Roman military continuity

[KillerBee256]

Rome and medieval 2 are two of the games I always come back to. I play a lot of realism mods, like EB IB and CBUR for stainless steel, after playing all these mods you really start to see and understand the continuity and transformations of the roman army through the ages. So how will the units in this mod compare to those in IB and CBUR in function? Which are they closer to?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

IB, definitely.

[Pompeius Magnus]

I hope it's ok when I answer in some short sentences.
Yes, the army is more close to the IB mods than to Chivalry (I have not played stainless steel or CBUR yet - therefore I cannot say anything to this mods).

The time era of Justinian - respectively his army - belongs to the so called "Übergangsphase" (engl. = transition periode). Therefore your question is not easy to answer.

[1] At the beginning of his (Justinians) reign the army was still based on infantry. Old Legions survived for sure - this is evidenced - and some of them had probably a strength between 800 and 1200. Maybe, but that's pure speculation, some of them still numbered 2000.
The new-Legion (new deployed roman troops) were classified as Numeri (in greek = Arithmoi) with a nominal strength of 520 men.
The Strategikon mentions a Tagma with a wished size of 320 men - but the chapter of the Strategikon where you can find this number just referred to cavalry Bandoi - therefore it's pointless for estimating the number of infantry)

[2] The army was mainly composed by Romans. And by far more Romans served as Stratiotai (=Comitatenses) in that army than 100 years before! This was a reaction of the past and the fall of the west.

[3] Cavalry was of course a strong element and without doubt the cavalry had the higher status compared to the Stratiotai. However, Justinians army was not mainly based on cavalry. This misinterpretation is based on the elaboration of the campaigns against Vandals in Africa and Goths in Italy. The cavalry had a leading-role within an expeditionary-army.
That cavalry took advantage during the battle (compared to the infantry) was the result of the general circumstances and cannot be taken pars pro toto to declare the army as an army of cavalry (or to declare infantry as inferior).

[4] The infantry, and this is evidenced by the Strategikon, was well equipped and well trained (the foulkon was still a standard in Roman training).
However, the infantry is somewhat ambivalent. When serving under a strong leader they could be exceptionally strong - and were able to stop all enemies in an open field.
But when serving under a weak leader - they fought also exceptionally weak. The gap between "strong" and "weak" is actually very close - leading more than one time to confusions in the historically debatte.

.....
since the 550s and 560s a difficult time for the Roman Empire begun. A time of plagues, shortage of men, military setbacks, inflation, depression etc.
The result was an army which changed its struture once more - without changing its general foundation.
The history of the battle of Yarmuk as well as the history of wintering grounds of our field armies has shown that the foundation was still based on reliable strong infantry and mobile field armies.
Please check also my elaboration about the beginning of the themes
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=468838

The first step to a new system of static forces (which ends into the creation of the famous themes) has begun with the creation of the office of Quaestor Iustinianus exercitus. This military officer had the right to collect the taxes on his own to pay the wintering grounds as well as the soldier's equipment (related to a limited area; in this case to the Danube-area, Cyclades and Cyprus).
You see that we have beween 500AD and 660AD a structural change of the army - which was performed in 3 steps - 2 times undesired.

army structure I
between 500 and 550
- the time of the depression 550 - 560

army structure II
between 570/580 and 636AD
classical time of the Strategikon
- long war against the Sasanians and lost Battle of Yamouk - and the retreat of all troops to Asia Minor.

army structure III
from 640AD and beyond
- wintering grounds became fixed positions of all field armies. Defensive Structures of all former field armies. Themes first time mentioned. New mobile field army stationed near the capital - called Tagmata.

And this is the Übergangsphase (transition periode).

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Nice, +rep.

[KillerBee256]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=169167 here are pictues of the CBUR units.

