Medival Byzantine Roman Legion

What if the Eastern Roman Empire despite dependable on multiple mercenaries maintains an (modified/modernized) army of professional legionaries, who still operate under the Latin commands and keep military grades (decurio,centurio, preator). Would be interesting, if such continuity is somehow possible. OTL Latin disappeared in the army around the 7th century and last remnants of Roman legion order in the early Middle Ages. A better stand against the Seljuks might help ? Maybe the Byzantine Empire needs to be more centralized instead of feudalized. What would the Western Kings/princes/fiefs/scholars with Feudal/knight armies think of such an professional Roman army ?
 
Last edited:
To answer that question start with the basics:

1. How big is the army? Who is it facing? Is it big enough for whatever the primary enemies are?
2. Where is the manpower coming from? (Social class, geographic location)
3. Who is paying for all of it and from what funds?
4. Where is it billeted and trained and deployed?
5. Who is paying for THAT?
6. How often is it involved in overthrowing the government because of unpaid wages/promised bribes?

Pecuniam infinitam, nervos belli.
 
The ERE did have a professional standing army by the time the Turks invaded.They are called the Tagmata.Problem is that by the time the Turks invaded Anatolia,the treasury was virtually bankrupt due to decades of inappropriate spending and the reversal of Basil II's policies which taxed landed aristocrats heavily.This meant that the government couldn't afford to pay the units.And no,until the Komnenians,you can't say that the empire became feudalise .A lot of the things you suggested in the OP are historically inaccurate.Latin ain't gonna be maintained unless the Balkans remain highly populated and Latin.
 
Last edited:
The ERE did have a professional standing army by the time the Turks invaded.They are called the Tagmata.Problem is that by the time the Turks invaded Anatolia,the treasury was virtually bankrupt due to decades of inappropriate spending and the reversal of Basil II's policies which taxed landed aristocrats heavily.This meant that the government couldn't afford to pay this units.And no,until the Komnenians,you can't say that the empire because feudalise do.A lot of the things you suggested in the OP are historically inaccurate.Latin ain't gonna be maintained unless the Balkans remain highly populated and Latin.

The Tagmata were better and more professional than the Classical Roman Legions, they just didn't have the numbers to take back all of the Empire, plus, their enemies really were that badass (don't underestimate Feudal Knights in Castles).
 
The Tagmata were better and more professional than the Classical Roman Legions, they just didn't have the numbers to take back all of the Empire, plus, their enemies really were that badass (don't underestimate Feudal Knights in Castles).

Seconded. In the eastern empire, roman legions didn't really disappear as they did in the west.

They simply evolved.

Unfortunately, so did corruption.
 
The ERE did have a professional standing army by the time the Turks invaded.They are called the Tagmata.Problem is that by the time the Turks invaded Anatolia,the treasury was virtually bankrupt due to decades of inappropriate spending and the reversal of Basil II's policies which taxed landed aristocrats heavily.This meant that the government couldn't afford to pay the units.And no,until the Komnenians,you can't say that the empire became feudalise .A lot of the things you suggested in the OP are historically inaccurate.Latin ain't gonna be maintained unless the Balkans remain highly populated and Latin.

Would it have been possible to make Tagmata soldiers landed aristocrats themselves in exchange for taking back lost territories? (in lue of paying gold)
 
Seconded. In the eastern empire, roman legions didn't really disappear as they did in the west.

They simply evolved..

:rolleyes:

Even a superficial knowledge about Late Imperial armies and Early Medieval structures points that it didn't vanished anywhere, but evolved as well. Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751 by Bernard Bachrach, is one but many studies one should be aware when talking about this topic, because people even there seems prone to pull moralistic and outdated views, unfortunatly.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes:

Even a superficial knowledge about Late Imperial armies and Early Medieval structures points that it didn't vanished anywhere, but evolved as well. Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751 by Bernard Bachrach, is one but many studies one should be aware when talking about this topic, because people even there seems prone to pull moralistic and outdated views, unfortunatly.
By legions,I think he/she's referring to the regular armies of the Roman Empire.The only remaining 'legions' in this sense would be the tagmata units since they were directly descended from the regular palace guard units of the Roman Empire.The rest of what descended of the East Roman legions degenerated into themes-militiamen.
Would it have been possible to make Tagmata soldiers landed aristocrats themselves in exchange for taking back lost territories? (in lue of paying gold)

