Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Interesting
#1
I have always been interested in the Roman army. Recently, I have also looked into the Byzantine army/history. As you all know, the Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire. Still, I am going to take something of a poll.... Do you think the Byzantine Empire can be considered the Roman Empire in the Middle Ages? <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#2
I'm not sure what a medievalist would say, but I think the Byzantines considered themselves Roman. They referred to their empire as Roman, although the language of the empire was always Greek in the East. This was largely true even in classical Roman times. I wouldn't personally think of the Byzantines as Romans, myself.<br>
<br>
Jenny <p></p><i></i>
Cheers,
Jenny
Founder, Roman Army Talk and RomanArmy.com

We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best we can find in our travels is an honest friend.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply
#3
How about a yes and no answer...LOL<br>
<br>
Certainly the Byzantine Empire was Roman, and thought of itself as Roman, at least until the end of the reign of Justinian (died 565ce?). Byzantine Ravenna was said to be quite a site to behold, of course at the expense of Rome.<br>
<br>
After that...well I doubt the Byzantines themselves were interested in associating with Rome, but certainly wished to be the keepers of the aura of what once was.<br>
<br>
By the times of the Viking expansion I would tend to think of them as a Greek entity.<br>
<br>
Just my two koku. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#4
Wrong forum Black Ship! No more koku here. It's all about the gold. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#5
Actually it's probably all about the silver, Romans only really minted in gold when no silver was available certainly to play troops. Presuambly it's like £100 pound notes, gold's worth too much to be useful. <p></p><i></i>
In the name of heaven Catiline, how long do you propose to exploit our patience..
Reply
#6
It's all about the aurei..!<br>
<br>
Cat's right, although I don't know quite how much the army had to do with minting policy as far as gold issues go... (Where did you get that, Catiline? I'd be curious to read up on it.)<br>
<br>
Legions were paid bounties (praemia) in silver coin. That's certain, based on a wide range of surviving numismatic evidence. Denarii and sestercii frequently carried a reverse image honoring the specific legion that (presumably) was being paid with those very coins. Kind of neat, actually, and it's good evidence to help determine when these specific named legions existed.<br>
<br>
Anyway, a gold aureus was too high a denomination to circulate normally at markets and docksides (unless you're in the market for silk or Tyrian dye, that is). Think now, have any of us ever seen a worn-looking gold coin? Ever??<br>
<br>
(Plus, think about the unwanted criminal attention that a shiny gold coin attracts, in comparison to the easily tarnished, thus low-profile, silver denominations.)<br>
<br>
Senators and equestrians, I imagine, might have dealt with aurei, but very few "average citizens" would ever have had them. 1 aureus = 25 denarii FYI (c. 1 CE) <p></p><i></i>
Cheers,
Jenny
Founder, Roman Army Talk and RomanArmy.com

We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best we can find in our travels is an honest friend.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply
#7
Well i don't know about US coinage, ' but the 'gold' coin here gets used a lot, £1 are gold, and £2 coins (or beer tokens)are silver with a gold rim, apparently so blind people can distinguish them ?!?<br>
we lost £1 notes what 15 years ago, so no dollar bills here.<br>
<br>
I think Octavian is recorded as having minted gold coin to pay his troops when no silver was available in the aftermath of the tyrannicide, it came up last week, an i'm just going through the notes now, so i'll look it up if I can.<br>
<br>
Imperial coinage i'm not big on. Republican coinage was minted by lower level magistrates, they could ick an choose pretty much whatever themes they liked, though they were often, especially later uner heavy pressure from patrons to produce suitable types, the glorious deeds of their ancestors( or the made up legendsabout what someone mythical whose name sounds a bit like mine) were popular. Caesar was the first living inividual to have his hea on coinage, before that only deaduns and gods could manage it, the practice caught on quickly though, I think even Brutus was at it by the time of Phillipi.<br>
<br>
I doubt senators and equites had much to do with coins at all, paper money did exist in the sense of bankers, and what else are slaves for. <p></p><i></i>
In the name of heaven Catiline, how long do you propose to exploit our patience..
Reply
#8
Well you learn something new each day! So forgive me Black Ship for correcting you! Besides what's the differance? Gold, silver, koku, I'm still broke no matter how you look at it.<br>
In the USA, we have a "golden Dollar" which is the same as a single paper Dollar bill, worth $1. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#9
Responding to JohnCook86: I'm not an authority, but my understanding is that the Roman style legion successfully defended the Byzantine Empire until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century. Although the quality of the legion's equipment did decline over the years, it shows how effective the Roman legion was as a military force. It helps me understand how they swept all before them in the earlier years. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#10
Salve,<br>
<br>
The Byzantines thought of themselves as hoi Rhomaioi, the Romans, and would have been insulted if they were called Hellenoi, Greeks, because in that period this had the connotation of pagan and was thus offensive for orthodox christians. It was only in the last couple of centuries that the identification with Hellas, Greece, was becoming acceptable for Byzantines and the initial negative added meaning of Hellenos of pagan was lost. Nevertheless they considered themselves Romans till the very end.<br>
<br>
The Byzantine army continued to use Latin as the language of command for centuries. In the handbook of Maurice such Latin commands are still preserved. In addition much of the offical terminology consisted of transliterated Latin words in Greek. The development of the Byzantine army was such that the last remaining traces of its late Roman origins disappeared in the course of the late tenth and eleventh centuries. The later Byzantine armies were quite distinct from the earlier armies in its character and structure.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#11
Puzz... What's interesting about the Byzantines is that they lasted so long as a diminishing empire. It's a long record of simply struggling to hold on to what they had, not expansion. The term 'Byzantine' as used to describe convoluted exercises derives from their use of bribery, deception, and espionage to a very high degree in holding at bay their adversaries. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#12
Regarding the Byzantines here are some comments and opinions of mine:<br>
1) the Roman empire didn't collapse because of vigorous barbarians overrunning the decadent Romans. The eastern half handled well those same barbarians that then turned to the west. Any explanation of the fall of Rome has to explain why the eastern half didn't fall, including military explanations.<br>
<br>
2) The Eastern empire learned how to handle the barbarian elements in the army maybe from the mistakes of the Western administrators.<br>
<br>
3) The Eastern Roman army became the Byzantine one with continuity. The mounted Byzantine soldier was the natural evolution of the more than 500 year long struggle Rome had with the Parthians first then the Sassanians. He was the most sophisticated soldier from the fall of the west until 1050 AD. In terms of professionality, technical preparedness and discipline he was the continuation of the roman soldier. The break with the traditional legionary occurred during the third century crises.<br>
<br>
4) During Republican times the Romans could raise quickly armies (Cannae aftermath). Later Augustus chose to cut back the large number of men under arms during the war with Antony (circa 27 BC). The new Imperial Army was small and the trend was set. Only 20 years later the loss of three legions was a serious matter. Over the next few centuries the army grew (on paper) but it remained relatively small considering the size of the empire. Indeed the loss of quality troops at Adrianople was extremely serious. However it must be noted that the Roman army at the battle was the Eastern one! So the impact the defeat needs yet to be correctly described.<br>
<br>
5) The Byzantines lost Syria and Egypt easily against the dashing and enthusiastic Arabs so famous for their flexible way of fighting. But the Byzantines were able to stop the Arabs cold from entering modern day Turkey using creative and flexible tactics too. Indeed the Romans always were flexible and sometimes outperformed the barbarians in unorthodox fighting (guerilla fighting, ambushes).<br>
<br>
6 and final) The Byzantine disaster at Manzikert was a blunder, not due to outstanding Turk superiority. But the trend towards a growing inability to absorb setbacks started 1000 years earlier by Augustus. It was a long process.<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 3/12/01 6:53:18 pm<br></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
Reply
#13
One thing they did that fascinates is their 'playbook'.( Not their term, mine) They scouted their potential adversaries' weaknesses and had a gameplan prescribed for each. Character of troops, leadership, vulnerability to threat, bribery, internal dissention, everything was included to produce the best strategy for survival of the Empire. <p></p><i></i>
Reply


Forum Jump: