question about the byzantines...

[DizzyRainbow]

Firstly, why aren't they called the constantinians, surely that would better depict a greco-roman remnant?
Secondly, did any byzantines actually speak latin by the end.
Lastly, are their infantry supposed to be so... Weak as in vanilla?
Thank you for your time :-)

[Vissewalde rex de Gerzika]

Im not an expert on byzantines, but if you have questions about byzantines, you can check here http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=566974, there are a lot of questions and answers, im surprised the thread is not moved because it went off topic. Also, you might want to check in here to get any more historical questions answered or just discuss history http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7

As for the last question, i dont really know why are they so weak, but my only guess is that they were trying to show the bad state of the country by reducing the efectivness of the units because they coudnt make any political events that took place which is what really weakened the Byzantines so much.

[DizzyRainbow]

Ahh brilliant :-) I appreciate the links (had not realised that forum was on here in particular) and i'll check them out further in a moment.
Also, I guess that could be a viable reason indeed. Thanks :-)

[Sitalkes]

Play the Byzantines in Kingdoms, they have some great units (Greek Firethrowers, Trebizond Archers, Guard Archers etc). I don't remember the Varangians being so bad, even if they are, you should do well with them in flank charges. Also, during a battle the Byzantine emperor gets the power to politically paralyze a single enemy unit - the effect being it can't do anything for a period of time. Anyway the power of the Byzantine army is not super infantry but a nasty combination of good shooting cavalry (that can calso fight) with reliable infantry, good shooting infantry, and good charging cavalry.

[Aeratus]

Firstly, why aren't they called the constantinians, surely that would better depict a greco-roman remnant?
Secondly, did any byzantines actually speak latin by the end.
Lastly, are their infantry supposed to be so... Weak as in vanilla?
Thank you for your time :-)

1. Historically, the Byzantines called themselves the Basileia Romaion ("Roman Empire"), and most other nations at the time called them the "Romans." However, the later British historians did not like to call the Byzantines as "the Romans," because they considered the Byzantines to be a weak and dysfunctional remnant of the Classical Roman Empire that was not worthy of the name "Roman." So the historians invented a new term "Byzantines," which has stuck in modern English usage.

2. No, they spoke Greek mostly.

3. The problems with Byzantine infantry was likely unintentional, because they have a good 2h axeman (Varangian guard), but it suffers from the slow animation problem as other two-handers do. Historically, their infantry was above average during the early period, but warfare during this time period was mostly dominated by cavalry.

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

1. Historically, the Byzantines called themselves the Basileia Romaion ("Roman Empire"), and most other nations at the time called them the "Romans." However, the later British historians did not like to call the Byzantines as "the Romans," because they considered the Byzantines to be a weak and dysfunctional remnant of the Classical Roman Empire that was not worthy of the name "Roman." So the historians invented a new term "Byzantines," which has stuck in modern English usage.

2. No, they spoke Greek mostly.

3. The problems with Byzantine infantry was likely unintentional, because they have a good 2h axeman (Varangian guard), but it suffers from the slow animation problem as other two-handers do. Historically, their infantry was above average during the early period, but warfare during this time period was mostly dominated by cavalry.

I am not sure the Byzantines called their empire anything. They called themselves Roman, sure. The imperial rule (Basileia) exercised from Constantinople was called Basileia Romaion. However, one finds many other expressions, including "en toi Byzantioi Basileia" - or the "Imperial Rule exersized from Byzantium". So it was not the Germans or the British who came up with the term. It was a contemporary expression, just as much as Basileia Romaion. The term Byzantine Empire is useful in that it disambiguates the Christian empire ruled from Byzantium (Constantinople) from the earlier empire ruled from Rome, as well as the other differences, such as the increasing use of the Greek language.

Both vanilla and kingdoms Byzantines are weak on spearmen, which were all the native units the Byzantines actually had. Archers, axemen, mounted skirmishers and the rest were mercenaries. Only spearmen and javeliners were truly native in this period. But neither vanilla nor kingdoms have any decent Byzantine spearmen. Their roster must have been done in a hurry, considering the Byzantine spearmen fought in phalanx formation arranged in ranks, and were probably the only true example of units fighting in MTW square formation in the Middle Ages.

Kingdoms units are of course better. Stainless Steel units are a marked improvement over Kingdoms. Also Chivalry II the Sicilian Vespers has excellent units (in my opinion the most accurate for the Comnenian period) and Broken Crescent and other mods (Rusichi TW) include many CBUR project units. The CBUR project is there no doubt because it was so much needed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My three short AARs:
[BC] The Maharajah and the Guild of Thieves – a Chauhan Rajput AAR
[1648] Thirty Years' War
[Kingdoms] Antioch Crusaders Mod campaign
and something not so short - [FKoC] Times full of Distemper
Reviewed by robinzx at the Critic's Quill, Issue 31

[eugenioso]

the varangian guards were the biggest badassess in MTW1. they were kings.

[Maklodes]

Slightly off-topic, but my understanding is that the biggest strength of the Komnenian Byzantine army was its proficiency at siege warfare, especially under John II. Unfortunately, in vanilla M2TW (and even most mods, as far as I can tell), pre-gunpowder siege warfare is homogenized across factions, so factions being good or bad at siege warfare in particular isn't represented (except that in general factions with poor infantry like Poland and Egypt might not do so well in conventional city assaults). Everyone gets the same battering rams, ladders, and siege towers built during sieges, and everyone can construct the same ballistae, catapults, and trebuchets from settlements. One could give the Byzantines more triggers to get the military engineer/siege engineer ancillary, or the GoodEngineer trait, but that doesn't matter that much.

Although trait/ancillarywise, IMHO, the bigger problem for Orthodox factions is that they don't have a quick way of gaining chivalry. Being able to get lots of chivalry would be nice if you were governing a tiny village and wanted to make it grow. A.k.a., you're Byzantine and you have Durazzo. Or you're Russian and you have... uh... most settlements near Novgorod? (Note: I'm not suggesting "orthodox crusades/jihads" or anything: just saying that something would be good to bring Orthodoxy up to the Catholic/Islamic level.)

(Also, my understanding is that the biggest strength of the Angeloi Byzantine army was that sometimes they would point their weapons at the enemies of the empire rather than at the current occupant of the throne. The biggest strength of the Palaiologan Byzantine Army is that sometimes if they begged enough, some Genoese would help them out.)

[Aeratus]

I think the depiction of the Byzantines is one of the most varied across the different M2TW variations. On one hand, you have the ultra-weak Byzantine army in Vanilla. On the other hand, you have the super-overpowered Byzantines in Stainless Steel who have cavalry and infantry that utterly destroys anything.

Incidentally, as far as heavy cavalry and infantry goes, I think vanilla got it right. Historically, Byzantine cavalry were generally outmatched by western knights. Even though the Byzantines had better armor, they lacked the warrior culture that gave the western nobility the edge in combat. Therefore, the fact that the Kataphract is weak in Vanilla is historically accurate. As for infantry units, dismounted knights would have dominated normal infantry, including the byzantine ones, so that part is accurate (although the problem with Vanilla is that infantry forces entirely of dismounted knights is inaccurate).

[Teutonic Warlord]

Although trait/ancillarywise, IMHO, the bigger problem for Orthodox factions is that they don't have a quick way of gaining chivalry. Being able to get lots of chivalry would be nice if you were governing a tiny village and wanted to make it grow. A.k.a., you're Byzantine and you have Durazzo. Or you're Russian and you have... uh... most settlements near Novgorod? (Note: I'm not suggesting "orthodox crusades/jihads" or anything: just saying that something would be good to bring Orthodoxy up to the Catholic/Islamic level.)

Not exactly related to what you are saying here, but it appears to me that CA understood that the two Orthodox factions were outnumbered and surrounded by Catholics and Muslims. Their attempt to balance that out was by giving them churches and chapels with stronger conversion rates. You can check for yourself in vanilla: the Orthodox equivalent of any Catholic church structure has 2-4% higher conversion. They also have those Ikonic Art Studios to further increase conversion. All that doesn't help with chivalry, and they still don't have a response to crusades or jihads, but most players don't realize they have higher church conversion rates.

I think the depiction of the Byzantines is one of the most varied across the different M2TW variations. On one hand, you have the ultra-weak Byzantine army in Vanilla. On the other hand, you have the super-overpowered Byzantines in Stainless Steel who have cavalry and infantry that utterly destroys anything.

The problem with vanilla, in my opinion, is the lack of variety and time of availability. The empire has multiple units of infantry with a shield and sword, but no one has a mace, and only one unit has a two-handed weaon. Only one unit of cavalry has a mace; the others all have swords. Then, your heavy cavalry and dismounted versions come later than the Catholic equivalents. They may or may not be on par with the Catholic versions, but having to build a fortress for Byzantine Lancers that are weaker than Mailed Knights is definitely a bummer. This is made up for somewhat by the faction being a mix of eastern and western army builds: horse and foot archers and heavy cavalry and infantry.

Personally, I prefer the Kingdoms Byzantine Empire because it provides more variety. If you want a mod that provides that roster for the campaign map (and a campaign map with more regions/factions), Kingdoms Grand Campaign Mod is a good option. I would also recommend Ego123's submod that puts back in units left out of the campaign by KGCM.

[Maklodes]

Not exactly related to what you are saying here, but it appears to me that CA understood that the two Orthodox factions were outnumbered and surrounded by Catholics and Muslims. Their attempt to balance that out was by giving them churches and chapels with stronger conversion rates. You can check for yourself in vanilla: the Orthodox equivalent of any Catholic church structure has 2-4% higher conversion. They also have those Ikonic Art Studios to further increase conversion. All that doesn't help with chivalry, and they still don't have a response to crusades or jihads, but most players don't realize they have higher church conversion rates.

While Ikoner's studios are unique, Muslim mosques also have a higher conversion rate than Catholic churches (identical to Orthodox churches). Catholic churches are unique in their low rate of conversion, although they do have other unique benefits (health bonuses from Catholic cathedrals that Orthodox cathedrals and Jamas don't give, papal approval). Ikoner's studios are unique, although I'm inclined to say the Muslim buildings (race tracks, bimaristans) are better.

[Teutonic Warlord]

While Ikoner's studios are unique, Muslim mosques also have a higher conversion rate than Catholic churches (identical to Orthodox churches). Catholic churches are unique in their low rate of conversion, although they do have other unique benefits (health bonuses from Catholic cathedrals that Orthodox cathedrals and Jamas don't give, papal approval). Ikoner's studios are unique, although I'm inclined to say the Muslim buildings (race tracks, bimaristans) are better.

I learned something new today then. I have never played a Muslim faction, so I never knew the benefits of their mosques. I have never played Russia either, but the BE gets public baths and aqueducts for health bonuses and population growth. I have enjoyed those buildings because they make me feel like I have an advanced empire.

[DizzyRainbow]

Woah, Well that's my questions answered and then some!
Aeratus, I notice that you said that the early infantry was above average, yet you prefer the depiction in vanilla, is that solely down to the choice between that and ss?
Would you agree with Maklodes on the idea that their one of their most notable strengths was through siege warfare?

[Aeratus]

Well, Stainless Steel for sure has a better overall depiction of the Byzantine army, especially in terms of appearance and unit types, whereas Vanilla is pretty inaccurate. Also, the Vardariotai unit in vanilla is totally inaccurate. The only thing I like about vanilla is that the overall Byzantine strength balance is a little more historically realistic.

For example, in Vanilla, the Byzantine infantry unit is better than the normal HRE infantry unit (which is basically spear militia), but not as good as the HRE's dismounted feudal knight. This is accurate because the Byzantines had a professional army at that time, but their infantry would not have been as strong as dismounted knights. However in stainless steel, units like kastrophylakes are too strong IMO.

I haven't read too much on Byzantine siege warfare recently, but what Marklodes wrote seems plausible to me. After all, the Bzyantines were technologically advanced at the time.

