Byzantine And Roman army differences

trajen777

Banned
In a recent book from Treadgood that I read he made a very good point that I had seldom considered, I realized the fact from Roman history but never compared the obvious:

The overview was that the Byzantine Armies were extremely effective but only under good leadership while the Roman armies (based upon centurions) did not need elite leadership to be successful.

Now I agree mostly with that, you have major exceptions such as Cannee where Roman leadership destroyed the army , however looking at the Byzantine army you mostly see great leadership win the battles while poor leadership lost they battles.
 
It is my understanding that the military of the Republic had a better tha average officer corps serving under those generals of varying quality. I don't know the case for Byzantium, but I don't think its really the major factor, anyway.

Manpower. The Roman Republic was so effective at militarizing its population that it could take hits that would knock out most other states and just keep rolling. Compare it to Revolutionary/Napoleonic France, and you see a similar pattern.
 
Didn't the Romans, with their highly organised legions, have a much greater doctrinal advantage over their neighbours than the Byzantines did over theirs?
 
The wars of the Roman Republic usually went this way: Rome screws up big time early. Loses a big battle or a series of battles, loses the initiative, things actually look good for their opponents. But the problem is, the Romans can afford to take a few serious losses and still raise another large army. Their opponents, on the other hand, with their professionalized or finite armies (Hellenistic states, Carthage), can't afford to lose a single battle. So the Romans had to win one battle really to win, or at least get in firm control over, the war, whereas their opponents just have to keep rolling from victory to victory.

This dynamic changed when the republic went up against less professionalized armies that were more similar to their militia army. Think Iberia, where it took the Romans 200 years from their appearance there in the Second Punic War until they finally completely subdued the peninsula under Augustus. Or Gaul for that matter, which took a series of victories over various tribes over a period of a decade before it finally submitted to Roman rule.
 
Didn't the Romans, with their highly organised legions, have a much greater doctrinal advantage over their neighbours than the Byzantines did over theirs?

The Byzies' Thematic and Tagmatic systems were much better than the Classical Roman Army, but as Dominus said, they didn't have the manpower; not just that, but Byzantine politics were as bad as Post-Norman Conquest England, only they weren't an island, meaning that their superior army can be hamstrung by internal politics.

Not to mention that the Byzies' neighbors can and did learn from the Classical Romans and Byzies' - Classical Roman treatises were actually common reading in Medieval Times; El Cid had access to a Biography of Julius Caesar. So it's less that the Byzies were less able than the Classical Romans, and more that the Byzies' neighbors were more able than the Classical Romans' neighbors.
 
The Roman Empire had a largely professional army and every politician/high official/Emperor needed to be a warrior/general to survive in their post even politically never mind beating off their actual enemies. This along with many senior figures and Emperor's coming from the ranks of the army or spending a lot of their time heaping gifts on and associating with soldiers tended to build a rather deep talent pool that had constant turn over with the ineffective leaders losing their position/lives.


The Byzantines however were less dominated by soldiers and indeed their go to response was diplomacy and espionage mixed with the military as an appropriate escalation. They could trundle along nicely without competent soldiers at every level so when instances came up where they had to fight it was a question of how complacent the officer corps had gotten in the longer periods of peace.

At least that is my view via osmosis from this site and Wiki.
 
Not an army difference, but a navy one:
The late Roman navy started adopting early forms of dromons, to complement their smaller patrol fleets of liburnas. But the classic form of dromon, the one most people are acquainted with, was fully developed and used only under the Byzantine Empire. Virtually from its inception up until the 12th century or thereabouts.
 

trajen777

Banned
The Byz actually had excellent Military thesis and well distributed - however the top leadership was very erratic -- With the Nicophorus - to Basil 2 group and Heraculus you had outstanding generalship -- and they won BIG --- as to manpower Basil 2 had a Thematic and Tagmatic force of 265,000 - 300,000 --- well sourced by good historians --- when the enemy populations was drastically smaller

Rome had exceptional resources -- except in the 400's --- And their leadership in my opinion was very erratic -- GREAT - Caesar / Marius / Sulla / etc --- but offen awful --- their Non coms were outstanding as was their discipline (driven by the centurions ) that to me won the battles
 
Another advantage of having such a vast manpower pool is not often directly addressed. Usually we consider it as just having more men to throw at the enemy until the other guys run out.

However, there's also the aspect of having enough men to throw at the enemy until you figure out what doesn't work anymore and how to best implement new tech/tactics/strategy. Much easier to learn from your mistakes when you can survive making them.
 
I find this comparison odd since roman history is Byzantine history.

It's like comparing USA in ARW and her neighbors vs USA ww2 and its neighbors. Or if your sensitive with language, England during the Plantagenets vs UK in Victorian era.
 

trajen777

Banned
Actually was comparing the Roman Army and its structure based upon strong junior officers / NCO's (centurions) with the Byz Army which was based upon a top down org --
 
Probably LSCatalina and Basileus Georgius will jump on my terminology (if not the argument) but isn't it a difference between Roman professional standing army (100 BCE-300 CE) and the Byzantine royal guards plus yeomanry from 700-1000 CE

With the periods outwith these core era being transitions from one to other (or decline in the case of post Manzikert Byzantines.
 

trajen777

Banned
The key issues i see is the Roman army till the end was still driven from the ground up -- wile the Byz from the tope down --- now i fully agree that the Byz term was really just a modern application while the Byz state always considered themselves the Roman Empire. IN each era their was a massive difference in units - strategy etc --- example : Traditional Roman Army till Heraculus / Constans 2 (except more horse based) // Then Byz switched to the Thematic army // then the Alexius army ---- each of these had a different structure
 
Its worth noting that there are far fewer differences in military matters over any given period of time in a pre-industrial (particularly pre-gunpowder) society than there are over the same period in an industrial society.
 
Top