped in language of philanthropy. He wanted to rescue christian slaves, to keep the pirates from kidnapping or killing more of his subjects, and, if he could, to save the souls of the Heathen. Similarly, his Imperial legal reforms were, as far as he seemed to be aware, entirely for the greater good of the Empire and its members. For example, his early reforms improved cultural fluidity and established courts to resolve conflicts in place of wars. Ioannes also instituted important military reforms establishing a meritocratic system for officer promotion in the Army, believing, perhaps ironically, that birth was an insufficient prerequisite to lead. This last reform would have important consequences in coming wars, as Roman armies were led by some of the most competent generals in the world (National Idea: battlefield commissions).
The reasons of Ioannes' sympathetic reign can probably be traced back to his early childhood. Konstantinos allowed his son a great deal of freedom (many would say neglect). The young boy often slipped out of the palace to play with his 'friends' in the servant quarters of the Emperor's palace in Rome, where he spent most of his childhood prior to his father's death. One boy, named Marcos, Ioannes mentioned frequently throughout his life. He even attempted to organize several searches for him. According to Ioannes, Marcos was an older orphan boy. His mother had been taken in an attack by Berber pirates, and his father had died in 'the war' in Germany. Which war is unclear but probably irrelevant. Many historians argue that Marcos was a story made up by the Advisory to justify their actions, but I believe he was a real person. Young Ioannes' trips to the servant quarters are corroborated by many sources, and it seems likely that he would have made friends there. Further, Ioannes' insistence on searching for Marcos later in life and the consistency of his stories suggests that this friend, in particular, was real. His experience growing up as an equal among people of lower status, especially someone who had experienced so much of relevance to Roman policy, is probably what made him so sensitive during his reign.
Image: Ioannes VII as a child (left). He was not much for court functions, and enjoyed playing with servant children more than his tutors and guardians.
Ioannes VIII's motivations were not so altruistic. He recognized the authority that the strength of his nation provided and was confident in the diplomatic success of the Advisory. He also had excruciating patience - he seems to have viewed the ultimate unification of the two empires as a lifelong project, and, ascending to the throne at 22, was willing to use his entire life to ensure its success. Still, he moved quickly, uniting the Empire in just over 20 years. The reasons for his success are varied. First, the machinations of the advisory combined with his personal charisma meant that Ioannes was able to play a fabulous diplomatic dance within his realm, pitting princes against one another, forging alliances, supporting the ambitions of some princes while undermining those of others, paying carefully timed visits to important polities, and, when all else failed, liberally placing Byzantine funds into carefully chosen hands. The latter mostly involved gifts to the princes themselves, but in certain situations these involved bribes to important officials or even bread distribution to local populations, using some of the flimsier clauses in one of Ioannes VII's reforms to gather support for a power higher than the local duke or count. These expensive reforms required a major overhaul of the Greek banking system, but once undertaken these reforms allowed the Greeks to fund almost unlimited carefully placed gifts. In fact, even with the Advisory in such a powerful position, Ioannes is said to have often complained that competent diplomats were a bigger hindrance to his efforts in Germany than money. Second, and even more importantly, was the image that Ioannes VIII's predecessors had fostered. Konstantinos had worked to present himself as a protector of faith and the Empire despite the conquests that had alienated most of the non-elector states of the Empire. However, the policy he set was largely followed by the advisory, and his grandson Ioannes VII energetically preached simple-minded altruism, so by the time Ioannes VIII was crowned Emperor decades of relatively benevolent and protective rule had established the Greek Emperors as acceptable, if not necessarily loved, rulers.
Image: The Bohemian War, showing the 4 major campaigns of the war.
The final hurdle in the unification of the two Empires was the Bohemian War. The war is worth mentioning in some detail because it is often described, even (or perhaps particularly) in primary school education, as a triumph of Roman superiority against overwhelming odds - tactical, technological, and, sometimes, theological superiority all play their parts. Stories abound of Roman Armies sweeping enemies off the battlefield and clever Roman commanders accomplishing cunning ambushes against overwhelming enemy forces. Brave soldiers and citizens alike united to halt the Protestant menace in a glorious feat of a 16th Century version of total war. Loyalists led the Roman armies through hostile territory to meet their enemy at the battle of Altmark, where the Romans finally halted the Bohemian and Polish advances into northern Germany and kept the Protestants there from fully joining the war effort. The Tagmata bravely held against Bohemian heavy cavalry at Second Bessarabia. Georgios Mikrulakes escaped the advancing enemy to warn the Army of Greece of an ambush, setting the stage for the great victory at Belgrade which ended Bohemian ambitions into Greece. But more than anything else, this war began the myth of Roman infallibility.
But early battles were far from universally in Constantinople's favor. At the battle of Sopron, a Roman army 11,000 strong was completely eliminated by a larger Bohemian force. At about the same time, at the battle of Banat, the Romans enjoyed a full 2:1 advantage, but suffered 4:1 casualties and lost control of the field. Indeed, Rome's early and mid-war victories, even the famous ones such as Altmark, were won with at least 2:1 numerical superiority.
Image: The Battle of Sopron. Bohemian forces engage the Roman army across the front, attempting to pin it into place and draw out the Roman reserve. The cavalry, hidden in reserve, seizes advantage of the situation and sweeps around the Roman left flank, encircling and destroying the army. Each unit represent approximately 1000 men.
These early setbacks led to a radical restructuring of the Roman Army. Formerly made up of levies thrown together according to the needs of a particular campaign, units in the latter part of the war became increasingly standardized. In addition, large quantities of artillery became standard for Roman field armies, although 'light divisions' were maintained to counteract the strategic mobility of the Bohemian cavalry. The new organization was highly effective. Strategically it allowed for greater command coordination because higher-level commanders had a more accurate idea of the forces their subordinates wielded, while the artillery gave Roman infantry the staying power they needed to stand fast against the Bohemian knights. Now famous battles such as Cherson, where the Ukrainians were routed from the field and driven from the war, or Second Bessarabia, where the outnumbered Roman Army turned the tide of the Eastern Front and, in the eyes of most of the Empire, redeemed the catastrophe of Sopron. In other parts of the continent, the battles of Berlin and Hinterpommern decimated the Protestant armies, effectively winning the German campaign and cleared the path to Warsaw and Prague. Ironically, while these changes largely arose as a result of the innovative atmosphere brought about by Ioannes VII reform of the officer corps, they would form the organizational foundation of the Roman Army for nearly two centuries before the demands of a new style of warfare forced the Army to adapt once again.
Uploaded with
ImageShack.us
Image: The Second Battle of Bessarabia. Phase 1: The Romans push back the Bohemian center, inflicting heavy casualties, while the Bohemians attempt to flank the Roman line with a detachment of cavalry. Phase 2: the Bohemians continue their attacks at the flank and counterattack with their powerful cavalry in the center, while the Romans make an orderly withdrawal. Phase 3: Roman counterattack in the center, backed by their plentiful artillery, turns back the Bohemian cavalry, breaking the center. Phase 4: Routing the Bohemian army.
