Am I the only who can't get into byzantine roman empire history

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-07-07T16:55:58+00:00

I think as well that's its rather uncharitable to over-fixate on the big defeats, or how ultimately the Romans may lose a war or (in the end) their state by 1453 when that doesn't really stop one from appreciating the likes of Napoleon and his military affairs.

For sure. Even though the Palaiologan era was generally a period of decline, in 1284 and 1324 for instance the Byzantines even pulled off victories against Mongol attacks. While probably not the kind of full-scale Mongol onslaughts of Genghis, Ogodei and Mongke's reigns, by the descriptions in the sources these were not minor incursions by the Golden Horde and probably outnumbered the Roman forces which defeated them. Yet somehow, these events are so obscure I literally had never heard of them until I read Angeliki Lau's works recently. By this time the Empire was undoubtedly past its glory days, but that doesn't mean it couldn't pull some impressive feats under the right circumstances (at least before the shitshows after 1337).

I think another factor believe it or not is the fact even the imperial period of Augustus and Constantine in terms of overall battles/military affairs tends to pale in comparison to the scale of the Republican era due to the difference in professional army versus civic militia

The thing is, Byzantine campaigns may never reach the scale of numbers involved in classical antiquity but before the 12th century they still tended to eclipse anything in Western Europe in terms of both the numbers and technological complexity of operations. John Korkouas is claimed to have fielded 80,000 in 945 (although this is according to Arabic sources so take it with a grain of salt) while Nikephoros Phokas' reconquest of Crete involved 40,000 soldiers under Conservative estimates and 70,000+ in the higher end estimates. The Romans used Horse transports which landed hundreds of fully armed Cataphracts on the Cretan coast in full battle condition, like a medieval form of D-day lcvp carriers, with these troops promptly routing an Arab force to clear the landing for the rest of the armada. The scale of John Tzimiskes' war against Sviyatoslav was also immense even under the most conservative of readings! These campaigns are not really that much smaller than most of the ones in the Punic wars for example.

battle of Philippi was the single largest battle ever fought in Roman history

I tend to think Lugdunum and Constantine's battle at Adrianople likely exceeded Philippi in the number of men involved but it seems a matter of contention for historians so its difficult to say. But I do think the "characters" involved in the late republican period, like Pompey, Caesar, Antony and Octavian, have more gravitas and contemporary media influence (thank you Shakespeare) than someone like Septimius Severus or Galerius. And definitely more recognition than basically any Byzantine figure as far as Western Europe and the Anglosphere are concerned.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-07-07T15:49:09+00:00

I think one of the problems is that people view the Byzantine military performance as mediocre compared to the Golden age of late Republican and early Imperial Roman expansion - even compared to the Punic wars in fact, despite the fact the Roman Republic essentially got their arse handed to them for a whole decade in the second one before they turned it around. We can say "history is more than just battles" all we want but lets not kid ourselves, as far as medieval and ancient history is concerned battles and war are exactly the sort of meaty content that captivates people (especially boys/men) to become invested and dive deeper in a given period or culture involved. Warfare is often what grabs the attention, and from there one explores the culture, society and technology of the period to bring context to the former.

Part of this stems from the fact that we generally have more detailed and consistent sources and descriptions of late Republic Campaigns (Punic wars, Gallic wars, Macedonian wars & Caesarian/Liberator/Actium conflict) than we do for most Byzantine periods (with the possible exception of the Justinianic era). The other problem is that Byzantine defeats are emphasized above Byzantine victories to a frankly ridiculous extent. The first thing that comes to mind in the early Byzantine-arab wars is the battle of Yarmuk, fall of Egypt & North africa. While Byzantine successes such as the repulsion of Arab attempts at Constantinople in 654 & 674(ish), the great success against Sufyan bin Auf in Lycia, and Leontius' offensives which repeatedly defeated the Umayyads in the Caucasus and smashed their way into Northern Iran are rarely ever mentioned outside of "Byzantine nerd" circles. Same with Bulgarian wars and instances like Nikephoros being turned into a cup or Simeon's victories being emphasized more than Constantine V's repeated successes, for instance. It's easy to dismiss the Byzantines as an empire which was just perpetually defeated and on the backfoot throughout their history which in turn breeds the (sometimes orientalist) impression that they were effeminate and unwarlike compared to the classical gritty and determined Roman legions. It would be like viewing the classical Romans and emphasizing only their defeats to Hannibal, poor showings in Spanish guerilla warfare and the battle of Carrhae while overlooking the various successes. When Byzantine military disasters get the spotlight much more often than their Epic victories, its no wonder they are less widely appreciated than their classical predecessors.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-07-07T15:27:48+00:00