[AnthoniusII]

PM is right...
The medieval Roman armies changed a lot of times during the 1100 years of the Eastern Part's life.
It has to do with:
The part of the world its armies would have to fight on.
The tactics and warfare of each of its opponets.
The political and finansial circumstances of each era.
The external influences
Names of units and weapons or tactics changed very often but the Medieval Roman Empire combined in its armies a triple heritage.
Hellenistic
Republican Roman
Imperial Roman.
As PM mentions after the Justinian Era but mostly after Heraclius cavalry had the primary role. This does not mean that infantry became useless.
The ment that Infantry had slightly diferent role on the battlefield espesialy in the eastern borders that the empire's opponets relied on mounted warriors armies.
But both infantry and cavalry followed as i said republican and imperial era.
The use of the "Scholae",or "Palatinae" or "Tagmatic" based their training and fanction (proffesional) on the imperial army structures and border "limitanae", or Thematic armies based their structure on the "citizen warrior" of the republican era.
The use of longer spears and other weapons transformed both infantry's and cavalry's tactics based on late hellenistic ones after the huge influence of both Avars and Sassanids.
Cavalry may became the "official" army but infantry's role remained crusial as the Italian (9th-10th cent) campaigns proved.
You can't qonquer or keep lands only with cavalry and in the mountainear enviroment of south asia minor and balkans you need infantry to guard cities and castles and narrow passes etc.
You can not fight Arabs with the same armies that you won over Sassanids despite the fact that Arabs were more lightly armored but much more mobile and they had long range armies.
You can't win Bulgarians and Slavs with your cavalry as they set ambushes in high passes and forests.
In the west javelin is still a usefull weapon when in the east composite bow is a must.
In conclusion:
Roman Armies had a clear continuation from Justinian to Basill II despite the huge diferences those armies had in the time pass.
This stoped when Komneneans apear but they had to make serius choices in order to rebirth something of the empire's glory.
From that point ONLY the names and weapons seam the same but armies are more feudalistic than in west europe its self.
We can not blame Komneneans for that entirely because what demolished the Roman Armies was the emperors after Basill II's death and the total lack of serius goverment.
Think...Basill II left a navy of 400 ships (the fleet that was prepairing to go to his Italian campaign), a huge Empire with more gold that all the european states had together. An army that was the best of its era in the europe and middle east that had a huge number of soldiers. He left a state with social peace most of all.
If we will believe that Romanos IV Diogenis did had 300000 men as scholars wrote we can see that in 55 years 2/3 of his armies were mercenaries!
The emperors afraid the power of the empire's citizens and for the 1st time after centuries roman citizens were no longer considered "citizen warriors" but only "taxed citizens" as emperors new that mercenaries are loyal to the one who pays them.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Romanos IV had 300'000 men? That's more than the entire empire had in the mid third century!

I suspect it's quite an overstatement.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Let's say (according Treadgold in his History of the Byzantine State and Society)200.000 shortly before the battle of Manzikert - including the lesser thematic troops.
That 2/3 of the army consisted of mercenaries is also untenable in modern research (~65000 regulars vs. 130.000 mercenaries??). I don't know where these numbers come from - being placed again and again in threads here at TWC.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Yeah. And if we assume there were 200 thousand troops, the wast majority would be some sort of light thematic troops. Not heavy mercs.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Well, I'm not sure if the Peltasts or thematic 'Oplitai (Hoplites) were really so light equipped. In the case of Manzikert I see a problem concerning the organization - not regarding the equipment. But that's at least an intersting topic one could discuss.

But as you say - there is no indication that the vast majority was not composed by Graeco-Romans.

[AnthoniusII]

Yeah. And if we assume there were 200 thousand troops, the wast majority would be some sort of light thematic troops. Not heavy mercs.

Well, I'm not sure if the Peltasts or thematic 'Oplitai (Hoplites) were really so light equipped. In the case of Manzikert I see a problem concerning the organization - not regarding the equipment. But that's at least an intersting topic one could discuss.

But as you say - there is no indication that the vast majority was not composed by Graeco-Romans.

