And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19 . :)
I really like your content normally SandRhoman, so don't take this the wrong way but this seems to have been a hastily researched video not sourced from the latest or best Byzantine military scholarship. The Cataphract as it is called did not disappear, not least because the terms "Kataphractoi" and "Klibanophoroi" may have referred to a less and more armored type of cavalry, and the latter term (what you depicted as a Cataphract) may have actually been only called a "Klibanophoroi". Some historians take a lack of mention of Cataphracts to assume they were gone, but this is a period where Byzantine military writing was basically non-existent. Between the Strategikon of the 6th century and the Tactica of the late 9th century (which this video seems to be based on) there were NO original Byzantine military texts being written, and chronicles written by priests or courtiers were notoriously sparse on the details of military equipment and tactics. Byzantine art depicting soldiers from throughout the centuries was similarly unreliable, usually depicting soldiers in equipment of the classical age such as Phrygian and Corinthian Helmets and Muscle Cuirasses! My point is that going entirely off of the few written or pictorial sources would give us a highly distorted and inaccurate picture of the Byzantine army. Similarly, the use of a Greek Fire "Flamethrower" outside of the context of siege works is highly questionable, if not outright science fiction, though the use of field artillery is not. The trend of the 9th-11th centuries is a decline or decay of the Theme system in favor of professional field armies capable of offensive military operations. Service in the Thematic armies was largely replaced with a tax burden instead, which allowed the creation of more professional cavalry regiments and increased use of mercenary forces, including the creation of the Varangian Guard. The 9th and 10th century sees a dramatic enlarging of the "Tagmata" regiments, and the creation of new Tagmata forces. The Tagmata were almost entirely Cavalry. Cavalry was still the focus here. 8:31 While true, military manuals of the time do ascribe to procure better armor such as mail shirts, greaves and higher quality helmets to seasoned troops or troops in the frontal ranks of a formation. While infantry was more disciplined, cavalry was the striking power of the army and infantry were more a mobile camp and rallying point for the cavalry, as well as garrison troops as your video seems to imply.
I liked this video. It's a rare look into Byzantine armies. Hey have you ever made a similar video involving the Mongol or the Medieval Samurai armies.
Eastern Roman tactics were indeed very complex and far more evolved than earlier Roman tactics, which only shows the amount of danger they faced on all directions, litrally on the battlefield as well as on the map.
Everyone wanted the Eastern Roman Empire death so that they could actually claim to be the successor to the Roman Empire, but the ERE still lasted for a thousand more years lmao
the consistency in the quality of this channel is beyond any other mil history production i've found on youtube. im really greatful for all your hard work, thank you
honestly turning the infantry into essentialy a big bunker inside of which cavalry can hide sounds like a good idea when playing bretonnia in total war warhammer
After the death of Basil II, the Anatolian-Land aristocracy wanted emperors who would undo the heavy taxes placed on them by Basil. Also, after the death of Basil II, the aristocracy was allowed to buy up land from the peasants which undermined the Thematic System which had been in place for hundreds of years. Instead of farmer-soldiers, the empire employed mercenaries. And their loyalty to the empire was only based on money and nothing else.
You should read "streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade" by Anthony Kaldellis. The whole "Anatolian aristocracy" theory is pretty much debunked. It's yet another Gibbionism that has survived until modern times.
@@alessandrogini5283The lack of a strong authority that could unite the Army and the Civil bureaucracy in Constantinople that has grown exceedingly unwieldy.
@@olivere5497what? Did you know the name Basil originates from the Greek word "Basileus" which means "King"? That is literally *the* most apt name you can give to a prince who is expected to become the Emperor.
You called the regular regiments Tagmata, that would be the reserve in the capital, the local regiments of the military districts were called Thema (Theme system)
Just a bit on the menavlion: As I understood it, the menavlion was primarily *thicker* than the normal spearman's spear. These spears were braced to the back foot and pointed slightly upwards with the offhand left free for a secondary weapon, the menavlion was thus more or less a "portable stake" whose task was to be pointed at the chest of charging horses. In the event of a cavalry charge (that actually hit the infantry), the weight of horse and rider would drive the point into the horse's body. The "hoplitoi" or spearmen that made up the bulk of the infantry also had *much* longer spears than normal. I don't remember the actual length, but even the formations suggest they were significantly long. Why else reinforce the front with an extra row of hoplitoi (@6:45) if not to maximize the number of spearpoints directed at the oncoming cavalry?
A little known fact: Byzantine cataphracts in the front rows of the wedge also carried throwing maces in numbers of 3-4 which they would hurl against the foremost enemy line to further break it and soften it up before colliding with it.
I am loving your videos on the Byzantines and their army - you explain all of the tactics, formations and so on in a very detailed way and no other RUclipsr comes close to this! Seriously good stuff, would love if you covered even more Byzantine history and armies (am biased tho!). And maybe contemporary armies in Europe compared to the Byzantines (late 800s to late 900s) or little know battles? Anyways, great video, love it!
Once again, a superb video sir. I truly enjoy your work. The Byzantine Empire being the gateway into the middle east, the Levant and North Africa is one of the aspects that fascinates me. The intermingling of cultures and evolution of the army whilst looking to the Romans for inspiration of their professional standing army. Just like how the Northmen that settled in Normandy had a complete cultural evolution from viking Norse men, infantry using longboats ,round shields to form shield wall formations and sacking monasteries to Norman Knights on horseback wielding kite shields that went on crusade for Chritendom , so to did the Eastern Roman Empire Evolve into the Byzantine Empire. The Early Roman Empire had a distinct culture , Helinistic architecture ,tunic wearing nobility, legionaries fitted with Lorica segmentata, a Gladius and a scutum. At the split of the Empire into west and east, the separate governing bodies went about doing so in differing manners. The west still relying on the regular legionaries but faltering, thus using more and more mercenaries and adopting their shields, swords and armour such as Gothic armour and such at the end of the day the western Empire fell and this severely expedited the evolution of Eastern Rome into Byzantium. With all connection to Rome in the west lost, the Eastern Empire utilised more and more soldiers from the region in their Empire. Soldiers from Greece, Anatolia, the Levant, some western parts of Mesopotamia and all across North Africa. Thus their building material, their architecture and even their army was vastly different from the West because they adopted the effective practices and cultures of the people whom were subject to the Empire. Thus the Eastern Roman army evolved into the Byzantine Army using lamellar armour coats of scale mail , cuirasses, casques and greaves of steel adopted from Persia. Their shields evolved from oval auxiliary shields to enlarged round shields and then it evolved further into kite shields that were highly effective on foot as well as horseback. Similarly their Swords evolved from the Gladius, to the Spatha and when they encountered the effectiveness of the shamshir of the Persians and kilij of other ME armies, they adopted this eloquent design into their swords thus the spatha gave way to the curved Paramerion sword. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramerion You can see this clear evolution in their navy as well, the rectangular sailed Greco-Roman triremes were replaced by galleys , these galleys were revolutionised by the Byzantine invention of the Lateen sail. A triangular sail set on a long yard mounted at an angle on the mast, and running in a fore-and-aft direction. This being the sail that most people to this day see as Middle Eastern sails. These sails were so revolutionary and effective because it allows a boat to tack "against the wind". The Byzantine Empire consisting of the ME and North Africa caused this knowledge to be adopted by the Arabs and other ME + African kingdoms such as the Swahili. This sail was also later adopted by the Portuguese as seen on their Caravelles, this enabled the commencement of the age of discovery. Brief notes on the Byzantines. docs.google.com/document/d/1juSa0tBr49TJxy5n08mwpapOLscNuNTAnQGTa_A8mSw/edit?usp=sharing
the Byzantines had exterminated the Greeks of Greece for centuries they themselves were called Romans and for the Greeks of Greece they used the diminutive Greki or elladikus they were not used in the army because they considered them enemies and did not want to learn the art of war
@@zippyparakeet1074 The Romans loved the Middle East and were racist towards the Europeans. Man, when a German diplomat from the Holy Roman Empire came to make the daughter of the Roman ruler marry the son of the Holy Roman Emperor, the Romans treated him with disgrace and called them barbarians and expelled him twice.
@@zippyparakeet1074 this is what the written Byzantine sources say we also have the Muslim and Byzantine alliance against Greek cities, e.g. Philadelphia as well as the alliance of Byzantines and crusaders against Greeks in mainly Greece, e.g. in the revolution of Leon Sgouros
Formations are so important to how warfare is conducted at the tactical level and I rarely come across such in-depth explanations of how they worked. Thank you!
The characteristics of the menavlion that are known are only two: it had a thick shaft and a long head. No definitive assessment of its properties or how it was wielded is possible. The kontarion was a long pike-like spear used to ward off cavalry attacks. Therefore, the menavlion as a type of pike seems redundant, plus a pike is a thrust only weapon, a long head on a pike just adds weight to the end of a long pole, making it unwieldy, most pikes have relatively small spearheads.. The thick shaft - thickness is particularly useful for lateral, not longitudinal strength - combined with a long spearhead suggests a cutting weapon. In Norse accounts there is a weapon called a 'hewing spear', the menavlion was probably similar, a cut and thrust weapon, not unlike a bill in use, useful for dealing with cavalry who had broken through the hedge of kontarion- armed infantry. Someone armed with a long and unwieldy pike-like weapon would have been of little use in such a situation.
"if saplings of one piece can not be found, let them be made from wood cut into sections, but they must be made of hard wood and just so thick that hands can wield them." "... one hundred must have menavlia with a length of one and a half or two ourguiai, while their spear points must be one and a half or two spithamai..." That's 2.74 to 3.66 meters, some times made of two pieces of wood with a spear point on top of this. That doesn't sound like a bill-like weapon at all. A charging horse will shatter a normal spear. This appear to be thick stakes made of complete or separated, solid branches of oak or cornel wood.
If it had a thick shaft and a long head it could only have been used to thrust repeatedly until its wielder was overcome with an extreme sense of fatigue
@@PolluxA I said, like a bill in its use, i.e. a cut-and-thrust weapon, I did not mean it would resemble one in shape. There are a few Byzantine pictorial representations of spears with unusually long and quite broad heads, one of which shows the spearhead with wavy edges (flamberge). They are generally quite like the Carolingian winged spear in appearance. A long spearhead adds no extra functionality to a pike. Pikes have only one means of functioning to inflict damage, the thrust. A long spearhead is only useful if the long sharpened edges are intended to cut, while such a spear, obviously, retains its thrusting ability. Pikes also have to be used in massed formations, a pikeman on his own or in a loose formation might as well drop his pike and draw a sword, for all the use his pike would be. The 15th/16th century Swiss recognised that, in the case of a breakthrough of the enemy past the pike-hedge, arming the rear ranks with more pikes was folly. They armed their rear ranks, and the guards of their standards, with a shorter cut-and-thrust weapon - the halberd. The Swiss were not stupid, neither were the Byzantines.
Siege machines were not used in pitch battles, because they are well... for sieges. They are far too bulky, heavy, often immobile, and ammo is inconvenient, big, heavy, doesn't do that much damage to people as it does to walls. They did have some "cousins" which were occasionally used in field battles, mostly ballistae and its derivatives such as springald, but it wouldn't be correct to call them "siege" machines.
Great, detailed analysis. Thanks, SandRhoman. The part detailing the cavalry tactics was especially interesting. I think such detailed descriptions of deployment and use in battle were what your video about hussars lacked. Anyway, do you think it is possible you could go over the ways knights were formed and deployed during the Middle Ages and how it changed depending on the time and region of Europe? A big task I know, but it could form a basis for an entire series. If you also find that interesting.
@@clintmoor422 Yeah, I remember but as you yourself pointed out it was only a surface-level depiction of medieval cavalry. Adicute for the purpose of that video, of course.
the offensive hollow square reminds me of the 1500’s era pike /musket formations of western europe. I wonder if the Latins ever translated any of those primary sources during the renaissance to gain inspiration for the Tercio?
Oplitarhis means leader of the hoplites (hoplite is the dude with a oplo which means weapon) Taxiarchi is a term used even today in the millitary but the size has changed a few times, today its the formation of 3 thousand men if i remember correctly Menevlatoi i have no idea how it translates cause we dont use it in modern Greek Trigonos parataxis straight up translates to triangular formation The heavy cataphracts were called Klivanarioi which means Klivanos wearers ,klivanos translates into furnace because they wore too much armour and it was very hot Catapult comes from the Katapeltis which comes from Kata and pelto, kata meaning against and pelto meaning to throw , therefore the thing that throws against the enemy
"By late antiquity, there was a single Greco-Roman Empire, but perhaps today we see more clearly the continuity of its dual nature than the ancients did. Both civilizations co-existed and both survived through the Middle Ages down to the present day;" RONALD MELLOR, THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN GREEK AND ROMAN IDENTITY, p.118
Very nice video, I have never seen such a detailed description of the Byzantine army before. Learned a lot of new things. It is striking how the role of infantry had changed from the Classical period to the Medieval. They went from being the main part of an army supported by a few cavalry, to being a support element of a cavalry force. It kind of reminds me of a Bronze Age army of chariots supported by some infantry. Anyway, well done.
@@tylerellis9097 well obviously because foot soldiers were cheaper to train and equip and were easier on logistics. Plus infantry was always needed to hold ground. Cavalry was the hammer, infantry was the anvil or whatever else it needed to be in order to support the cav.
The art is amazing, where can I see it in more detail?
Год назад+8
It seems that much of the kingdoms and empires of Europe that tried to focus on infantry to counter the powerful cavalry of their neighbors in the Middle Ages and in the first two centuries of the Modern Age, always ended up basing themselves in some way on the tactics of the Romans and Macedonians or try to make a perfect combination of the two, being in this case the Byzantine version. I would love that you also talk about the tactics of the Eastern Roman Empire used in the times of Justinian the Great, since in my opinion it is more interesting for having managed to reconquer a large part of the old Empire with Belisarius and Narses, besides that I know that they used different variations of formations, where infantry and cavalry could optimize the mixed role they had at that time (basically all units were capable of using the bow, in addition to attacking with power in the Melee).
@@baccadaa This is not a battle, this is a siege, but after that he fought the Persians and lost, so Justinian took advantage of this by isolating this leader.
Год назад+1
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب Persia has nothing to do with this, not even the Roman Empire in all its splendor managed to conquer it before (so it doesn't make any difference what Justinian achieved there against the Sasanians), the point of admiring Justinian is that he recovered his territories from Western Europe and Africa, Does that seem little to you? Justinian's plan was to put up with the Persians and reach a long enough peace (even if it was not profitable), to carry out his western campaigns and in that he did succeed; it was the closest the Byzantines ever came to reconquering the Western Empire. Reducing their management only to the conflict with Persia, where they did not have much success against Belisarius either, since the front remained practically the same despite the defeats (the war was more equal than what you want to say), is to look at it in a very subjective way the history of that emperor.
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب The Persians still lost the siege and then failed to push further into Roman Syria. Justinian paid off the Persians while reconquering Italy, Africa and parts of Spain with Belisarius. You are coping
This is very interesting and it humorously mirrors the most effective single player strategies in the videos games "Rome total War" and "Rome 2 Total War"
Danke das ihr ein Video über die Byzantinische Armee erstellt habt! Ich intressiere mich sehr für die Byzantinische Armee und deshalb habe ich auch das Strategikon des Maurikios gelesen, was ich nur weiterempfehlen kann!🦅🍻
@@Nom_AnorVSJediThat's why I wish to see those two fight each other. We already have historical accounts of how both of them fared against the Muslims.
There is a book by D. Graff "The Eurasian Way of War: Military Practice in Seventh-Century China and Byzantium" that compares both military systems of early Byzantine era with China. Not vey deep, but there are some interesting remarks there nonetheless, especially regarding military writing in both cultures.
Marvellous analysis and optics. Hopefully we'll get another one with the army of the late 13th to early 15th century, which is much more obscure, but definitely more interesting, as influences from both Frankish and Turkic armies are visual.
AFAIK the heavy Cataphracts also had long darts (Plumbata) they could throw as they advanced. I imagine the weighted darts would really help breaking up the infantry prior to the charge as well.
This reminds me of wwii aircraft carrier warfare in a way. having a sturdy defensive “home base” of a ships convoy (in this case infantry square) from which the planes (cavalry) strike from and return to reorganize and regroup. a defensive base and a strike force
Its always amusing, seeing experts who've read one blog on this period getting all wet in the knickers about the use of the term 'Byzantine' for the later (East) Roman Empire. Yes, its not what they were called at the time. No, it doesnt matter a damn to those of is seriously well read on the period, its just a recognised shorthand.
I love the video! It looks like you took a Quora answer I made regarding the 10th century Byzantine army and turned it into a video 😂. Given the source material, it makes sense that we would discuss the same details.
500-770s AD was an era in which Roman Empire used heavy armored or light armored fast moving horse archers. It was much easier to use diplomacy and bribes and take advantage of heavy blows inside the enemy territory or destroy their infrastructure. Navy was also a powerful tool which combined both professional troops and a variety of levies (who trained in specific times during the year). It was better to have less troops but more experienced rather than draw levies from the populace. When the Empire managed to stabilize its control over its heartland in Europe, it was then the time to progress the military reforms which enabled long lasting wars. Excellent job about presenting these reforms!!!
It predates that. Maurice's Strategikon talks about the Avar patern of garment ect. It is in the first chapter. The Romans also adopted the pavilion tent from the Avars that then moved through Europe and characterised the middle ages.
@@ZakkWyldeman Can't see me using the terms 'proper' or 'Jurta' in my comment. I see one comment. Is there another one I left that has been deleted or hidden? I do not know the name of the clothing garment off the top of my head. Just that it was a cloak.
Not at all...that was Maurice, Leo's main influence in tactics, arms, and armor were the ancient Macedonian and Hellenic armies...he has an entire section dedicated to it in his Taktika
Thank you for an interesting, informative video, all the content new to me. 7:02 - I'm a bit surprised by the numbers compared to the composition: 8 rows of spearmen = 400 spearmen, only? Or are 200 light infantry included here, without spears in a row of spears? 2 rows of archers = 300 archers. Can they fit in just 2 rows? 1 row of menaulato = 100 menaulatoi. OK. The 200 light infantry, are they the javeliners that fill the gaps on the side of the block? It seems to me, that the spearmen would have been deployed in an inappropriately loose formation, and the archers in an inappropriately tight formation. I would have expected more or less 800 spearmen to 200 archers (8 to 2), not 4 to 3 (8 to 6). Can it be, that the spearmen were in a 3 times looser formation than the archers?
It must've been expensive to pay for all the additional training and equipment that was necessary for the new military doctrine. Seeing how the empire was at an historic all-time low at the time, the coffers must've been pretty empty for a lack of tributes from conquered territories. On the other hand, the shortened frontline and supply chains might have helped with that. It probably also helped that only core provinces, that were more loyal and less likely to rebel, were left.
The Empire was certainly less rich than in its days of spanning across the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean, but by the 900s Byzantium can't be called poor anymore. Actually very rich in comparison with contemporary states in Europe and the Levant. After the aftershocks and recurrent waves of the Justinianic plague ebbed away in the mid-700s, the slow disintegration of the Caliphate and the mostly successful financial reforms of the Emperor Nicephorus I, the Romans were on a pretty significant financial rebound by the time the 10th century began. Certain areas of western Anatolia had not been raided or attacked for years and were enjoying the benefits of sustained population growth.
There were many successful economic reforms during this period and its no surprise that this period of military reform and improvement coincides with a period of economic boom for the Empire. It was incredibly rich. By the time of Basil II, he had managed to amass enough wealth to rival the Empire's wealth during the time of Anastasius in the 6th century while lacking rich provinces of Egypt, Syria and the Levant and being constantly at war. This level of wealth would no be seen again in Europe until the early modern period. Seriously. The Byzantine Empire was super rich and its lands were the most productive in all of Europe and the Middle East, not because they were super fertile but because the well oiled Byzantine bureaucracy- that they had inherited from their Roman past- ensured the land yielded good taxes while not exploiting the farmers. It was an excellent system and it resembles a modern nation state more than a medieval Kingdom.
This was a great video! It’s always funny to hear how the Romans at this time were said to be weak, effeminate and unworthy of the title of their forebears by contemporary and modern opinions alike when in the fact, the armies of Constantinople were always given a huge degree of importance especially by the most effective and martial emperors. How would have these Calvary tactics compare to later European Calvary forces? The combination of heavy lancers and horse archers would have been formidable against the classic Western European knight. The combination of heavy lancers and horse archers would have been effective I think. Post-Manzikert took much of the resources, manpower and infrastructure that made such impressive forces possible. The Komnennids restored some of the capability of the Empire during their effective reigns. Was there any similarities to the armies of the Macedonians? It’s a shame almost everything was lost after the 4th Crusade, like the recipe to Greek fire
@@H20No Can confirm, once obliterated a besieging full army of huns with a roman garrison of two cohors, a damaged unit of limitanei and two units of slingers
@@daddust Well you are right. That period Romei and the country Romania. But it is ok. Modern Greeks consider Byzantine Empira as part of their history for some good reasons the language to be the most predominant of these.
@@daddust Greeks where called 'Ρωμιοί' romans until 19th century. It was a greek empire, they where speaking Greek the people where Greek , their culture where a compination of Roman-Greek culture. So Denmark and Norway can't say that have viking heritage; Germans don't have a heritage from holy roman empire; those people weren't Bulgarians ,bulgarians had their own empire, Serbia was a vasal state at this time. Who was at that time Roman;
@@iwannisbalaouras1687 It’s the Greek nationalists. I bet you think Indo-European doesn’t exist. And the Greeks didn’t learn anything from the Egyptians.