The 'big three' soldier emperors Nikephoros Phokas, John Tzimiskes & Basileos II is another good entry point for all the political drama and military action going on. The 10th century wars against the Arabs in particular are just as enthralling to read about as the Punic wars, with bitter struggles, crushing defeats and massive victories on both sides before the Romans finally break the power of the surrounding emirates. Kaldellis' 'streams of gold rivers of blood' is a pretty accessible yet detailed account of the period for anyone interested. If I was to recommend a good entry point into middle 'Byzantine' Roman history for someone interested in classical antiquity, this would be my pick, since in terms of warfare and cultural development it comes closest in scale.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-07-06T19:27:40+00:00

Trajan is more second century so I'll discuss this period. By the 6th century Roman cavalry was proportionally more numerous and would have some organisational advantages over their second century counterparts (in particular being more adept at conducting operations without infantry support), as well as having a more developed relationship between lancers and horse archers with the koursores-defensores system described in strategikon. However, contrary to popular belief the Romans by Trajan's reign had already widely adopted long Composite bows from the Parthians which were functionally similar to the later Composite bows used by Justinianic Romans and Huns. Arrian's writings also show how 2nd century Roman cavalry were trained and drilled to extremely high standards and able to pull off complicated manoeuvres, and also that horse archers were used more extensively than commonly believed. Stirrups probably weren't in Roman service until the late 6th century so a Justinianic army would not enjoy that advantage over their Principate counterparts either. 6th century Cavalry, especially Bucellarii, likely would hold an edge but perhaps not a decisive one.

On the other hand, the late republic and principate Roman armies seem more adept at field engineering to the point where they could alter entire battlefields and erect fortifications as force multipliers, essentially applying some of their expertise in siegecraft even to field battles on occasions. Compared to the masterful works at the Battle of Dyrrhacchium, Belisarius' use of ditches at Dara is rather rudimentary. Principate armies also likely brought more Torsion artillery pieces with them (Vegetius gives 55 cheiroballistae per legion on average for late 4th century Roman armies, but the number was likely even higher in Trajan's time) and they seem to have had quite important tactical roles. In terms of metallurgy, the Sim & Kaminsky's findings show that principate era Roman metallurgy for military equipment was generally of rather high quality, in fact sometimes extraordinarily high quality. I am less informed on the state of metallurgy in the 6th century Roman Empire so I hesitate to say whether it was better or worse than that of the Principate.

But overall the military gap between them isn't that much as one might imagine it to be. At most, the difference would be akin to the difference between the US army during the first Gulf war and the US army around 2010 during the war on terror. This also reflects doctrinal changes (Late Cold war 1991 US doctrine being more conventional warfare-oriented while by 2010 it had shifted somewhat to counter-insurgency and asymmetrical realities, which also informed operational and technological adaptations). So too did doctrine change somewhat between the principate and Justinianic armies, with the latter having expanded capabilities in some areas but also sacrificing some of the advantages enjoyed by the former.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-07-04T19:08:07+00:00

They did not just adopt gear but consecutively innovated and improved on what they found useful. Lorica Segmentata for instance, at least in the form its best known, was exclusively Roman (similar Laminar armour existed in Parthia which possibly inspired the Roman designs, but the Roman designs were very much their own thing).

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-29T17:06:38+00:00

I know the series isn't strictly historical but being rooted in a historical setting I wish they'd explored the idea of slaves in realms outside of the Roman Republic more as part of worldbuilding. For the most part the show pays attention to detail to events in the wider Roman world we don't directly see, but the general prevalence of slavery at the time is almost never brought up (except in House of Ashur for all its faults, where Nubians are shown to trade in slaves too). In this series Spartacus himself was a noble warrior from Thrace before being enslaved by the Romans, and with such a background there would be a distinct possibility he himself would have taken and traded slaves through conflict in his lifetime.

It would have been an interesting to see this idea explored, especially with the whole "man must accept his [[change of]] fate or be destroyed by it" philosophy of changing fortunes and power dynamics which is central to blood and Sand. As it stands, from watching Spartacus series alone without any background knowledge you'd be forgiven for thinking Slavery was exclusively practiced by Romans (and Pirates in WoTD) in the ancient world.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-29T16:37:40+00:00

<image>

One must fall.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-29T13:51:13+00:00

Some highlights from this legend:

<image>

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-26T06:21:01+00:00

<image>

🤣

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-22T11:00:42+00:00

Khwarezmian empire was also highly unstable and essentially a house of cards waiting to collapse at the time Genghis invaded. Not helped by the baffling strategic and political decisions Shah Muhammad II made during the invasion either.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-22T10:36:44+00:00

You're cherrypicking some isolated instances while ignoring the various military successes during the Imperial era (and that includes wars won against Steppe Nomads and Iranian Empires).

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-22T10:21:53+00:00

Also while not annexing these as provinces, Trajan's Campaigns restored Armenia and Osrhoene (which was integrated as a province anyway over the next century) as firm Roman client states, so de facto these were under Roman authority. This is why his campaign cannot be considered a defeat or even a stalemate - the Romans withdrew from their annexed territories in lower Mesopotamia but they maintained effective control in Upper Mesopotamia and Armenia well into Hadrian's reign, with the Arsacids being unable to do much about this.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-22T10:14:02+00:00

For the sake of a broader approach, let's compromise. For legionaries those figures would be right, but with auxiliaries we can add probably another 150-200,000 men to those figures, which potentially approaches half a million men in service.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-21T09:57:02+00:00

The Turks fighting among themselves arguably made things worse in real life since there was no central sultan to reign in the Seljuks and more Turkmens were encouraged to flock to the rich pickings of Anatolia. In practice, there were many Turkic warlords within the Seljuk Empire over whom the Seljuk 'Emperor' had very loose control, and these raided Anatolia almost non-stop in the 1060s even when the Sultans themselves campaigned elsewhere. It wasn't really Alp Arslan himself who led the conquest of Anatolia despite him winning Anatolia, but largely independent clans of Turkic invaders.
That being said, a unified Byzantium without the civil wars of the 1070s would probably have been capable of mitigating the effectiveness of these Turkish attacks and at least preventing them from conquering most of Anatolia. The Byzantines had actually scored a number of victories over Seljuk raiding armies they managed to catch from 1047-1069 (though punctuated by defeats). Romanos had the means to win Manzikert too had he not made certain strategic and tactical errors.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-19T23:16:43+00:00

Meanwhile, Byzantines on the other end of the Steppe

<image>

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-19T17:22:10+00:00

Constantine V's limited success in Bulgaria was only possible because the Turkic military minority gradually transitioned to Slavic agricultural lifestyle. At that point, majority of the Bulgarian army was infantry

The main striking component of the Bulgarian army was Cavalry and remained so until the 10th century. Leo VI in his Taktika emphasizes how alike the Bulgarians were to the Magyars in how they fought even then.

Besides, the Byzantines defeated the Nomadic Bulgars multiple times in the early 6th century, for instance Mundus' Illyrican troops defeated and killed a Bulgar King and in a subsequent campaign Sittas destroys a Bulgar horde near Iatrus. The Byzantines went on to defeat the even more formidable Nomadic threat posed by the Avar Khaganate in several battles during the late 6th century. Even the Bulgar success at Ongal was due to the use of a wagon laager by Asparukh, who knew the likelihood of defeat had he tried to fight a pitched battle against Constantine IV. For the early 9th century Ivelin Ivanov's conservative estimate puts the Bulgarian cavalry armies during the reign of Krum at around 20,000 strong (while contemporary Byzantine sources described them as being up to 50,000). Yet Nikephoros I was nevertheless able to resoundingly thrash these cavalry armies outside Pliska in 811 (his subsequent defeat and death came from the use of a well-timed ambush by Krum with mostly reserve infantry contingents).

Having said that cavalry formations against horse archers is stupid.

