Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army
#25
O.K.I acknowledge.I missed that underlining.7th century in my mind only means the end of ancient state and opening century for Medieval romans.
But still I can't agree completely.Byzantine empire was still a major player on international level,even after Heraclius.And especially during Macedonian dynasty it was again worthy of the name of an empire.Then it was again(although for relatively short time)mightiest state of europe and near east with only Fatimids of Egypt being their real competitor.Roman navy once again had dominant role in the mediterranean and even Muslim states from western north Africa felt the necessity to build new coastal defences.So strong was renewed fear of potential attacks by imperial fleet.
But even before this,remaining roman state forced Caliphate a new mighty empire so much bigger in controlled area to pay heavy tribut for peace to the romans.Hardly an act of insignificant state.Also other European courts sometimes sought almost desperately and alliance with Constantinople and "Byzantine"princess were viewed as the most prestigious brides possible.Even in the time after battle of Manzikert,During Komnenian dynasty,most of the cruseders still considered Byzantine emperor to be the mightiest ruler on earth.Which by then,was not truth,of course,But the fact that they thought so,is saying something.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - by Pavel AMELIANVS - 04-24-2013, 01:11 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Vegetius and the later Roman army: common mistakes? Robert Vermaat 2 237 05-10-2024, 02:41 PM
Last Post: Longovicium
Question Distances and distance measuring in the Roman Army? dcbrown 2 245 04-03-2024, 08:07 PM
Last Post: dcbrown
  Late Roman Army during the 5th century Robert Vermaat 89 18,071 01-11-2024, 04:34 PM
Last Post: Magister_Officiorum13241

Forum Jump: