Ages of darkness III - brainstorming, starting date etc

[Constantius]

1st option is my favorite..
Although it will need a lot of work more than the 2nd option it will be more educating and more chalenging..
It will need two separate roman rosters (if the ending date will be after Yarmuk),it will need Avars and other factions but...
The player will find him self in a living hell...This situation will help him to understand better what chalenges the Empire had to go on through to survive and the real value of the real Heracleius as a leader ...
Revolts,desertions and multi direction invasions or rebelions will help the player to live the despaired situation of that times...
Afcourse the value of the 2nd option is still great...
Again the mod will need 2 diferend Roman rosters espesially after the defeat in Yarmuk!
But this way the player will foully undestand the reasons of the reform of the roman armies to those for 700-900 ones....

You make a fine argument for either option (still worry that the Arabs might get lost!) What sort military reforms took place i.e .troop types etc .i know they began to use
alot lighter cavalry types etc .But you would seem an expert on the military side of things. I have a read alot about all eras of the empire but mostly its political,economic,and religious aspects

[Pompeius Magnus]

That's not easy to answer and of course not possible to answer that question in a single post. Because after (or during!) the reign of Herakleios the byzantine "dark age" begun and we have not so many informations. We know for sure that the Theme units were developed step by step and not from one day to another.

It is important to understand that the creation of the themes was a step by step development - and not ad-hoc. So, you can't say that with Herakleios (or some years later) the old unit pool wasn't existing anymore.

for AoD3
actually we have to develop a new roster concerning for the Theme-units and some court troops. So, YES, Anthonius is right!

However, other units are still useable.
There was indeed a reform, however, in the time of Herakleios everything was still based on the old offensive/defensive system of Comitatenses and Limitanei. At least officially.

The old term "Comitatenses" never disappeared!! I have to say that very clearly, because I think some people have a wrong idea about the army of the 7th and 8th century.
The translated word for Comitatenses in greek is "Stratiotai". Also Procopius (see dBV) used the word "Stratiotai" to describe the Companions (Comitatenes!! NOT Foederati or Buccellari) of Belisarius and Narses. It is very difficult to describe the word because it was a general term for the mobile field troops.
Some Stratiotai were also new recruited Numeri and old Comitatenses.
Note: If I say they were "old Comitatenes" it doesn't mean automatically that they were Legions. Some of them were - as mentioned above - Numeri, Aux Palatina, offensive Limitanei etc.
It becomes sometimes confusing because the eastern Romans deployed indeed new units which were simply called Stratiotai. We find such troops in the north african campaign beside old Numeri of the former Legions. But also those new troops were equipped in typically roman fashion and had often the same status as older Legions. Procopius is complaining more than 1 time in his books about the infamousness and low moral of those troops.
The Stratiotai became a completely new unit hundred years later. The mid-byzantine Stratiotai were medium equipped mounted units, but that happened not in the 6th and 7th century.
And here I think many people make a mistake to interprete the 6th and 7th century Stratiotai as a new unit.

some additional infos
Some Auxilia Palatiniae still survived (also with the old shield symbols from the Notitia Dignitatum!!) until the 8th and 9th century!
One unit for example - the Legio Quarta Parthica (4th Parthian Legion) - is mentioned in the 7th century as Quartoparthikoi (that's the greek term). The Roman Antesignani (front line warriors) were called in greek Promachoi (also here you see it wasn't a new unit at all).
Also Procopius mentioned Promachoi in Narses army - and he simply meant the Roman Antesignani.
The town garrison was officially called in Justinians time "Castresiani" (from Castra) and Procopius said "Kastresianoi". This term became the official word some 50 years later.... and now some people think today "falsely" it is a new unit

cavalry
The only troops which were newly deployed by Belisarius were his own Foederati, some Buccellari and (more important) the Hippo-Toxotai. The Hippo-Toxotai were simply heavy equipped Equites Sagitarii, better armoured with lance and highly drilled by Belisar himself. All those new deployed units were cavalry units.

reform?
The Themes (Thema) were created by the old "mobile field armies". But was it really performed and accomplished by Herakleios? Meanwhile all modern history books refuse that theory.
It's true that old units died out and new units were deployed - even if the 7th and 8th century "Bandon" and "Tagma" was actually nothing else than the Numeri or Noumeroi.
The old Cohors and Legions were mostly reduced in status and used as static Comitatenses (as in the case of the Quinta Macedonia in Egypt) or they became offensive Limitanei units, garrisoned in cities. But that happened also in the Justinian time - and that has nothing to do with the themes.
You see - it is quite confusing, but I spent the last 2,5 years in studying the 6th and 7th century army. Be sure that we will provide a new unit-pool of mixed units. A surprise for all of you with more than 40 infantry units!

I agree that new units should be introduced. Also the Bandon (Banner) makes sense. New court units like the Optimati or Sparthari. The Sparthari were no military unit before, even if you find their name in the 5th and 6th century. They were simply a small group of nobles who had the right and the privilege to carry the sword and protect the emperor in a 3-shift-duty (means early, late and night service). It was more a title than a military unit. I can't introduce them in AoD2 - however - for AoD3 they are an option.

Also some regular cavalry units should be introduced like new designed Clibanari or Kataphraktoi (even if you find most of them in the old army as well). But a lot of units were still active and equipped in old fashion - esp in the Herakleian time. When I see the troop list of Herakleios' army against the sassanids then I see a lot of old known names. "Old" in this case means = I know them from the Justinian time and probably more early!!

Some years ago I worked out something.
There are meanwhile some mistakes in my texts (also several grammar faults), however, the bulk is still ok so far. It describes the creation of the themes, new deployed units and the usage of old units. You see that the creation of the themes (and the central field army Tagmata) was performed in several steps and not ad-hoc.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

themes













________________
Constanine V.

But if the right time is coming we will publish our 7th and 8th century -unit roster of course!

[Naughteous Maximus]

I think option 2 ,aside from the religious aspect of portraying the prophet Mohammed could offend (having said that nobody would make any body play)there is the small matter of military power ,Rome and the Persians are super powers ,but exhausted ones ,there was a massive amount of luck in the Caliphates rise ,how would this be simulated in game? .Do you put massive debts and weak armies for Rome and Persia ? Then there is Yarmuk for example ,the Romans were more than capable of putting massive armies in the field .The piont i'm making is if you go with option 1 ,theres the danger that Rome and Persia will simply crush the Arabs first .

I agree with Constantius. Having an exhausted Rome and Persia struggling and with a powerful fresh enemy on the rise would make for a very challenging game.

[Isildor]

Maby 843 would also be an interesting starting date of a mod. The frankish empire was splitted in three parts, vikings in the north, scottland the first time united, muslims in the south and the east and slaves in the north-east.

I think this could be also a good scenario.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Maby 843

the 9th+10th century wasn't really a "dark age" anymore. So, I fear it doesn't match our concept. The focus of the AoD series is the time frame between the mid-6th century up to the late 8th century (enddate perhaps the early/mid 9th century).

Actually the byzantine dark age is set officially a little bit later compared to the rest of europe (between 610-867AD, sometimes also between 565 and 867AD) - but we can't start a mod in 800AD and finish it some 70 years later, even if the scenario is indeed very interesting. In my opinion the AoD series should be finished somewhere between 850 and 870AD.

The definition:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Some Byzantinists have used the term "Byzantine Dark Ages" to refer to the period from the earliest Muslim conquests to about 800 AD, because there are no extant historical texts in Greek from this period, and thus the history of the Byzantine Empire and formerly Byzantine territories that were conquered by Muslims is poorly understood and must be reconstructed from other types of contemporaneous sources, such as religious texts. It is also known that very few Greek manuscripts were copied in this period, indicating that the seventh and eighth centuries, which were a period of crisis for the Byzantines because of the Muslim conquests, were also less intellectually active than other periods.

[jermagon]

very informative post Pomps.

in my opinion the battle of Yarmouk 636 was underrated by modern Historians, it was far decisive than the battle of Adrianople which occurred 300 years earlier and still gains all the focus & attention.

the battle of Adrianople didn't change the empire's map it remained the same, unlike the Muslim invaders the Goths were seeking a homeland to settle under the umbrella (authority) of the Roman empire. so when Valens treated them harshly they decided the military action to force Rome to carry one their demands. they didn't have their own agenda.

even Theodoric the great he ruled Italy as the viceroy of the emperor of Constantinople.

on the other side the Battle of yarmouk caused a dramatic changes in history, and for sure a great changes on the matter of land.
the Roman empire lost greater Syria forever. the bulk of the professional Roman army was destroyed in battle.
it's very important to indicate that the Roman army in Yarmouk was the strongest army (and well equipped army) in the world, Heraclius gathered troops from allover his empire (The franks,Armenians,Lombards...) in a last stand to stop the Muslim Arab army from capturing Syria and southern Anatolia.
all the historical account confirmed the supremacy of the Roman army.

the Roman empire for sure was exhausted from along wars with Persia, but in the end Rome won and Persia gave back all the lands she captured from Rome. so Rome wasn't that weak at many people think. IMO if the Arabs had never threatened the empire, heraclius would have had launched a campaign against the Lombards in Italy.

[Constantius]

very informative post Pomps.

in my opinion the battle of Yarmouk 636 was underrated by modern Historians, it was far decisive than the battle of Adrianople which occurred 300 years earlier and still gains all the focus & attention.

the battle of Adrianople didn't change the empire's map it remained the same, unlike the Muslim invaders the Goths were seeking a homeland to settle under the umbrella (authority) of the Roman empire. so when Valens treated them harshly they decided the military action to force Rome to carry one their demands. they didn't have their own agenda.

even Theodoric the great he ruled Italy as the viceroy of the emperor of Constantinople.

on the other side the Battle of yarmouk caused a dramatic changes in history, and for sure a great changes on the matter of land.
the Roman empire lost greater Syria forever. the bulk of the professional Roman army was destroyed in battle.
it's very important to indicate that the Roman army in Yarmouk was the strongest army (and well equipped army) in the world, Heraclius gathered troops from allover his empire (The franks,Armenians,Lombards...) in a last stand to stop the Muslim Arab army from capturing Syria and southern Anatolia.
all the historical account confirmed the supremacy of the Roman army.

the Roman empire for sure was exhausted from along wars with Persia, but in the end Rome won and Persia gave back all the lands she captured from Rome. so Rome wasn't that weak at many people think. IMO if the Arabs had never threatened the empire, heraclius would have had launched a campaign against the Lombards in Italy.

