Imperial Tagmata are the legions of Medieval Rome?

[neoptolemos]

The Great Conflicts mode is preparing for the Imperial Tagmata preview of the Nikephorian roster and a new book from Osprey is coming out regarding the Imperial guardsmen as well the announcement of Rome II


Some info here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagma_%28military%29

Professional regiments, 10th–11th centuries

As the Byzantine Empire embarked on its campaigns of reconquest in the 10th century, the tagmata became more active, and were posted often in garrison duties in the provinces or in newly conquered territories.[27] In addition to the older units, a number of new and specialized units were formed to meet the demands of this more aggressive style of warfare.[28] Michael II (r. 820–829) raised the short-lived Tessarakontarioi, a special marine unit (named after their high pay of 40 nomismata),[29] and John I Tzimiskes (r. 969–976) created a heavy cataphract corps called the Athanatoi (Ἀθάνατοι, the "Immortals") after the old Persian unit, which were revived in the late 11th century by Michael VII Doukas (r. 1071–1078). Other similar units were the Stratēlatai, likewise formed by John Tzimiskes, the short-lived Satrapai of the 970s, the Megathymoi of the 1040s or the Archontopoulai and Vestiaritai of Alexios I.[28] Many of the new tagmata were composed of foreigners, such as the Maniakalatai, formed by George Maniakes from Franks in Italy,[28] or the most famous of all tagmatic units, the 6,000-strong mercenary Varangian Guard (Τάγμα τῶν Βαραγγίων), established ca. 988 by Emperor Basil II (r. 976–1025).
The reign of Basil II also saw the beginnings of a profound transformation of the Byzantine military system. In the mid-10th century, the decline in the numbers of the thematic forces and the exigencies of the new offensive strategy on the eastern border gave rise to an increasing number of provincial tagmata, permanent professional forces modelled after the imperial tagmata.[30]

http://byzantium.seashell.net.nz/art...d=mtp_military

The Tagmata campaigned with the Emperor and formed the spearhead of Byzantine counter offensive action against invading armies worn down by the hit and run tactics of defending thematic soldiers.
The Empire's strategic and economic position gradually improved through the ninth and tenth centuries. Throughout this period the Tagmata were developed into a fully fledged professional army, which employed sophisticated infantry tactics combined with the shock effect of heavily armoured cavalry. A series of soldier-emperors such as Nikephoros Phokas, John Tzimiskes and Basil Bulgaroctonos were able to undertake significant offensive campaigns and to turn the tables in particular against the Bulgars in the west and the Arab "raiding emirates" in the east. The pursuit of military glory consequently became an important component of Byzantine imperial propaganda.

Warren Treadgold argues that Imperial tagmata and thematic army are linear descendants of the antique Roman legions and it is proposed that Imperial tagmata is the closest to Roman golden age Legions the Medieval Empire had managed to reach.

Thoughts and opinions?

[neoptolemos]

BTW Does anyone have Haldon's book "Byzantine Praitorians"?

[Basileos Leandros I]

Thanks for the link, I'm gonna buy the Osprey books. I'm glad there's a detailed account of the Tagmata troops with proper illustrations as well.

[neoptolemos]

Thanks for the link, I'm gonna buy the Osprey books. I'm glad there's a detailed account of the Tagmata troops with proper illustrations as well.

I believe there is an ongoing increase of interest concerning Byzantine studies and military
Osprey also added a book dedicated to Varangian guard in the men-at-arms series and now the focus is on the Imperial professional troops, the notorious Tagmata

We know that the Tagmatic army was a superior force for the era, with a combined use of arms, exquisite tactics and armors, discipline and operational capacities.

These features made these troops compared only to antiquity golden era legions of the empire.

[Basileos Leandros I]

I'm kind of wary when comparing them to the ancient legions. Perhaps and discipline and rigour they can be compared, but when it comes to fighting style, equipment, leadership, hierarchy, pay...everything else was different.

Not even tactics, the Tagmatic Byzantine troops scarcely used any legionnaire tactics or anything of the sorts (I'm talking here about infantry Tagmata). Cavalry tactics were far different.

[neoptolemos]

I'm kind of wary when comparing them to the ancient legions. Perhaps and discipline and rigour they can be compared, but when it comes to fighting style, equipment, leadership, hierarchy, pay...everything else was different.

Not even tactics, the Tagmatic Byzantine troops scarcely used any legionnaire tactics or anything of the sorts (I'm talking here about infantry Tagmata). Cavalry tactics were far different.

well this is a problem indeed.
We can't compare Tagmata in all aspects with legions.
Since there is a gradual shift of the Roman military from infantry to cavalry, Tagmatic units were in their majority heavy and medium cavalry.
However what marked the difference of the Tagmatic armies with the previous armies, is the combined use of cavalry and infantry in a balance when previously the infantry had secondary role.

hierarchy was not that different as we have centurions (kentarches or ekatontarchoi) and penticontarchs in the Tagmatic forces as well as higher ranked officers similar with the legion ones.

What is mostly comparable though is the operational diversity and effectiveness Tagmata shared with the golden age legions.

[Gnostiko]

Ideologically, and perhaps administratively, maybe. But as Leandros touched on, no way in terms of organisation, tactics, training, equipment etc

[neoptolemos]

Ideologically, and perhaps administratively, maybe.

And in terms of professionalism of course

But as Leandros touched on, no way in terms of organisation, tactics, training, equipment etc

Sure, this is absolutely logical.
I mean not only Tagmatic forces were mainly heavy cavalry but the warfare of the era was different and armrs and armors have been significantly evolved compared with the classical Roman one.
The same goes for tactics, training etc
IMHO imperial Tagmata should take a significant place in military historiography as they were a formidable force of the era indeed,
too bad though that the fragile balance of Thematic and Tagmatic troops wasn't preserved and the 11th cent neglect led the Tagmatic military revolution into oblivion....

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I think that trying to compare the two formations is kind of anachronistic. Some historians believe that trying to find connections between ancient Rome and Byzantium is gonna make Byzantium look as great as Rome but I don't think that the ERE needs to be jealous of Rome. The main difference between the Tagmatic units is that, contrary to the Legions of Rome, they were all stationed in the capital (or generally near it, like in Thrace or the Theme of Optimaton) and were under the command of the Emperor himself or loyal palatine generals. Historically, I can't remember any mutiny started by Tagmatic troops - most of them were organized by Thematic units. On the contrary, the legions, under the leadership of strong generals, such as Caesar marched against Rome. It's worth mentioning that the Tagmatic units or to say it better, the units stationed in the capital were of undoubted loyalty and possessed weapons that the Thematic armies lacked. For example, only the Imperial fleet of Constantinople was allowed to carry Greek fire as the weapon itself was considered a national secret and Constantinople wished to maintain the upper hand if a rebellion occurred.

oh and by the way +rep for the book. I'll definitely get it. I must spread some reputation before giving it again -_-

[neoptolemos]

The main difference between the Tagmatic units is that, contrary to the Legions of Rome, they were all stationed in the capital (or generally near it, like in Thrace or the Theme of Optimaton) and were under the command of the Emperor himself or loyal palatine generals.

Well the Tagmatic troops were firstly stationed in Constantinople, Thrace Macedonia (the theme) for example.
However after the generalization of the Tagmatic organization there have been Tagmatic regiments all around the empire (the provincial tagmata in contrast with the Imperial ones on which they were modelled) and some tagmatic units were raised for a short period of time like Athanatoi.
Tagmatic units played their role in imperial throne be sure about that...
Here is an example:

The loyalty of the Varangians became a trope of Byzantine writers. Writing about her father Alexius's seizing of Imperial throne in 1081, Anna Komnene notes that he was advised not to attack the Varangians who still guarded the Emperor Nikephoros for the Varangians "regard loyalty to the emperors and the protection of their persons as a family tradition, a kind of sacred trust." This allegiance, she noted, "they preserve inviolate, and will never brook the slighted hint of betrayal." [16] Unlike the native Byzantine guards so mistrusted by Basil II, the Varangian guards' loyalties lay with the position of Emperor, not the man that sat on the throne. This was made clear in 969 when the guards failed to avenge the death by assassination of Emperor Nikephoros II. A servant had managed to call for the guards while the Emperor was being attacked, but when they arrived he was dead. They immediately knelt before John Tzimiskes, Nikephoros' murderer and hailed him as Emperor. "Alive they would have defended him to the last breath: dead there was no point in avenging him. They had a new master now." [17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard

finally we must not forget that even the Varangian guard was a Tagmatic force, probably the most famous one.
Although we have a Roman tradition of foederati forces, the Varangian guard was something unique.
It is also notable that the Varangians were famous berserkers as well.

The Varangian Guard was only used in battle during critical moments, or where the battle was most fierce.[15] Contemporary Byzantine chroniclers note with a mix of terror and fascination that the "Scandinavians were frightening both in appearance and in equipment, they attacked with reckless rage and neither cared about losing blood nor their wounds".[15] The description probably refers to berserkergang since this state of trance is said to have given them superhuman strength and no sense of pain from their wounds.[15]

Some historians believe that trying to find connections between ancient Rome and Byzantium is gonna make Byzantium look as great as Rome but I don't think that the ERE needs to be jealous of Rome.

This is true indeed!

[hellheaven1987]

Well, tagmata was more close to an elite "cohort" instead actually a "legion"; it was not designed as a main force of a major campaign but rather for more tactical purpose. It is kindly like the relation between Kapikulu and Timariot during early Ottoman period.

[neoptolemos]

Well, tagmata was more close to an elite "cohort" instead actually a "legion"; it was not designed as a main force of a major campaign but rather for more tactical purpose. It is kindly like the relation between Kapikulu and Timariot during early Ottoman period.

Well that depends actually.
After years of the initiation of Tagmatic system, the Tagmatic forces became the core and the vanguard of any Byzantine campaign and they are the main reason of the successful counter attack of the late 9th and 10 cent.
They were utilizing a combined force and arms and they were acting along with the provisional thematic armies.
Another feature that made Tagmata akin to legions is their professionalism and continuous drilling in order to be ready for fight and be the core of an Imperial campaign.
It has to be said though that their role was a process where the reforms met the needs of an offensive warfare instead of the successful Thematic system which was oriented in defense

[AqD]

finally we must not forget that even the Varangian guard was a Tagmatic force, probably the most famous one.
Although we have a Roman tradition of foederati forces, the Varangian guard was something unique.
It is also notable that the Varangians were famous berserkers as well.


This is true indeed!

They are foreign mercenaries, sort like elite nomadic cavalry regiment in ancient Chinese dynasties. Mercenaries are never berserkers because nobody would pay for crazy nuts.


And how can they feel pain, with the heaviest and finest armours covering from head to toes, unbreakable by most common weapons their poor enemies can grab, is beyond my understanding.

[neoptolemos]

They are foreign mercenaries, sort like elite nomadic cavalry regiment in ancient Chinese dynasties. Mercenaries are never berserkers because nobody would pay for crazy nuts.

You have a point but Romans did use them for their ferocious way of fighting and we have clues that point out the Berserker rites in Varangian guard..

Scholar Hilda Ellis-Davidson draws a parallel between berserkers and the mention by the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII (AD 905–959) in his book De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae ("Book of Ceremonies of the Byzantine court") of a "Gothic Dance" performed by members of his Varangian Guard (Norse warriors working in the service of the Byzantine Empire), who took part wearing animal skins and masks: she believes this may have been connected with berserker rites.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker
Fascinating...
Now we know that Varangian Guard has the bonus "frightening nearby enemies"

And how can they feel pain, with the heaviest and finest armours covering from head to toes, unbreakable by most common weapons their poor enemies can grab, is beyond my understanding.

Well this is true for the Varangians equipped by the Imperial armoury, however when a Varangian first entering the service (and paid the entrance fee) he has his own armour (chain mail and helmet) .After some service he was fully Romanized in terms of Armor and was indeed a cataphract

[Gnostiko]

The Varangians weren't a cavalry unit.
Whilst there's some speculation they could have been mounted infantry at certain points in their existence, the vast majority of historians agree they were (on the field) heavy infantry.

[neoptolemos]

The Varangians weren't a cavalry unit.
Whilst there's some speculation they could have been mounted infantry at certain points in their existence, the vast majority of historians agree they were (on the field) heavy infantry.

Who said they were?
They were elite heavy infantry, part of the Tagmatic troops.(Their number was equivalent to a cavalry tagma as Treadgold argues)
Tagma ton Teichon and Tagma tou Arithou were also heavy infantry Tagmata

[Gnostiko]

Who said they were?
They were elite heavy infantry, part of the Tagmatic troops.(Their number was equivalent to a cavalry tagma as Treadgold argues)
Tagma ton Teichon and Tagma tou Arithou were also heavy infantry Tagmata

Couldn't tell if Aqd was talking about the Tagmata in general or the Varangians in particular!

[neoptolemos]

oh i see then you ve done well mentioning it

[Gnostiko]

I just realised; what's with the discrepancy in the two Osprey books you posted? One is labelled 'Imperial Guards' and the other is 'Imperial Guardsmen'?

[AnthoniusII]

Depends on what we mean by the term Legions.
In fact after Maurice but mostly after Heracleus reforms the medieval roman armies looked like both republican and imperial roman armies.
Republic armies based on citizen soldiers that had limited anual tour of duty.
That was the main feature of Thematic armies.
Imperial Roman legions based on highy trained proffesional soldiers .
Tagmata were such units.
Legions could field up to 6000 troops in republic's era.
Themas with large population could field 1-4 tourmas (around 3000 men each).
Late imperial legions had around 1000 men.
Tagmatic units may/may not have units of 512 men each.
If Pseudokodinos is accurate then Tagmatic army (vasilike syntaxis) was only a legion 6x512=6072 troops.
But that's odd when scholars mention that in 1202AD Constantinople had 50000 defenders.
We are sure about the number of troops for least on Tagmatic unit.
Athanati (immortals) were 512.
In 8th century we "read" for tagmata with 8000 men.
In way...The "legion" way of forming units was still in use with different names.
A tourma (3000 men) had its own medic troops,scouts,field artilery but not engineer unit.
A thematic army though of 3 tourmas (9000 men) could be an army of its own with everything an army could need for. That was very close to Legions. The next army that had such organisation of intipentent armies was Napoleon's armies of 20-40000 men.