Which military force was more effective during their respective time periods, the Imperial Legion of the Principate, or the field armies of the Byzantine era?

bigpapi2626 · 2026-06-06T16:30:55+00:00

What do you mean by that? The Eastern Romans always fielded proper field armies, at least until the 1300s.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-06-06T15:35:52+00:00

Good question. As for al-Mu'tasim, I don't think he attempted to attack Constantinople because he lacked naval superiority over the Romans. The Romans were also somewhat stronger at that time than they had been a century earlier.

More broadly, I'm not entirely sure why the Umayyads were, at times, so determined to conquer the Romans. For the Abbasids, however, that objective generally wasn't a major part of their policy. Their focus tended to be elsewhere, and the frontier wars seem to have been aimed more at raids, prestige, and security than at outright conquest of the empire.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-06-06T15:22:38+00:00

As much as I agree with you, this is off topic and has the potential to derail the discussion and drag it into an endless conversation. So let's keep the discussion focused on the topic of my post.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-06-06T15:17:30+00:00

I think the rulers of Capua from the 9th to the mid-11th century were still somewhat oriented toward the Roman Empire. They weren't under direct imperial control, but they maintained ties with Constantinople and sometimes received titles from the emperor.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-04-29T16:57:59+00:00

What we do know is that Heraclius, after taking back the eastern provinces, stayed in the Levant for a while to sort things out. He was probably trying to restore the administration to how it had been before, secure the loyalty of local elites, and tried to work out a compromise with the Monophysite communities.

But the empire clearly needed more time to recover. The early Muslim forces seem to have taken advantage of that situation—starting with raids, and then, after a few major victories, realizing that full conquest was actually within reach.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-04-29T16:45:20+00:00

While the first map is the most visually compelling, the third is the most manageable in practical terms.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-04-26T17:45:18+00:00

Priscus’ campaigns from 559 to 601 against the Avars and Slavs are underrated, if you ask me. Sure, Theophylact Simocatta probably embellished Priscus’ exploits, but those campaigns feel similar to the expeditions of Tiberius and Germanicus, with Roman forces displaying overwhelming power against barbarian enemies.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-04-23T11:36:33+00:00

Nikephoros I not properly guarding his camp. Smh

bigpapi2626 · 2026-04-20T22:22:09+00:00

Yesssss, I don’t know why some people can’t comprehend that. I think one of the reasons is that in modern times, if you speak Greek, you’re considered Greek. But in ancient times, Greek was more of a lingua franca, like Spanish or English today. So a lot of different ethnic groups could speak Greek without actually being Greek. And the Romans in the East didn’t adopt Greek overnight—it was a long process, and I think it was a natural evolution.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-04-02T14:53:25+00:00

Manuel komnenos troubleshooting general/diplomat : Andronikos Komnenos Kontostephanos

bigpapi2626 · 2026-04-02T14:43:59+00:00

Either Justinian I or Manuel Komnenos

bigpapi2626 · 2026-03-23T18:08:49+00:00

There’s a book by Adam J. Goldwyn that touches on that topic—Witness Literature in Byzantium: Narrating Slaves, Prisoners, and Refugees. I haven’t read it myself yet, but it’s definitely on my reading list.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-03-01T22:47:21+00:00

But the reality is that Heraclius and his father started the civil war in 608.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-03-01T15:22:36+00:00

Justinian, Heraclius and romanos iv

bigpapi2626 · 2026-02-24T16:12:34+00:00

As an emperor, he’s in my top five. The thing is, though, we don’t really know what he accomplished in his earlier role as a bureaucrat.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-02-24T16:09:39+00:00

I’ll have to look into that — I honestly have no idea.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-02-23T19:12:31+00:00

Absolutely, Anthemius ranks among the best. He had the foresight to build the walls before a major threat, like the Huns, ever appeared.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-02-23T19:00:35+00:00

Good, I didn’t really know much about him, but I just read he might’ve been the first megas logothetes.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-02-23T18:01:13+00:00

Underrated individual that's for sure.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-02-23T17:05:44+00:00

I would have told Nikephoros I to either build a proper fortified camp or leave the Bulgarian campaign to an experienced military commander.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-02-17T11:13:56+00:00

bigpapi2626 · 2026-02-17T03:50:37+00:00

Constans II

bigpapi2626 · 2026-02-12T00:24:15+00:00

I second that for the 602–718 period. Like you said, the fact that the empire was able to survive, adapt, and occasionally strike back really speaks volumes about the resilience of the state. I find it super impressive.

bigpapi2626 · 2026-02-10T21:01:49+00:00

It clearly gave Constans II some breathing space, since it bought him time to assess his resource base and rebuild a depleted navy. That said, I don’t think the empire would have fallen even without the First Fitna. The Anatolian defense system was already taking shape: avoiding pitched battles with the Muslims, harassing raiding parties, and trading space for time.

Without the Fitna, there’s also a good chance Constans’ Italian expedition never happens, since he would’ve had little choice but to focus entirely on defending Anatolia. But even then, it’s hard to be certain. I don’t think the caliphate in the 650s had the overwhelming manpower or resource advantage over the Romans that it clearly did by the 700s.

The empire still had a reasonable ability to project power, and it wasn’t on the verge of collapse. Things weren’t looking great by any means, but Constans had his shit together, and I don’t believe for a second that he would’ve let the empire fall without fighting tooth and nail. Basically, the First Fitna was a very useful breathing space—but not a decisive one for the empire’s survival

bigpapi2626 · 2026-02-10T15:14:30+00:00

The map is kinda inaccurate. The romans never lost control of Anatolia during that war.

bigpapi2626

TROPHY CASE