I agree thats what i was getting at ,luck (no disrespect for the Arab generals)played a massive part in the defeat at Yarmouk ,it wasn't lack of troops the Romans could field(add to that the Emperor was loosing the plot by this point)

[Constantius]

There is one thing one thing i'm just jumping the gun abit and i know you going to say its not "dark ages " and its not but i would really love to see a further mod starting around 800,finnishing about 1025 with the death of Basil II .Think of the possinilities and characters to have graced this period ;Khann Krum ,Symeon ,Cyril and Methodius and the Rus attack of 860 afraid dont remember the Khans name...Wouldn't it be a good area ?I'd help if i could ,come to think of it i ,could help with current projects if you'd like i cannot mod but if there was anything else ?

oops sorry double posted !!!!!!

[Pompeius Magnus]

I know what you mean, and perhaps we make a mod about that era (because I also like it), however, it's behind the dark age series.
In general it depends on:
a) if we have the time and
b) if I have a certain group of active modders ( I can't make everything alone)

First comes AoD2 - the Justinian time then AoD3 - the Heracleian time and then (when everything is accomplished) we can think about the next steps.
The purpose of this thread here is to discuss AoD3 - the time of Herakleios.

edit: if you offer your help then you can have the job as researcher for the factions (which factions should be included), the family trees, what kind of units were used (but please no things like "heavy cavalry" or "light spearmen" or things like that, AoD is using always native historical units names). You can open a new thread in our public AoD forum and start with it.

[Constantius]

I know what you mean, and perhaps we make a mod about that era (because I also like it), however, it's behind the dark age series.
In general it depends on:
a) if we have the time and
b) if I have a certain group of active modders ( I can't make everything alone)

First comes AoD2 - the Justinian time then AoD3 - the Heracleian time and then (when everything is accomplished) we can think about the next steps.
The purpose of this thread here is to discuss AoD3 - the time of Herakleios.

Absolutely your right ,my apologies

[Pompeius Magnus]

no problem mate, please note my additional new comment (the edit entry) of my post #29. Perhaps you want have the job as researcher for Aod4.

[Constantius]

I would be honoured to some research for you ,degree allowing .

[Pompeius Magnus]

great, I will contact you in some minutes via pm.

[MoeMoeKyun]

So you're going to start AoD3 with Yarmouk right? Please do so!

[Pompeius Magnus]

Yes, we start now in 636AD - some days before the hist. battle of Yarmuk.

I checked the advantages and disadvantges. Open is now the question concerning the end-date.

[Gäiten]

Yes, we start now in 636AD - some days before the hist. battle of Yarmuk.
I checked the advantages and disadvantges. Open is now the question concerning the end-date.

What about 750AD? Here the Abbasids overcame the Umayyad dynasty.

If you need some ideas how to include the (very) late Sassanians, just ask.

[jermagon]

What about 750AD? Here the Abbasids overcame the Umayyad dynasty.

If you need some ideas how to include the (very) late Sassanians, just ask.

There's no Dynasty Muslim faction it's simply The Muslim caliphate,though the dynasties will be represented through the family members for example if you want an Omayyad dynasty choose Muwayya as the faction heir thus his bloodline will rule the caliphate. the same thing with the Abbasid name Abdullah ibn Abbas as your heir then his bloodline will takeover the Arabian empire.

no one says the Heraclean empire or the Isurian empire they are all great dynasties which ruled the Roman empire for many decades the same case could be applied on the Muslim caliphate.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Yes, we start now in 636AD - some days before the hist. battle of Yarmuk.

...Open is now the question concerning the end-date.

the muslim faction members of 636 are well known due to the superb research of the Osprey book of Yarmuk 636AD. We know all generals, their wifes, the caliphs etc etc. That's sufficient.

...all other ideas beyond the 8th century should be post in the AoD IV-thread - which was opened by Constantius.

[Constantius]

I did think 751 the capture of Ravenna by the Lombards and the end of the Exarchate .Its also around this time that Pepin the short seizes the thrown of the Franks from the Merovingians and pledges to give back the lands of the former Exchate of Ravenna back to the Pope .Beginning an alliance between Pope and Frankish kings that would change Europe forever. This would seem a fair place to end .(but it is only a hundred years give or take)

[Joar]

There's no Dynasty Muslim faction it's simply The Muslim caliphate

no one says the Heraclean empire or the Isurian empire they are all great dynasties which ruled the Roman empire for many decades the same case could be applied on the Muslim caliphate.

No, but he ( Gäiten ) didn't write that, did he? He simply wrote that he suggested that the end should be in 750, when the Abbasid dynasty replaced the Umayyad dynasty.

He never mentioned anything about factions.