[Maklodes]

I'm not really sure why dismounted knights would automatically be superior to other forms of highly trained, well-equipped heavy infantry (galloping couched lance charges don't work so well on foot...), but I don't a lot of expertise on the Byzantine military (I'm not a historian). Anyway, my claim of the alleged Komnenian prowess at siege warfare comes from some sources. None of them are exactly ironclad. Wikipedia discusses Byzantine artillery, and John II's preference for sieges over pitched battles. John Birkenmeier's The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081-1180 also talks about siege warfare, and other forms of warfare.

[zburanuki]

the byzantines never called themselves like that.the word ''byzantine'' is rooted from the westerners,who over the following years after 1453,used that word in order to show that the eastern roman empire and its habitants weren't the succesors of the roman empire.the byzantines called themeselves ''romans'' or ''romioi''(the letter ''oi'' is red as ''e'' in greek) which means roman.we only find the word ''byzantios'' in some texts which means the man that is originated from the city of byzantium.

as for the infantry issue or the general underpowered byzantine army you can try some mods like deus lo vult,which have many new units abd most of them are historically accurate or even better you can try broken crescent which much more accurate and the units' desings are gorgeous.check my signature for more if you want.

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

the byzantines never called themselves like that.the word ''byzantine'' is rooted from the westerners,who over the following years after 1453,used that word in order to show that the eastern roman empire and its habitants weren't the succesors of the roman empire.the byzantines called themeselves ''romans'' or ''romioi''(the letter ''oi'' is red as ''e'' in greek) which means roman.we only find the word ''byzantios'' in some texts which means the man that is originated from the city of byzantium.

as for the infantry issue or the general underpowered byzantine army you can try some mods like deus lo vult,which have many new units abd most of them are historically accurate or even better you can try broken crescent which much more accurate and the units' desings are gorgeous.check my signature for more if you want.

Yes, the Byzantines generally called themselves Romans, not Byzantine. Some Western writers of that time occasionally called them Greeks, though Eastern foreigners, (Turks, Arabs) called them Romans. So to a degree you are correct. However, they themselves referred to the Emperor's rule as either Byzantine or Roman.

Broken Crescent units are very good. However, no Byzantine unit in BC has long spears as were prescribed by the Byzantine manuals - see this research paper Fit for the Task. I also think the Menavlatoi ought to have a spearwall option, as in Chivalry II.

Otherwise, the BC units are excellent and it is clear that it is not the quality of certain units that unbalance a campaign but the combination of many factors. Because the ERE is not very strong in the most recent version of BC.

[Janisssary]

Yep.Im Turkish and in our language greeks and other hellenic peoples are 'Rum' this word comes from Roman

[lgoodin101]

is Kingdoms Grand campaign any good? does it create a new folder? I dont really want to change the vanilla files also does it round out the byzantines?? Ive found that their only decent infantry is varangian guard and byzantine spearmen correct me if theres more its just whenever ive played as them those are the best early/high period stuff ive gotten

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

is Kingdoms Grand campaign any good? does it create a new folder? I dont really want to change the vanilla files also does it round out the byzantines?? Ive found that their only decent infantry is varangian guard and byzantine spearmen correct me if theres more its just whenever ive played as them those are the best early/high period stuff ive gotten

Apparently it uses the CBUR units (see http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=253462), so some thought has gone into the mod about the Byzantines, although I have not yet tried it.

The only native soldiers the Byzantines had at this period was spearmen, whether infantry or mounted. That is historically correct and they should be reasonably good as in theory they fought in proper rank and file formations, definitely an exception at the medieval period. On the other hand, except possibly for some archers from the Trebizond region and native javeliners, the best archers, mounted archers and of course the Varangians were mercenaries. In KGCM the Byzantines will probably also get Greek fire (which they get in all other Kingdoms based mods).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My three short AARs:
[BC] The Maharajah and the Guild of Thieves – a Chauhan Rajput AAR
[1648] Thirty Years' War
[Kingdoms] Antioch Crusaders Mod campaign
and something not so short - [FKoC] Times full of Distemper
Reviewed by robinzx at the Critic's Quill, Issue 31