03-12-2001, 09:48 AM
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>
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."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