@@daddust i said a thank you, because i like youtube creators talk about history of my people. Every civilization took things from the other. Where are you from;
Been reading about ancient chemical and biological warfare. Could you do a video on those subjects to help my understanding of the ancient art of warfare?
nah... the worst thing in total wars is the fact that every reatreating unit is seen by the mechanics as "it lost the battle". I've tried a legit, well known and typical for some factions tactics (throughout the centuries) of cavalry scavengers, scouts and skirmishers and none of the Total War games (and I mean really, neither 1st Rome, Medieval, Empire, Napoleon, Shogun 2 and any newer) allowed me to make this tactics valiable. I scattered a couple of 3-4 stacks of light cavalry, like normal, sane and historical commander, into the enemies land and engaged in short battles with their supperior forces, burned villages (in TW that still allowed it like Medieval 2) and "siege" undefended cities with some milltia and every time I've ran from a battle or even played it and did some harassment and killing into their archers due to superior manouvers - but than retreated. Every time, no matter what and what game, the engine saw it as a "defeat" and send my "defeated stacks" into the nearest friendly city or at full extend of their range this turn. When in fact I should be able to choose when I want to retreat and hide to harass this army once more in the next round or mayne retreat and do something else. Sorry but the complex strategy does not exists in Total War campaigns xD
@@wlaba272 i actually wish i had actual reasons to retreat more often , i want to lose battles lol just so i feel like im at war , but yeah i used to interecept moorish reinforcements with hordes of jinetes
@@wlaba272 Also my biggest gripe with Total War. It just boils down to hammer and anvil your way through as well as possible, and continously try to surrend. Fancy formations, retreating into ambushes etc is all incredibly hard to pull off and not rewarding. Shame, for a game that focusses on ancient warfare they should definitely allow for more complex tactics.
perhaps you can try to divide your army into two before attacking. One of the smaller force attack while the larger army standby, that way even after harassing the enemy the former retreated back to the safety, the next division can still attack/do tactical maneuver @@wlaba272
The Byzantine Golden Age was made possible by the decline of the Abbassid Caliphate. The Byzantines always struggled when they had to fight enemies on multiple fronts. Basil II had the luxury of being able to focus his resources on defeating the Bulgarians. The Fatimids were annoying but didnt pose a real threat to the empire.
My favourite army when I was an active wargamer was the Nicephorian Byzantine army. The army described in part here. Elite armoured cataphracts (fighting in wedge!), v good heavy cav with bow and lance and decent inf and archers.
@@pmurnion Again, Nicephorus Phocas was in a similar position to Basil II. During Phocas' reign, he only had to worry about fighting the Arabs on the eastern front. The Byzantines were at peace with Bulgaria during the entirety of Phocas' reign. If Phocas had to fight both the Bulgars and Arabs simultaneously, we might not remember him the same.
@@tacocruiser4238Uh you forget Nikephoros launched an invasion of Sicily which did fail and fought off the Fatimids in Southern Italy. You’re right the Empire couldn’t expand when fighting 2 enemies at once but it could hold off 2 of them at once long enough to focus on one front. Basil halted his campaign against Bulgaria and personally marched all the way to Syria from Bulgaria 2 times to drive off the Fatimids. This obviously changed in the 1040s when the Empire started fighting the Normans, Pechenegs and Seljuks at the same time and couldn’t cope with all 3 taking losses. I think your point is disingenuous when factoring in the fact the Caliohates were literally the largest Empires the world had seen, you’re downplaying the entire Middle Ages outside the mongols by acting like the threat they faced while the caliphate declined were insignificant. Like Once again while Basil was fighting in and against Georgia, his commander also named Basil lol was repelling an Entire Holy Roman Army led by the Emperor Konrad himself in Italy.
@@tylerellis9097 The Fatimids, Sicilian Arabs and Georgians were minor players who posed very little threat to the Byzantines. Basil II literally showed up in Syria and the Fatimids backed off because they knew that they had no chance of defeating the Byzantines. They were just hoping to capture a few towns in the Levant when the Byzantines were not paying attention. When I say "fighting enemies on multiple fronts", I mean all-out invasions where the empire is at risk of being completely overrun. The Fatimids, Sicilian Arabs, Georgians, and Germans did not pose existential threats to the Byzantine Empire.
![True Size of a Byzantine Army [c. 900 AD] 3D DOCUMENTARY](/img/1.gif)
Subscribe to Curiosity Stream and start exploring the world around you! curiositystream.com/sandrhoman
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
.
:)
I really like your content normally SandRhoman, so don't take this the wrong way but this seems to have been a hastily researched video not sourced from the latest or best Byzantine military scholarship.
The Cataphract as it is called did not disappear, not least because the terms "Kataphractoi" and "Klibanophoroi" may have referred to a less and more armored type of cavalry, and the latter term (what you depicted as a Cataphract) may have actually been only called a "Klibanophoroi".
Some historians take a lack of mention of Cataphracts to assume they were gone, but this is a period where Byzantine military writing was basically non-existent. Between the Strategikon of the 6th century and the Tactica of the late 9th century (which this video seems to be based on) there were NO original Byzantine military texts being written, and chronicles written by priests or courtiers were notoriously sparse on the details of military equipment and tactics.
Byzantine art depicting soldiers from throughout the centuries was similarly unreliable, usually depicting soldiers in equipment of the classical age such as Phrygian and Corinthian Helmets and Muscle Cuirasses! My point is that going entirely off of the few written or pictorial sources would give us a highly distorted and inaccurate picture of the Byzantine army.
Similarly, the use of a Greek Fire "Flamethrower" outside of the context of siege works is highly questionable, if not outright science fiction, though the use of field artillery is not.
The trend of the 9th-11th centuries is a decline or decay of the Theme system in favor of professional field armies capable of offensive military operations. Service in the Thematic armies was largely replaced with a tax burden instead, which allowed the creation of more professional cavalry regiments and increased use of mercenary forces, including the creation of the Varangian Guard.
The 9th and 10th century sees a dramatic enlarging of the "Tagmata" regiments, and the creation of new Tagmata forces. The Tagmata were almost entirely Cavalry. Cavalry was still the focus here.
8:31
While true, military manuals of the time do ascribe to procure better armor such as mail shirts, greaves and higher quality helmets to seasoned troops or troops in the frontal ranks of a formation.
While infantry was more disciplined, cavalry was the striking power of the army and infantry were more a mobile camp and rallying point for the cavalry, as well as garrison troops as your video seems to imply.
great docu recommendation, thanks
Can you do a video on kalvin rus? Military
I liked this video. It's a rare look into Byzantine armies. Hey have you ever made a similar video involving the Mongol or the Medieval Samurai armies.
My neighbour just accused me of being a barbarian. I'm gonna use this classic tactic against them! That should show them!
I don't think your neighbour would be expecting that
not sure that would be legal though. the police might frown on using greek fire.
Barbarian!
Show em! Make sure to focus on the flanks.
Do not trust the Armenians, Slavs and Bulgarians. They will betray you and join the Arabs
Eastern Roman tactics were indeed very complex and far more evolved than earlier Roman tactics, which only shows the amount of danger they faced on all directions, litrally on the battlefield as well as on the map.
No sorry traian army was definitely more complete
Everyone wanted the Eastern Roman Empire death so that they could actually claim to be the successor to the Roman Empire, but the ERE still lasted for a thousand more years lmao
"We had a military revolution, yes, what about second military revolution?" -Peregrino Tookpoulous
It would've been fascinating had the Eastern Romans survived into the modern era with arquebuses and muskets.
Roman soldiers with muskets lmao
Eastern Romans were Greeks with Roman citizenship and last time I checked Greeks still exist.
I always wondered what their uniforms would have looked like in the early 1700s.
@@gilpaubelid3780But their Empire did not survive till pike and shot era unfortunately.
they did , we call them Janissaries
the consistency in the quality of this channel is beyond any other mil history production i've found on youtube. im really greatful for all your hard work, thank you
Glad you enjoy it!
My english level is good enough to understand the video, yet I wish there were more channels like this in spanish, great video bud
Keep on learning! You can do it man!
Only good thing that ever came from that island is its simple, and widespread, language.
You can do it!
honestly turning the infantry into essentialy a big bunker inside of which cavalry can hide sounds like a good idea when playing bretonnia in total war warhammer
I really didn’t expect flamethrowers to make an appearance in this video.
You need to read about the flamethrower of boaotia
Ah yes, the "noob box"
they invented the noob square
Great video have you produced! I loved all de images and the narrative. Thanks
After the death of Basil II, the Anatolian-Land aristocracy wanted emperors who would undo the heavy taxes placed on them by Basil. Also, after the death of Basil II, the aristocracy was allowed to buy up land from the peasants which undermined the Thematic System which had been in place for hundreds of years. Instead of farmer-soldiers, the empire employed mercenaries. And their loyalty to the empire was only based on money and nothing else.
You should read "streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade" by Anthony Kaldellis. The whole "Anatolian aristocracy" theory is pretty much debunked. It's yet another Gibbionism that has survived until modern times.
@@lordcherrymoore5252 so what could be happened?the aristocracy,like happened in 5th century in western Roman Empire, didn't have too much Power?
@@alessandrogini5283The lack of a strong authority that could unite the Army and the Civil bureaucracy in Constantinople that has grown exceedingly unwieldy.
Basil? Someone actually named their son Basil with the intention they'd become an emperor?
@@olivere5497what? Did you know the name Basil originates from the Greek word "Basileus" which means "King"? That is literally *the* most apt name you can give to a prince who is expected to become the Emperor.
You called the regular regiments Tagmata, that would be the reserve in the capital, the local regiments of the military districts were called Thema (Theme system)
Just a bit on the menavlion: As I understood it, the menavlion was primarily *thicker* than the normal spearman's spear. These spears were braced to the back foot and pointed slightly upwards with the offhand left free for a secondary weapon, the menavlion was thus more or less a "portable stake" whose task was to be pointed at the chest of charging horses. In the event of a cavalry charge (that actually hit the infantry), the weight of horse and rider would drive the point into the horse's body.
The "hoplitoi" or spearmen that made up the bulk of the infantry also had *much* longer spears than normal. I don't remember the actual length, but even the formations suggest they were significantly long. Why else reinforce the front with an extra row of hoplitoi (@6:45) if not to maximize the number of spearpoints directed at the oncoming cavalry?
A little known fact: Byzantine cataphracts in the front rows of the wedge also carried throwing maces in numbers of 3-4 which they would hurl against the foremost enemy line to further break it and soften it up before colliding with it.
I was going to add that too. Well done!
So the byzantines had flamethrower infantry before we invented flamethrowers...GLORY TO ROME
Appreciate the in-depth depiction of Byzantine military revolution, particularly the emphasis on infantry. Komnenian army next ?
I wrote around 80% of the Wikipedia article on the Komnenian army, I think it is fairly good, but I would say that wouldn't I?
@@urseliusurgel4365wow thank you for your work. Much appreciated. Must be especially hard since information is harder to find for the Komnenian army.
@@zippyparakeet1074 Thanks for the appreciation! Luckily, I managed to get hold of a 2nd hand copy of the Birkenmeier book, which helped a lot.
I am loving your videos on the Byzantines and their army - you explain all of the tactics, formations and so on in a very detailed way and no other RUclipsr comes close to this! Seriously good stuff, would love if you covered even more Byzantine history and armies (am biased tho!). And maybe contemporary armies in Europe compared to the Byzantines (late 800s to late 900s) or little know battles?
Anyways, great video, love it!
Once again, a superb video sir. I truly enjoy your work.
The Byzantine Empire being the gateway into the middle east, the Levant and North Africa is one of the aspects that fascinates me. The intermingling of cultures and evolution of the army whilst looking to the Romans for inspiration of their professional standing army.
Just like how the Northmen that settled in Normandy had a complete cultural evolution from viking Norse men, infantry using longboats ,round shields to form shield wall formations and sacking monasteries to Norman Knights on horseback wielding kite shields that went on crusade for Chritendom , so to did the Eastern Roman Empire Evolve into the Byzantine Empire.
The Early Roman Empire had a distinct culture , Helinistic architecture ,tunic wearing nobility, legionaries fitted with Lorica segmentata, a Gladius and a scutum. At the split of the Empire into west and east, the separate governing bodies went about doing so in differing manners. The west still relying on the regular legionaries but faltering, thus using more and more mercenaries and adopting their shields, swords and armour such as Gothic armour and such at the end of the day the western Empire fell and this severely expedited the evolution of Eastern Rome into Byzantium.
With all connection to Rome in the west lost, the Eastern Empire utilised more and more soldiers from the region in their Empire. Soldiers from Greece, Anatolia, the Levant, some western parts of Mesopotamia and all across North Africa.
Thus their building material, their architecture and even their army was vastly different from the West because they adopted the effective practices and cultures of the people whom were subject to the Empire.
Thus the Eastern Roman army evolved into the Byzantine Army using lamellar armour coats of scale mail , cuirasses, casques and greaves of steel adopted from Persia.
Their shields evolved from oval auxiliary shields to enlarged round shields and then it evolved further into kite shields that were highly effective on foot as well as horseback.
Similarly their Swords evolved from the Gladius, to the Spatha and when they encountered the effectiveness of the shamshir of the Persians and kilij of other ME armies, they adopted this eloquent design into their swords thus the spatha gave way to the curved Paramerion sword.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramerion
You can see this clear evolution in their navy as well, the rectangular sailed Greco-Roman triremes were replaced by galleys , these galleys were revolutionised by the Byzantine invention of the Lateen sail.
A triangular sail set on a long yard mounted at an angle on the mast, and running in a fore-and-aft direction. This being the sail that most people to this day see as Middle Eastern sails. These sails were so revolutionary and effective because it allows a boat to tack "against the wind".
The Byzantine Empire consisting of the ME and North Africa caused this knowledge to be adopted by the Arabs and other ME + African kingdoms such as the Swahili. This sail was also later adopted by the Portuguese as seen on their Caravelles, this enabled the commencement of the age of discovery.
Brief notes on the Byzantines.
docs.google.com/document/d/1juSa0tBr49TJxy5n08mwpapOLscNuNTAnQGTa_A8mSw/edit?usp=sharing
There were Arab adventurers entering Roman lands, but they said that they did not differ in appearance from Muslims, and this is strange
the Byzantines had exterminated the Greeks of Greece for centuries
they themselves were called Romans and for the Greeks of Greece they used the diminutive Greki or elladikus
they were not used in the army because they considered them enemies and did not want to learn the art of war
So much misinformation in a single comment, honestly amazing.
@@zippyparakeet1074 The Romans loved the Middle East and were racist towards the Europeans. Man, when a German diplomat from the Holy Roman Empire came to make the daughter of the Roman ruler marry the son of the Holy Roman Emperor, the Romans treated him with disgrace and called them barbarians and expelled him twice.
@@zippyparakeet1074 this is what the written Byzantine sources say
we also have the Muslim and Byzantine alliance against Greek cities, e.g. Philadelphia
as well as the alliance of Byzantines and crusaders against Greeks in mainly Greece, e.g. in the revolution of Leon Sgouros
Another informative AND entertaining documentary. Great work!
basically a proto Spanish tercio
Byzantine military and SandRhoman, name a better duo.
This is so interesting! I didn’t have any idea there were military reforms to go along with Basil’s and later emperors’ conquests.
Formations are so important to how warfare is conducted at the tactical level and I rarely come across such in-depth explanations of how they worked. Thank you!
Sowing the dragon's teeth. Ive waited for kings and generals to discuss the byzantine square. But it was you who delivered.
informative in interesting as always. thanks and keep it up.
As mentioned in the video, Georgios Theotokis is the man to go for further knowledge on this topic.
The characteristics of the menavlion that are known are only two: it had a thick shaft and a long head. No definitive assessment of its properties or how it was wielded is possible. The kontarion was a long pike-like spear used to ward off cavalry attacks. Therefore, the menavlion as a type of pike seems redundant, plus a pike is a thrust only weapon, a long head on a pike just adds weight to the end of a long pole, making it unwieldy, most pikes have relatively small spearheads.. The thick shaft - thickness is particularly useful for lateral, not longitudinal strength - combined with a long spearhead suggests a cutting weapon. In Norse accounts there is a weapon called a 'hewing spear', the menavlion was probably similar, a cut and thrust weapon, not unlike a bill in use, useful for dealing with cavalry who had broken through the hedge of kontarion- armed infantry. Someone armed with a long and unwieldy pike-like weapon would have been of little use in such a situation.
"if saplings of one piece can not be found, let them be made from wood cut into sections, but they must be made of hard wood and just so thick that hands can wield them." "... one hundred must have menavlia with a length of one and a half or two ourguiai, while their spear points must be one and a half or two spithamai..." That's 2.74 to 3.66 meters, some times made of two pieces of wood with a spear point on top of this. That doesn't sound like a bill-like weapon at all. A charging horse will shatter a normal spear. This appear to be thick stakes made of complete or separated, solid branches of oak or cornel wood.
If it had a thick shaft and a long head it could only have been used to thrust repeatedly until its wielder was overcome with an extreme sense of fatigue
@@PolluxA I said, like a bill in its use, i.e. a cut-and-thrust weapon, I did not mean it would resemble one in shape. There are a few Byzantine pictorial representations of spears with unusually long and quite broad heads, one of which shows the spearhead with wavy edges (flamberge). They are generally quite like the Carolingian winged spear in appearance. A long spearhead adds no extra functionality to a pike. Pikes have only one means of functioning to inflict damage, the thrust. A long spearhead is only useful if the long sharpened edges are intended to cut, while such a spear, obviously, retains its thrusting ability. Pikes also have to be used in massed formations, a pikeman on his own or in a loose formation might as well drop his pike and draw a sword, for all the use his pike would be. The 15th/16th century Swiss recognised that, in the case of a breakthrough of the enemy past the pike-hedge, arming the rear ranks with more pikes was folly. They armed their rear ranks, and the guards of their standards, with a shorter cut-and-thrust weapon - the halberd. The Swiss were not stupid, neither were the Byzantines.
I really like the new artistic style.
Siege machines were not used in pitch battles, because they are well... for sieges. They are far too bulky, heavy, often immobile, and ammo is inconvenient, big, heavy, doesn't do that much damage to people as it does to walls. They did have some "cousins" which were occasionally used in field battles, mostly ballistae and its derivatives such as springald, but it wouldn't be correct to call them "siege" machines.
Excellent video very informative thank you
Glad you enjoyed it
Great, detailed analysis. Thanks, SandRhoman. The part detailing the cavalry tactics was especially interesting. I think such detailed descriptions of deployment and use in battle were what your video about hussars lacked.
Anyway, do you think it is possible you could go over the ways knights were formed and deployed during the Middle Ages and how it changed depending on the time and region of Europe? A big task I know, but it could form a basis for an entire series. If you also find that interesting.
he covered that in the infantry revolution video, at least a little bit.
@@clintmoor422 Yeah, I remember but as you yourself pointed out it was only a surface-level depiction of medieval cavalry. Adicute for the purpose of that video, of course.
The best video and representation I have seen on this topic. Can we hope something similar on komnenian army and or nicean?
the offensive hollow square reminds me of the 1500’s era pike /musket formations of western europe. I wonder if the Latins ever translated any of those primary sources during the renaissance to gain inspiration for the Tercio?
Byzantines adopted the Noob Box to great success
Great video! I hope we can find it soon on your german channel too!
Oplitarhis means leader of the hoplites (hoplite is the dude with a oplo which means weapon)
Taxiarchi is a term used even today in the millitary but the size has changed a few times, today its the formation of 3 thousand men if i remember correctly
Menevlatoi i have no idea how it translates cause we dont use it in modern Greek
Trigonos parataxis straight up translates to triangular formation
The heavy cataphracts were called Klivanarioi which means Klivanos wearers ,klivanos translates into furnace because they wore too much armour and it was very hot
Catapult comes from the Katapeltis which comes from Kata and pelto, kata meaning against and pelto meaning to throw , therefore the thing that throws against the enemy
Very cool. Thanks! As much as I know about Byzantine history I didn’t know about these reforms.
Always a like for Byzantine content
Always happy to see you upload man. Going through COVID atm so i'm catching up on your older ones.
"By late antiquity, there was a single Greco-Roman Empire, but perhaps today we see more clearly the continuity of its dual nature than the ancients did. Both civilizations co-existed and both survived through the Middle Ages down to the present day;"
RONALD MELLOR, THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN GREEK AND ROMAN IDENTITY, p.118
Please make a video on Brugundian Army of Charles the Bold.
Ausgezeichnetes Video vielen dank.❤
I love the images used in this presentation.
3:08 3 reforms that brought upon a golden age:
Infantry, Calvary, Wildfire
That's why the Byzantine almost has a full army tech tree, especially human units.
I think you guys know what I am talking about.
Impero?
@@johntitor_ibm5100 AOE 2 :3
Would love to see a detailed breakdown like this of Han Chinese armies.
More Eastern Roman videos please!
Very nice video, I have never seen such a detailed description of the Byzantine army before. Learned a lot of new things. It is striking how the role of infantry had changed from the Classical period to the Medieval. They went from being the main part of an army supported by a few cavalry, to being a support element of a cavalry force. It kind of reminds me of a Bronze Age army of chariots supported by some infantry. Anyway, well done.
Of course it should be said infantry still made up 75-80% of a Byzantine Army.
@@tylerellis9097 well obviously because foot soldiers were cheaper to train and equip and were easier on logistics. Plus infantry was always needed to hold ground. Cavalry was the hammer, infantry was the anvil or whatever else it needed to be in order to support the cav.
@@zippyparakeet1074 Yeah….I know that
@@tylerellis9097 I'm just adding to what you wrote. Not disputing or anything like that.
The art is amazing, where can I see it in more detail?
It seems that much of the kingdoms and empires of Europe that tried to focus on infantry to counter the powerful cavalry of their neighbors in the Middle Ages and in the first two centuries of the Modern Age, always ended up basing themselves in some way on the tactics of the Romans and Macedonians or try to make a perfect combination of the two, being in this case the Byzantine version. I would love that you also talk about the tactics of the Eastern Roman Empire used in the times of Justinian the Great, since in my opinion it is more interesting for having managed to reconquer a large part of the old Empire with Belisarius and Narses, besides that I know that they used different variations of formations, where infantry and cavalry could optimize the mixed role they had at that time (basically all units were capable of using the bow, in addition to attacking with power in the Melee).
Why do you love this leader? He failed in all his wars against the Persians. He made Justinian pay money to the Persians
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب Battle of Dara? Cope
@@baccadaa This is not a battle, this is a siege, but after that he fought the Persians and lost, so Justinian took advantage of this by isolating this leader.
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب Persia has nothing to do with this, not even the Roman Empire in all its splendor managed to conquer it before (so it doesn't make any difference what Justinian achieved there against the Sasanians), the point of admiring Justinian is that he recovered his territories from Western Europe and Africa, Does that seem little to you? Justinian's plan was to put up with the Persians and reach a long enough peace (even if it was not profitable), to carry out his western campaigns and in that he did succeed; it was the closest the Byzantines ever came to reconquering the Western Empire. Reducing their management only to the conflict with Persia, where they did not have much success against Belisarius either, since the front remained practically the same despite the defeats (the war was more equal than what you want to say), is to look at it in a very subjective way the history of that emperor.
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب The Persians still lost the siege and then failed to push further into Roman Syria. Justinian paid off the Persians while reconquering Italy, Africa and parts of Spain with Belisarius. You are coping
This hilariously reminds me of the noob box formation in total war. It seems to have been historical 🤣
It's also a bit reminiscent of the Tercio IMO. Nothing wrong with going defensive historically, so long as you take the drawbacks into account
Almost as effective as the Noob Corner Defence where the magic red lines secure your flanks.
WHERE CAN I GET YOUR ART? 😁🍻
Would like to see you make a series on the seven years war in North America
This is very interesting and it humorously mirrors the most effective single player strategies in the videos games "Rome total War" and "Rome 2 Total War"
Danke das ihr ein Video über die Byzantinische Armee erstellt habt! Ich intressiere mich sehr für die Byzantinische Armee und deshalb habe ich auch das Strategikon des Maurikios gelesen, was ich nur weiterempfehlen kann!🦅🍻
Heck, that's how I play bannerlord also.
Really wish to see a hypothetical battle between a 9th century Byzantine Army vs. a 9th century Tang army.
The Romans and Chinese would probably be allies rather than enemies since they fought the same opponents.
@@Nom_AnorVSJediThat's why I wish to see those two fight each other. We already have historical accounts of how both of them fared against the Muslims.
There is a book by D. Graff "The Eurasian Way of War: Military Practice in Seventh-Century China and Byzantium" that compares both military systems of early Byzantine era with China.
Not vey deep, but there are some interesting remarks there nonetheless, especially regarding military writing in both cultures.
Marvellous analysis and optics. Hopefully we'll get another one with the army of the late 13th to early 15th century, which is much more obscure, but definitely more interesting, as influences from both Frankish and Turkic armies are visual.
More Eastern Roman (Byzantine) content plz. 🥳🥳🥳
Thank you both for the informative video!
AFAIK the heavy Cataphracts also had long darts (Plumbata) they could throw as they advanced. I imagine the weighted darts would really help breaking up the infantry prior to the charge as well.
I'm guessing there's a variety of methods to counter that developed over the years. Excellent video.
Macedonian Dynasty: The Romans Strike Back.
A noob square?!?!?
I always thought the Byzantines continuously use cataphracts
Someone has been reading new books ;D. This is fascinating, it predates pike and shot tactics! and its a clear forerunner but with medieval weapons!
What books are we talking about? I might have to look into them myself!
This reminds me of wwii aircraft carrier warfare in a way. having a sturdy defensive “home base” of a ships convoy (in this case infantry square) from which the planes (cavalry) strike from and return to reorganize and regroup.
a defensive base and a strike force
Its always amusing, seeing experts who've read one blog on this period getting all wet in the knickers about the use of the term 'Byzantine' for the later (East) Roman Empire. Yes, its not what they were called at the time. No, it doesnt matter a damn to those of is seriously well read on the period, its just a recognised shorthand.
Very nice summary :)
I love the video! It looks like you took a Quora answer I made regarding the 10th century Byzantine army and turned it into a video 😂. Given the source material, it makes sense that we would discuss the same details.
500-770s AD was an era in which Roman Empire used heavy armored or light armored fast moving horse archers. It was much easier to use diplomacy and bribes and take advantage of heavy blows inside the enemy territory or destroy their infrastructure. Navy was also a powerful tool which combined both professional troops and a variety of levies (who trained in specific times during the year). It was better to have less troops but more experienced rather than draw levies from the populace. When the Empire managed to stabilize its control over its heartland in Europe, it was then the time to progress the military reforms which enabled long lasting wars.
Excellent job about presenting these reforms!!!
The Romans don't do this because they like civil wars
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب It had to deal with enemies in every front! They did what they could with the means they had.
@@peterlorios612 Even if a strong person appears, he will have a civil war and his eyes will be cut out
fascinating stuff they basically created a proto tercio
Sandrhomanhistory + Byzantium= perfection
The only thing not great about this video is that it's just 14 mins long.
History of Anatolia is almost always a good watch let's see this one too
There iS a typo in your description: it says rome fell around 500 bc, should be AD. Anyway enjoying the video
thanks, should be corrected now.
@@SandRhomanHistoryplease do on foregin troops in the Eastern roman army
@@ajithsidhu7183?
Great video as always!
Roman mindset of
Improvised, Adapt and Overcome still carry on to the Byzantine
In a way the later Tercio is somewhat similar to this tactic, minus the double face.
And minus the napalm
@@psychodoxie6987 Things are often better when you take away the napalm.
@@gm2407 Imagine a tercip with byzantine flamethrowers
wow, noob square was not invented by total war players😮
noob square is invented by Romans early period ones
Liking the new art style, are you the one who made it?
Interesting how similiar thisconcept, to me, looks like the later Spanish tercios
Makes me want to play Civ as Basil.
Civic (y) 🎉
Love it!
Fantastic video, mate! Nice and informative, love the stuff on formations
Much appreciated!
9:38 I think it was Leo the wise to made imperial order to the cavalry to dress and arm as the way the Avars do.
It predates that. Maurice's Strategikon talks about the Avar patern of garment ect. It is in the first chapter. The Romans also adopted the pavilion tent from the Avars that then moved through Europe and characterised the middle ages.
@@gm2407 proper. you mean the "jurta" i presume.
@@ZakkWyldeman Can't see me using the terms 'proper' or 'Jurta' in my comment. I see one comment. Is there another one I left that has been deleted or hidden? I do not know the name of the clothing garment off the top of my head. Just that it was a cloak.
Not at all...that was Maurice, Leo's main influence in tactics, arms, and armor were the ancient Macedonian and Hellenic armies...he has an entire section dedicated to it in his Taktika
Will definitely use this when I play total war. Thanks!
Thank you for an interesting, informative video, all the content new to me.
7:02 - I'm a bit surprised by the numbers compared to the composition:
8 rows of spearmen = 400 spearmen, only? Or are 200 light infantry included here, without spears in a row of spears?
2 rows of archers = 300 archers. Can they fit in just 2 rows?
1 row of menaulato = 100 menaulatoi. OK.
The 200 light infantry, are they the javeliners that fill the gaps on the side of the block?
It seems to me, that the spearmen would have been deployed in an inappropriately loose formation, and the archers in an inappropriately tight formation. I would have expected more or less 800 spearmen to 200 archers (8 to 2), not 4 to 3 (8 to 6). Can it be, that the spearmen were in a 3 times looser formation than the archers?
Another great video
It must've been expensive to pay for all the additional training and equipment that was necessary for the new military doctrine.
Seeing how the empire was at an historic all-time low at the time, the coffers must've been pretty empty for a lack of tributes from conquered territories. On the other hand, the shortened frontline and supply chains might have helped with that. It probably also helped that only core provinces, that were more loyal and less likely to rebel, were left.
Empire was not at any all time historic low during this period. 900s were the period of recovery of economic strength.
The Empire was certainly less rich than in its days of spanning across the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean, but by the 900s Byzantium can't be called poor anymore. Actually very rich in comparison with contemporary states in Europe and the Levant.
