Help support TMP


"Middle Byzantine (East Roman) Generic Tactics and..." Topic


3 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not use bad language on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ancients Media Message Board


Areas of Interest

Ancients

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

The Amazing Worlds of Grenadier

The fascinating history of one of the hobby's major manufacturers.


Featured Workbench Article

Cavemen & Giant Armadillos!

DJD Miniatures runs amok with a diorama of cavemen and the giant prehistoric armadillo!


Featured Profile Article

Groundcloths & Battlesheets

Wargame groundcloths as seen at Bayou Wars.


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


1,134 hits since 2 Sep 2015
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0102 Sep 2015 12:55 p.m. PST

… Strategy (Part I)

"The Middle Byzantine Age (7th-12th c. AD) was decisive for the history of the Byzantine Empire. The loss of the Middle Eastern provinces and Egypt by the invading Arabs marks its beginnings, but the "hard core" of the Empire managed to halt the forces of the invaders at the eastern border of Asia Minor, and additionally the forces of the numerous Avaro-Slavic and Proto-Bulgarian (and other Later Hunnic nomad) raiders at the Balkan borders. The experienced Byzantine Army being after all the descedant of the Roman Imperial Army, went on dealing effectively with the pressure by the same enemies and also by the Lombards (Longobards) and the Franks in Italy and some new nomadic peoples on the borders of the Balkan peninsula (Byzantine Sicily and Northwest Africa (modern Maghreb) were finally conquered by the Arabs). Its strengthening during the reign of the emperor Nikephoros Phokas (963-969) led to a strong imperial counterattack on all fronts ending in major territorial recoveries of the "Byzantine Epic Era" (this term has been used by the modern historical research, to denote the period around 963-1025 AD).

However, the fatigue of the army because of the war effort, and especially its neglect due to a series of weak emperors and the civil strife during the fifty years which followed the brilliant reign of Basil II (976-1025) to the Battle of Manzikert (AD 1071) and after that, led to its rapid weakening. Finally, new dangerous enemies, the Seljuq Turks in Asia Minor and the Normans in Italy and the Balkan Peninsula, gave decisive blows to the Empire. The renowned Byzantine army never managed to recover from the disaster of Manzikert, despite the best efforts of some emperors and some temporary military successes. The parallel decline of the Thematic administrative and military organization of the state which declined after the battle of Manzikert and was eventually abolished, had an additional negative role in the weakening of the army. The imperial defense was further weakened, leading to the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204…"

picture

Full text here
link

Amicalement
Armand

vtsaogames03 Sep 2015 7:59 a.m. PST

Manzikert was in part a self-inflicted wound. The battle was fought for domestic political purpose, Romanus Diogenes needing a victory to shore up his shaky reign. The battle turned from rebuff into disaster when his reserve cavalry, led by political enemies, rode away and left him and his army in the lurch. This led to the loss of Anatolia, a major recruiting ground for the empire.

The sack of Constantinople in 1206 had a large element of internal strife exploited by external foes.

Tango0106 Sep 2015 3:50 p.m. PST

Part II.

"In the order of battle in front of the front line, units of archers and some javeliners and slingers (and a few light horse-archers) were lined up. Those units were usually starting the imperial attack with their missiles against the enemy army in order to cause confusion on its ranks, in order for the attack of the armored cavalry of the first line to follow. The lightly armed Byzantines were usually engaged in skirmishes with their enemy counterparts before the main combat, but when threatened by heavy enemy units conducting a frontal assault on them, they were fleeing behind the line of their fellow horsemen.
Over the centuries, the native Byzantine archers and horse-archers were gradually replaced by Altaic and Alanic mercenary horse-archers (the so-called "Prokoursatores", see below) who additionally used their favorite nomad tactics of "feigned retreat" at the start of the battle. According to those tactics, they were pretending to have been defeated in the initial skirmishes with the enemy forces so that they could lure them in their pursuit. The ultimate goal of this nomadic vanguard was to disband the ranks of the advancing enemies because of the speed of the ‘chase', so that they would be unorganized enough when they would face the attack of the Byzantine frontline armored cavalry. In this case, the imperial horse-archers were galloping through the interstices of the front line to the safety of the rear, while the marching enemy who had considerably lost his compact order, confronted the "catapultic" attack of the Bucellarii, Kavallarii or Cataphract cavalry…"
Full text here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.