Modern scholars estimate the Diogenis campaign army in around 60000 men.
Let's see the thing in logic.
The emperor gathers in his Aploikta (in Ellenopollis and Theodosiopollis) all thematic armies of asia minor plus his mercenaries and his imperial troops.
The turkish scholars of that era .in order to make Arp Aslan's victory more glorius talked about 300000-400000 men of the Roman armies).
But let's see the facts.
The goal was a desicive victory over a strong but most important mobile enemy.
So his army had to be ready to split up (by Diogenes logic) and lead his enemy to his main force.
Few points:
The armies that would be separated from the main army had to be strong enough to force the enemy troops to avoid battle and try to gather.
If we accept that Arp Aslan's army was about 40000-60000 men then what kind of campaign the Roman Emperor started with his Thematical and Imperial troops, with Georgian, Norman,Varangian ,Armenian, Alan and Pecheneg mercenaries if that army was equal to the enemy's one?
When Diogenes came to Matzikert he sieged the city . That means that the city guarisson was strong enough to keep the roman armies in a distance and with few chances of success for a direct asault. Many people agree that Diegenes needed Matzikert under siege as a bait to Arp Aslan and they may be right.
But...The emperor sents Russelius to Hliat to conquer the city.
That means:
He sents an army strong enough to qonquer a fortified city.
He still has enough troops to fight Arp Aslan because the next days he sents 20000 Armenian cataphracts with Tarchaniates to find what happened to Russelius!
What? The emperor waits the entire enemy force besieging a city and he sents 20000 horsemen to find an army strong enough to qonquer a city?
The numbers do not match.
So even if Diogenes army was not 300000 men strong ,it still had to be 3:1 against his enemy's one. So if Arp Aslan had indeed 60000 men gathered the Roman Army had to be atleast 3x60000=180000 men strong.
If the Emperor sent's a "scouting" army of 20000 horsemen thenhow many where his troops?
If he had less than 60000 men Diogenes would never start a full scale campaign nore the water issue would be that important in the area!
Thematic armies had from 4000-15000 men (but only counting horsemen)!
So if each thematic army had an equal number of infantry we have an average number of 8000 men (both cavalry and infantry) for 1o themas.
In a campaign the entire mounted force participated and that gives us a number of 40000 horsmen and if the emperor had gathered atleast half of his thematic infantry we have 20000 more men.
Then...where are the mercenaries and the imperial troops?
When Crusaders came to Constantinople in 1202 the city was a shadow of its self but still had 50000 troops guarisson against 30000 crusaders.
So match the numbers and logic to see how big may Diogenes army could be.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Hmm, yes, there is certain logic to that, but still... It really depends on the circumstances, plus we're talking about the total size of the military.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Modern scholars estimate the Diogenis campaign army in around 60000 men.

Other modern historians, however, speak of 40,000 soldiers only - and a total strength of the empire of just 100,000 men.
see Haldon: Warfare, state, and society in the Byzantine world, 565-1204 page 103

Please try to support the information to some degree with a source. What you personally calculate (based on what?) is irrelevant in a historical debatte and not at all logical.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Yes, Anthonius, you sometimes tend to devise numbers based on no sources.

Medieval armies were generally much smaller than what is written.

[AnthoniusII]

Hmm, yes, there is certain logic to that, but still... It really depends on the circumstances, plus we're talking about the total size of the military.

No one can be sure about the numbers.
We are not talking about the total military might on neither Roman Empire or Arp Aslan's army.
The Emperor gathered his eastern thematic troops and not the entire army.
That would need huge finansial resourses and would expose the other borders to enemies. We must not forget that despite being bad politician Diogenes was an army officer. He could atleast estimate his enemy or the risks.
We have no clue that the same time anyone else invaded in another part of the empire and that means that borders had atleast descent number of troops.
European Themas gave less troops than the eastern ones but still they were needed to watch over leathal enemies or keep order in places like Bulgaria to ensure that no new uprissing would emerge.
But..he could add such troops like Serbs and Bulgarians to his campaign army for two reasons.
1) To enlarge his army.
2) To keep armed forces that could rebel ,away from their motherlands (a clasic Roman tactic.
So a number of such troops could be part of his campaign army side by side with his tagmatic and mercenary troops.
Another point that we are missing is that when Pechenegs deserted to Seljucks the army's morale fell but the Emperor did not chenge his plans.
The most logical reason would be his remaining confidence to his remaining troops numbers (that the desertion did not destroy the ballance of numbers to much).