No.They don't have enough money to pay the army to defend the state,let alone attack somewhere.Even if they did,there wasn't any emperor in the period except for Romanos Diogenes and Isaac Komnenos that were capable enough to command such an effort.The emperor would most likely want to command such an effort in person,since the army actually wanted a soldier emperor at that stage,and would most likely make the general in charge of such effort emperor(Isaac and Romanos were both products of the army's will).A major reason Romanos Diogenes forced the Battle of Manzikert was because he knew that either he defeat the Turks decisively or he wouldn't be able to at all,since mobilizing the army at Manzikert was costly enough such that he most likely wouldn't have been able to afford mobilizing the army again if the Turks didn't abide by their agreements to stop raiding--something that's most likely out of Alp Arslan's ability to control even if he wanted to stop the raiding,since the Turkmen under his control most likely will ignore him.
 
Last edited:
By legions,I think he/she's referring to the regular armies of the Roman Empire.The only remaining 'legions' in this sense would be the tagmata units since they were directly descended from the regular palace guard units of the Roman Empire.

Tagmatas are, as you say, descending from guards which make them more close to scholæ palatinæ, or even bucelarii than whole legions.

If we look at their recruitment in Late imperial era, we see that a lot of them comes from Barbarian troops (not unlike, let's say, the later Varangian Guard). That the anti-Barbarian policy of Constantinople (leading to prefer Armenian recruitement) doesn't really challenge the parallel evolution from Late Roman armies into western Europe from a similar basis (even if scholæ stricto sensu were present in the East and not the West, the material difference with palatini isn't that obvious)

While they turn quickly into ceremonial guard in the Eastern Roman Empire, until they got back in the field in the VIIIth century, they became the "skeleton" of the new aristocratic armies in the West with bucellarii (interestingly this fusion happened both in the West and the East, altough they remained more distinct in the first region, especially in Spain, AFAIR), with the kings keeping their role of magister.

I'd even tend to say that Late Imperial military structures* tended to evolve less quickly, at least formally**, in the Romano-Barbarian kingdoms, but distinctivly kept old features (milites, laeti, foederati, etc.) while adding new ones (trusti, pueri, etc. for the Franks) critically the levies from lower classes which were indeed an innovation proper to Early Middle Ages with the abandon of the focus on limes to a more territorial approach (sub-kingdoms, marches, etc.).

Overall, you have a lot of recycling : antrustons are more or less the equivalent of scholæ palatinæ, while admittedly more by adaptation than direct inheritence.

*If anything classical legions "disappeared" when the new distinctions (scholæ, comitatenses, palatini, limitanei, ) were clearly established in the IVth
** But not only. The spangenhelm is definitely coming from Late Roman equipment for instance, being borrowed by Romans from Sarmatians peoples, as a good part of the Late Antiquity innovations.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps an alternate Great Migration that sees the Empire keep hold (even including powerful semi-barbarian generals controlling some of them for brief periods) of the red areas and constantly fighting over the pink ones:

Untitled.jpg

This greatly reduces the influence of 'Greek' areas, meaning a much greter chance of the administration, army and the city of Constantinople staying Latin.

Untitled.jpg
 
Putting it simply, Barbarians being able to move and hold on the other shore of the Meditteranean implies Roman Empire to be utterly boned : what saved ERE compared to WRE was to benefit from not only untouched provinces revenues but from their objective prosperity.

If Rome doesn't have a navy able to stop the creation of Romano-Barbarian states there, it means that these would be able to pull a Vandalic attack on the shores pretty easily.

As an aside, this rump Empire still holds 1/2 of hellenic territory. Considering that Constantinople was set at the core of hellenophone world to begin with, I'm afraid this might not work, even disregarding geopolitical issues.
 
Putting it simply, Barbarians being able to move and hold on the other shore of the Meditteranean implies Roman Empire to be utterly boned : what saved ERE compared to WRE was to benefit from not only untouched provinces revenues but from their objective prosperity.

If Rome doesn't have a navy able to stop the creation of Romano-Barbarian states there, it means that these would be able to pull a Vandalic attack on the shores pretty easily.

I was thinking of getting the Ostrogoths to Asia Minor more as part of a relocation attempt gone horribly wrong rather than a hostile takeover. Only once they're across do they take over the region and build their own navy that allows them to contest the Aegean and western Greece.

As an aside, this rump Empire still holds 1/2 of hellenic territory. Considering that Constantinople was set at the core of hellenophone world to begin with, I'm afraid this might not work, even disregarding geopolitical issues.

