Ostrogoth Italy

The Kommnenoi army was made up of mercenaries because the Emperor had disassembled the Thema system BEFORE the battle of Manzikert. That led to the loss of Asia Minor. There was a real, professional army at the the core but if the core is surrounded by untrustworthy foreigners it just can't be that effective. And if the Kommnenoi were worried about the Thema leading to civil war then taking them apart had the same effect. In fact, Manzikert was followed immediately by infighting in the Balkans. And while the Thema never had to deal with the Turks or Normans (hell for any empire) it did deal effectively with the Lomards, Arabs and Hungarians and destroyed the first Bulgarian Empire.

The Komnnenoi didn't dismantle the themes. Isaac I (1057-1059) tried to restore things after thirty years of neglect, Alexius I (1081-1118), John II (1118-1143) and Manuel I (1143-1180) had little to work with to restore them. Constantine X, of a different dynasty altogether (may scorpions nest in his boots) on the other hand did.

The Komnenoi moved mountains to do as much as they did towards the revival of the Empire, and the performance of the army up to the disintegration of central leadership (under the grotesquely misnamed Angelus dynasty) between 1185 and 1204 was very good - things falling apart later as the state did, not because the Comneni army needed strong emperors more than the Thematic army did.

Obviously strong emperors who were great generals accomplished much more. When had that not been so?

Yes, kill Belisarius. Totila excelled at ambushes so capturing and executing him wouldn't be out of the question. Narses WAS competent but no replacement for Belisarius and Totila defeated the other ERE generals in Italy.

On the superstate, IF it could be put back together after Theodoric and IF it survived until the invasion then the ERE would have been a reason to keep it united. Justinian conquered the Ostrogoths and Vandals and took territory from the Visigoths as well. That could have been enough to keep Africa and Spain in line behind Italy. The Bergunians could have been conquered and the Franks too small to cross the Alps.

A regretably large if there. Not impossibly so, but as you yourself noted, Justinian overextended the resources of the state. And do you mean Burgundians (never heard of any Bergunians)?
 
Elfwine the burgundy kingdom did excist Theodoric fought a war against it. It is created In worms and strassborg. It was the first real Norse Germanic settlement in the are on the Rhine.
 
John I - despite being a perfect example of a usurper in his rise to power - was also a pretty dang good emperor. He might merit more credit than Basil II gets for generalship.
I think the ERE was prone to intrigue and regicide, to it's detriment, but that doesn't mean it was always wrong. Even Totila usurped a weak, pro-ERE King and killed him. It would have been a blessing to the people of the Balkans if someone had killed Vladislas II of Hungary. The problem is that good emperors were as likely to face assassination or civil war as bad ones.

The ERE was a pretty stable, pretty successful state most of the time. It handled (external) threats that would break any kingdom in the West.
'Handled' is an interesting term for surrendering huge amounts of territory.

I'd rather live in the ERE than any of the European barbarian states up to around 1300, and that only because the ERE is becoming too weak to hold anything. But as either a peasant (particularly in under the Macedonian emperors who are actively fighting to protect the peasantry, which we don't see at all anywhere in the West) or a townsman, life was better.
I would sooner have lived in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. It had the Greek/Roman/Arab advancement without the religious purges.

As for professional soldiers: From where? How much more than what Alexius I and John II did do you expect?
To reinstitute the Thema.

I'm really not sure where you're getting the picture that the Empire was a hollow shell here. For all the devastation of the half century after Basil and before Alexius I (mitigated slightly by Isaac I and Romanus IV), the Empire was bouncing back under the Comneni.
Bouncing back with help of the Western barbarians. Large parts of Anatolia were only won back with the help of the 3rd Crusade.

That Theodore Lascaris was able to establish something which would lead to the empire survive another two and a half centuries after something that catastrophic is something no Western state could approach, for all the blunders of Andronicus II probably dooming it to eventual death.
I take nothing away from the Emperors who arrested the decline when they could, especially in the face of overwhelming Ottoman armies. Here again though it's survival was not just a result of ERE greatness, but the existence of Tamerlane and his grudge against the Ottomans.

So here's my question to sum it up: What more do you expect of the ERE? How much more do you think it should have been able to do?
That the most advanced country in the Christian world not be wracked with religious bigotry and purges, civil war and regicide? That it maintain the professional armies that had reversed their fortunes under Basil II? That they not destroy their art? Maybe that they not butcher enough Italian merchants to attract the ire of Venice and the 4th Crusade?

Certainly emperors made mistakes and even if I didn't like Belisarius I'd have a hard time praising Justinian. But if we're looking at the whole, we need something more than how for instance how Constantine X should roast in Hell for all-but-betraying the state by his incompetence.

Picking Constantine X as the guy who really kicked the army in the 'nads.
So we agree breaking up the regional armies and replacing them with mercenaries was a bad policy? Good. Even under the better of the Komnenus family it was still less effective than an army of your own citizens.
 
Wow what, Anatolia won through third crusade:p
Pets see those barbarians were used for the byzzies advantage. Plus You can't blame the empre. alexous was only expecting 500 knights but no, the pope had to send thousands on the holy crusade.