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

But there is no way he could have fielded more than the entire military strength of the Principate Roman army for a single campaign!

For example, the Fatimids were only able to raise a grand total of 24'000 men for a campaign!

[Pompeius Magnus]

No one can be sure about the numbers.

But there are concrete indications which are considered in the modern history. Those factors are leading today to different results.
That what some people publish here seems sometimes "old fashioned" to me.

I have no problem if people say "I guess"... "I think"... or "in my opinion" etc etc
But that what I can read here at TWCenter nearly every day in many threads is something like "it is logical" ... "it is well known" ... "the Romans made this... the byzantines made that" and so on.
Numbers of armies are handled like toys, thrown into threads without giving any source where those numbers are coming from.

Especially in case of the byzantine army some feel be called to explain their personal view to others without giving any kind of source.

[AnthoniusII]

But there are concrete indications which are considered in the modern history. Those factors are leading today to different results.
That what some people publish here seems sometimes "old fashioned" to me.

I have no problem if people say "I guess"... "I think"... or "in my opinion" etc etc
But that what I can read here at TWCenter nearly every day in many threads is something like "it is logical" ... "it is well known" ... "the Romans made this... the byzantines made that" and so on.
Numbers of armies are handled like toys, thrown into threads without giving any source where those numbers are coming from.

Especially in case of the byzantine army some feel be called to explain their personal view to others without giving any kind of source.

Agreed but...
No modern historian doupts about roman troops numbers or the number of troops in Hastings or the armies of Jekins Han etc..
When a scholar wrote that romans defeated 50000 guals or 100000 british etc NO ONE doupts. When byzantine scholars wrote "Basill II blinted 15000 Bulgarians every european historian doupts the number saying "but bulgarians could not have 15000 men army so how can Basill had so many caprives"?
When Arian or others write that Alexander the Great defeated 300000 men in Gaugamela every one doupts.
When Velisarius defeated 60000 Vandals every one doupts.
No one doupts that Hanibal defeated 80000 Romans.
What is strange in western europe is that no one doupts numbers for west europe or romans or Mongols or...
But Greek and eastern Roman scholars or Sassanids or Arabs when they mention number of troops they considered by westrn people liers.
Propably because in western europe no army (mainly crusade) could not assemply more than 80000 men.
They seam to forget that before Matzikert every citizen of 19 years old was called to arms until his 45th year of age.
So if the Empire had in 1071 more or less 6-7 million poppulation would be hard to assemply 200000 men for a campaign?
Heraclius DID that with almost no money and with the time running out and with only half of the empire under his rule.
All those troops afcourse would not be equipted with the best of weaponry but even with a wooden bucler and a simple axe or sling an army could field more than 200000 men.
If each generation gives an average of 40% in those ages (19-45) we can have 2,4 milion people in those ages. If the average is 7/10 in favor of women the empire could have 900000 millitias that could be called to arms.
If the empire's armouries could supply 1/3 of them with a simple weapon then we have 300000 men army.
Simple logic.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Anthonius, Anthonius, my friend.
Half of your allegation concerning historians is simply not true - at best based on "hearsay" and not worth to go further because the discussion becomes somewhat off-topic now.

Let me say that especially numbers of the Roman Republic and in a higher degree of the European Middle Ages are disputed as well since many years.
As said, it is hearsay and your personal perception. Therefore I suggest to read my post #17 once more.

[Stark1]

Luttwak claims the campaign at Manzinkert was a simple police action by Romanos Diogenes, aimed just to reduce some enemy strongholds, that was split in order to siege multiple forts at once, which forced Alp Arslan to give up his campaign against Fatimids in order to deal with Romans.

Is there any truth in that?