From everything I've read, in its early years, the population of Constantinople was largely Latin-speaking (unlike most of the other important cities all around it). Likewise, the Balkan hinterland was also in the latin sphere.

If the constant war with the Ostrogoths leads to the same level of devastation in the Marmara Sea and western Asia Minor regions, whilst Moesia stays mostly untouched, I don't see why the opposite result wrt Constantinople (i.e. Latin reaches a tipping point instead of Greek) can't happen ITTL.
 
I was thinking of getting the Ostrogoths to Asia Minor more as part of a relocation attempt gone horribly wrong rather than a hostile takeover.
You'd notice, however, that few important foederati ever remained at the place that they were assigned. Sooner or later, and rather sooner, it would end with a conflict.

Now, not only it would be outright suicide to relocate foederati or laeti down to your untouched provinces but it would be a bit weird when clearly you need them at the hot borders: a foedus is about supplying a region that needs manpower for production and military support.

And if there's a region where that's not prioritary at this point, it's Oriens, and one that needs it are the Danubian provinces.

Only once they're across do they take over the region and build their own navy that allows them to contest the Aegean and western Greece.
Which again, implies the Empire being unable to stop them building a navy, a situation that existed IOTL and lead to the Vandalic raids in Italy. Only, this time, ERE is obviously unable to supply naval forces for the west. It's basically the worst-case scenario for Late Romania : loosing the naval edge on both sides of the Mediterranean, allowing Barbarians to take whatever please them or at the very best being dependent on their alliance (which often backfired).

From everything I've read, in its early years, the population of Constantinople was largely Latin-speaking (unlike most of the other important cities all around it).
Problem is that early years of the city saw a really limited population (on which "largely" Latin is a bit exaggerated, considering population from Anatolia was settled there) to begin with, with very serious talks about abandoning the place after Constantin's death. The city really grew up, specifically demographically, not before a relatively long period.

Likewise, the Balkan hinterland was also in the latin sphere.
I disagree on several points there : the Jireček line roughly cut the peninsula in two halves, and the southern one was by far the most important demographically, with the northern one being not only more sparesely populated but with important non-romance populations.

If the constant war with the Ostrogoths leads to the same level of devastation in the Marmara Sea and western Asia Minor regions, whilst Moesia stays mostly untouched, I don't see why the opposite result wrt Constantinople (i.e. Latin reaches a tipping point instead of Greek) can't happen ITTL.
That doesn't appears really possible : even assuming that you used Ostrogoths for Greuthungi on this map (while they're not the same thing, long story short the ethnogenesis of Ostrogothi can be traced from the collapse of Hunnic hegemony), you didn't get rid of the shitload of other peoples and entities along the Danube : other Gothic entities, what remain of Dacians, Alans, Huns, etc.

Not only the region was weakened by regular raiding since the IIIrd century, but you already have other foederati and laeti present in the region before Greuthingi entered in Romania : Trevingi, Carpi, etc.
 
:rolleyes:

Even a superficial knowledge about Late Imperial armies and Early Medieval structures points that it didn't vanished anywhere, but evolved as well. Bachrach, Bernard S. Merovingian Military Organization, 481–751 by Bernard Bachrach, is one but many studies one should be aware when talking about this topic, because people even there seems prone to pull moralistic and outdated views, unfortunatly.

Uhh, is that a insult at me?

By legions,I think he/she's referring to the regular armies of the Roman Empire.The only remaining 'legions' in this sense would be the tagmata units since they were directly descended from the regular palace guard units of the Roman Empire.The rest of what descended of the East Roman legions degenerated into themes-militiamen

That is what I meant. Thanks:)
 
Uhh, is that a insult at me?

No, my insults tends to be much more articulated and flowery.

My post is about how you made a pretty much definitive statement based on what I think are false impressions which would be relatively fine if it didn't went into moralistic territory.
And giving that even on AH.com, there's a lot of outdated views on this period that keeps popping in spite of studies on it easily avaible (which is personally painful to see), I don't see why I shouldn't point that this post in particular is simply wrong. I'm sorry if you take this as an insult (it mighy have been a bit dry, admittedly), but really, it wasn't much salvagable (the post you did : I'm adressing its content, not you as an individual)

It's why I advise you a basic study on the matter : because that's really basic knowledge on this matter that you may want to be aware if the topic must be discussed.
 
Last edited:
Top