After the aftershocks and recurrent waves of the Justinianic plague ebbed away in the mid-700s, the slow disintegration of the Caliphate and the mostly successful financial reforms of the Emperor Nicephorus I, the Romans were on a pretty significant financial rebound by the time the 10th century began. Certain areas of western Anatolia had not been raided or attacked for years and were enjoying the benefits of sustained population growth.
There were many successful economic reforms during this period and its no surprise that this period of military reform and improvement coincides with a period of economic boom for the Empire. It was incredibly rich. By the time of Basil II, he had managed to amass enough wealth to rival the Empire's wealth during the time of Anastasius in the 6th century while lacking rich provinces of Egypt, Syria and the Levant and being constantly at war.
This level of wealth would no be seen again in Europe until the early modern period. Seriously. The Byzantine Empire was super rich and its lands were the most productive in all of Europe and the Middle East, not because they were super fertile but because the well oiled Byzantine bureaucracy- that they had inherited from their Roman past- ensured the land yielded good taxes while not exploiting the farmers. It was an excellent system and it resembles a modern nation state more than a medieval Kingdom.
Great video!!
This was a great video! It’s always funny to hear how the Romans at this time were said to be weak, effeminate and unworthy of the title of their forebears by contemporary and modern opinions alike when in the fact, the armies of Constantinople were always given a huge degree of importance especially by the most effective and martial emperors.
How would have these Calvary tactics compare to later European Calvary forces? The combination of heavy lancers and horse archers would have been formidable against the classic Western European knight. The combination of heavy lancers and horse archers would have been effective I think.
Post-Manzikert took much of the resources, manpower and infrastructure that made such impressive forces possible. The Komnennids restored some of the capability of the Empire during their effective reigns. Was there any similarities to the armies of the Macedonians? It’s a shame almost everything was lost after the 4th Crusade, like the recipe to Greek fire
I see some pro player use this battle tavtic in attila total war.
IRL tactics dont really work in total war games since they are just stat based games while real life is mostly about morale
@@STaRBG4405 I see player can beat a.i. Hun by large ornagel in block of soldier ruclips.net/video/2-pMw_kiVTA/видео.html
@@STaRBG4405total war isn’t entirely stat based, totally possible for 300 men to hold off 2000 if you have the right units and tactics
@@H20No Can confirm, once obliterated a besieging full army of huns with a roman garrison of two cohors, a damaged unit of limitanei and two units of slingers
@@belthesheep3550 ahh those kinds of victories are so satisfying, you feel like the 300 Spartans.
From a greek thank you for this video!
They called themselves the Romans.
@@daddust Well you are right. That period Romei and the country Romania. But it is ok. Modern Greeks consider Byzantine Empira as part of their history for some good reasons the language to be the most predominant of these.
@@daddust Greeks where called 'Ρωμιοί' romans until 19th century. It was a greek empire, they where speaking Greek the people where Greek , their culture where a compination of Roman-Greek culture. So Denmark and Norway can't say that have viking heritage; Germans don't have a heritage from holy roman empire; those people weren't Bulgarians ,bulgarians had their own empire, Serbia was a vasal state at this time. Who was at that time Roman;
@@iwannisbalaouras1687 It’s the Greek nationalists. I bet you think Indo-European doesn’t exist. And the Greeks didn’t learn anything from the Egyptians.
@@daddust i said a thank you, because i like youtube creators talk about history of my people. Every civilization took things from the other. Where are you from;
Been reading about ancient chemical and biological warfare. Could you do a video on those subjects to help my understanding of the ancient art of warfare?
watching this for some ideas in regards to playing cavalry factions in total war games , very interesting indeed
Cimmeria = Strong + Civilised
nah... the worst thing in total wars is the fact that every reatreating unit is seen by the mechanics as "it lost the battle". I've tried a legit, well known and typical for some factions tactics (throughout the centuries) of cavalry scavengers, scouts and skirmishers and none of the Total War games (and I mean really, neither 1st Rome, Medieval, Empire, Napoleon, Shogun 2 and any newer) allowed me to make this tactics valiable. I scattered a couple of 3-4 stacks of light cavalry, like normal, sane and historical commander, into the enemies land and engaged in short battles with their supperior forces, burned villages (in TW that still allowed it like Medieval 2) and "siege" undefended cities with some milltia and every time I've ran from a battle or even played it and did some harassment and killing into their archers due to superior manouvers - but than retreated. Every time, no matter what and what game, the engine saw it as a "defeat" and send my "defeated stacks" into the nearest friendly city or at full extend of their range this turn. When in fact I should be able to choose when I want to retreat and hide to harass this army once more in the next round or mayne retreat and do something else. Sorry but the complex strategy does not exists in Total War campaigns xD
@@wlaba272 i actually wish i had actual reasons to retreat more often , i want to lose battles lol just so i feel like im at war , but yeah i used to interecept moorish reinforcements with hordes of jinetes
@@wlaba272 Also my biggest gripe with Total War. It just boils down to hammer and anvil your way through as well as possible, and continously try to surrend. Fancy formations, retreating into ambushes etc is all incredibly hard to pull off and not rewarding. Shame, for a game that focusses on ancient warfare they should definitely allow for more complex tactics.
perhaps you can try to divide your army into two before attacking. One of the smaller force attack while the larger army standby, that way even after harassing the enemy the former retreated back to the safety, the next division can still attack/do tactical maneuver @@wlaba272
Hi SandRhoman History, can you make a video about portugueses battles in aljubarrota and Diu ?
The Byzantine Golden Age was made possible by the decline of the Abbassid Caliphate. The Byzantines always struggled when they had to fight enemies on multiple fronts. Basil II had the luxury of being able to focus his resources on defeating the Bulgarians. The Fatimids were annoying but didnt pose a real threat to the empire.
My favourite army when I was an active wargamer was the Nicephorian Byzantine army. The army described in part here. Elite armoured cataphracts (fighting in wedge!), v good heavy cav with bow and lance and decent inf and archers.
@@pmurnion Again, Nicephorus Phocas was in a similar position to Basil II. During Phocas' reign, he only had to worry about fighting the Arabs on the eastern front. The Byzantines were at peace with Bulgaria during the entirety of Phocas' reign. If Phocas had to fight both the Bulgars and Arabs simultaneously, we might not remember him the same.
@@tacocruiser4238Uh you forget Nikephoros launched an invasion of Sicily which did fail and fought off the Fatimids in Southern Italy. You’re right the Empire couldn’t expand when fighting 2 enemies at once but it could hold off 2 of them at once long enough to focus on one front. Basil halted his campaign against Bulgaria and personally marched all the way to Syria from Bulgaria 2 times to drive off the Fatimids.
This obviously changed in the 1040s when the Empire started fighting the Normans, Pechenegs and Seljuks at the same time and couldn’t cope with all 3 taking losses.
I think your point is disingenuous when factoring in the fact the Caliohates were literally the largest Empires the world had seen, you’re downplaying the entire Middle Ages outside the mongols by acting like the threat they faced while the caliphate declined were insignificant.
Like Once again while Basil was fighting in and against Georgia, his commander also named Basil lol was repelling an Entire Holy Roman Army led by the Emperor Konrad himself in Italy.
@@tylerellis9097 The Fatimids, Sicilian Arabs and Georgians were minor players who posed very little threat to the Byzantines. Basil II literally showed up in Syria and the Fatimids backed off because they knew that they had no chance of defeating the Byzantines. They were just hoping to capture a few towns in the Levant when the Byzantines were not paying attention.
When I say "fighting enemies on multiple fronts", I mean all-out invasions where the empire is at risk of being completely overrun. The Fatimids, Sicilian Arabs, Georgians, and Germans did not pose existential threats to the Byzantine Empire.