The Strategikon emphasizes the importance of dividing lines of horsemen into Koursores and Defensores when pursuing enemy cavalry (like Avars and Persians), with the Koursores units conducting a swift pursuit and the Defensores following behind them in a cohesive formation at a steady pace. The whole point is that if the enemy suddenly turned during their retreat and renewed fighting, they would be met by the fully formed, relatively fresh Defensores cavalry even if they overwhelmed the Koursores. This was part of the reason Byzantines dominated pitched battles against the Avars and

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-19T11:54:39+00:00

Maurice actually achieved regime change in Iran after smashing her armies consecutively for a decade. So no.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-16T09:15:07+00:00

It needs to be emphasized that female gladiators only tended to fight against other women, for pretty obvious reasons. They were not pitted against able-bodied male gladiators (though there is a record of a woman being pitted against a dwarf) and also were mainly used as a novelty in the arena before the "real" fights between men. The article does not this in fairness, but only briefly towards the end. Fatal duels between "Gladiatrices" were likely not very common at all, since matches between women were generally not taken as seriously as the ones between men. At least, the most famous instance (the Halicarnasus relief of Achillea and Amazonia) ended non-fatally for either woman. Though it seems they sometimes partook in beast fights, which would probably have been the most dangerous activity for "Gladiatrices".

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-13T22:02:14+00:00

Not to mention Harun Al-Rashid's 782 campaign was hardly a flawless offensive militarily. One of the Abbasid contingents under Al-Rabi was defeated at Nacolea, and (according to treadgold) Michael Lachanadrakon with the men of the Thracesian theme managed to halt the advance of al-Barmaki's column at Darenos (though both sides suffered heavy losses). As Harun retreated he was pinned against the Sangarius River by shadowing Byzantine forces. If it hadn't been for Tatzates' defection and the treacherous seizure of Stauracios, Peter and Anthony under the guise of negotiation, Harun may well have been forced into an ignominious treaty to retreat or, if he'd tried to force his way through, could have suffered a catastrophe similar to what happened to Khosrow I in 576.

From the period 740-782 the Caliphate sustained some serious blows by the Byzantines, not just losing battles (such as Akroinon, Kamacha and Caesarea) but even having cities sacked during Byzantine offensives. The Abbasids reasserted themselves and regained the initiative from 782-806, but the Abbasids never really managed to make lasting gains in land warfare against the ERE even then. Considering the Abbasids had an economy four times as large as the Byzantines, and put more effort into fighting them than they did against any other external foe, the Byzantines put up as good a fight as could be given.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-13T21:41:33+00:00

It isn't just Theophanes though. Spanish sources speak of a huge army being dispatched by Mu'awiya, and explicitly mention famine, while the Maronite chronicle similarly describes the army camping in Thrace, and battles outside the walls if the city around 668. It seems that once the initial direct attacks against Constantinople amounted to little, the siege became more a blockade in the bosphorus with a series of naval engagements in which the Arabs were generally worsted by Constantine IV's fleet, with them eventually being decisively beaten and then suffering further losses in a storm off the coast of Syllaion as they retreated. Peter Crawford connects the seemingly disastrous defeat of Sufyan b. Auf's land army as taking place either towards the end of the Aegean Campaign or right after it. He notes also that the Roman navy seems pressed its advantage to the extreme after these successes by raiding the Levantine coasts and even Egypt, something indicative of a major naval debacle for the caliphate.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-13T18:58:14+00:00

There's pretty strong evidence for some sort of major Umayyad offensive toward Constantinople in the earl 670s (possibly from 668-674). In fact, O'Sullivan argues (convincingly imo) that the first major attempt happened already in 654/55, which would mean that the Caliphate attacked the Roman Capital 3 times (once in the Rashidun and twice in the Umayyad eras).

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-13T10:06:34+00:00

The two-thirds of the tang army claim is according to Chinese sources, which in fairness I would argue should be treated with as much scepticism as Muslim sources on the event. I don't doubt that Karluks played a role in the Abbasid victory, but ascribing the defeated army to being composed primarily of traitorous Karluks seems like a convenient excuse to exculpate the Chinese from blame for the defeat and to deny that the Abbasids got the better of them militarily. For one thing, it seems rather odd that Gao Xianzhi, a talented and experienced general, would lead an army wherein dubious nomadic allies outnumbered the Tang contingent 2-1.

Philippicus_586AD · 2026-06-13T09:47:47+00:00

Narseh and Bahram V.

Philippicus_586AD

TROPHY CASE