They surrendered huge amount of territory to the Arabs because the empire was exausted. Heraclius just fought a massive war and retook Egypt, and Levant but then the Arabs came and screwed the byzzies ove who were militarily and finantially exausted.

How could the komenoi reestablish theme system, if they tried the aristocracy would immediatly revolt. Through 1025-1081 All of Basil and Constantine VIII polocies were repealed by the nobility. Should Alexius restate thema nobility will revolt. Plus because the Turks are right across the border Alexius realized it would be suicide.



Hah relegious purges, you think Normans were better. Here is a term heard of the rape of thessalonoki or the sacking of Dyrachion or even the massive loot and raping of thesally. Oh yes if you were not Christian you would suffer crapily unde Normans. A state based on military with little to no cultural achievement,militaily they did brilliantly.




Killing of Venetian merchants had hardly anythin to do with 4th crusade it was purely a vile politicol move. True andronikos killed latins but crusaders retaliated and slaughtered many of the greek orthodox pop of Constantinople raped thessalonoki doin horrible thugs to woman killin men and children it got so bad that woman were forced to sell their bodies just to survive. Said merchants controlled Byzantine economy and occupied all high places. Please don let me go on about the vile lootage of Constantinople.
Did you know what happened to non Christians in countries like Napoli... You don't want to find out.




Regional armies, what regional armies, the komenoi had little to no manpower
Anatolia was taken, Byzantines ha virtually no conscripts they were forced to rely on mercinaries.
Yes it is an accomplishment that before 4th crusad the byzzies brilliantly let their enemies fight each other. Classic foreign policy, the byzzies used their enemies to retake lands, please tell me how that is not brilliant. Please don't let me go on about the exploits of Manuel and John. I hate Andronikos and the angeloi. Angeloi screwed Rome over, under them it became backwards.


Anyway let's no derail this thread any further, either pm me or create a new thread.
 
The Komnnenoi didn't dismantle the themes. Isaac I (1057-1059) tried to restore things after thirty years of neglect, Alexius I (1081-1118), John II (1118-1143) and Manuel I (1143-1180) had little to work with to restore them. Constantine X, of a different dynasty altogether (may scorpions nest in his boots) on the other hand did.
Learn a new thing every day. I had always thought Constantine X was a member of the Komnenus Dynasty. Marriage alliances aside, he was a Doukas.

The Komnenoi moved mountains to do as much as they did towards the revival of the Empire, and the performance of the army up to the disintegration of central leadership (under the grotesquely misnamed Angelus dynasty) between 1185 and 1204 was very good - things falling apart later as the state did, not because the Comneni army needed strong emperors more than the Thematic army did.
The weak and inept have a way of ruining a country quickly. Vladislas II of Hungary did it to the strongest country in eastern Europe in a couple decades.
My feeling on the Komnenoi is that their ideas were inferior to many of their predecessors, not that they were cowardly or dumb.

The saddest part of the change from the Macedonian dynasty is not just a decline of one of the only professional armies in Europe but that this was the last time the ERE had a sustainable geographic shape. Large tax bases, recruitment areas, natural boundaries and enough territory to be called an empire instead of a Greek kingdom. Even though the Komnenoi took back large parts of Anatolia, without the interior I can't see it as secure. And with a Norman nation to their west even Greece was in danger.
 
I think the ERE was prone to intrigue and regicide, to it's detriment, but that doesn't mean it was always wrong. Even Totila usurped a weak, pro-ERE King and killed him. It would have been a blessing to the people of the Balkans if someone had killed Vladislas II of Hungary. The problem is that good emperors were as likely to face assassination or civil war as bad ones.

What good emperors do you have in mind besides Romanus IV?

Show me how the period between Constantine I and Constantine XI was consistently marred by regicide and intrigue. Please.

Finding examples of how for instance Romanus was overthrown does not illustrate the norm of the state just because it had happened.

'Handled' is an interesting term for surrendering huge amounts of territory.
I'll put it this way. If the Franks had been hit by the Arabs the way the ERE was hit by the Arabs, in the situation it was hit by the Arabs, there wouldn't be a kingdom of the Franks.

The empire was able to absorb losing Egypt and the Levant and recover and begin to retake those lands.

So yes, "handled". It managed to deal with defeat and come back.

I would sooner have lived in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. It had the Greek/Roman/Arab advancement without the religious purges.
Yeah, because those religious purges were so frequent and so devastating. :rolleyes:

Also, the Norman kingdom of Sicily was considerably shorter lived, so comparing a state of not even a century (If we go back to the first Norman duchies, I'll give it just under a century and a half) to something that lasted over a thousand years is misleading.

To reinstitute the Thema.
On what lands?

Those they'd have to seize from the aristocracy, with all the fact no aristocracy in any part of Eurasia reacted to royal power doing that?

Bouncing back with help of the Western barbarians. Large parts of Anatolia were only won back with the help of the 3rd Crusade.
1st? Maybe. Not without considerable ability displayed by Alexius in taking advantage of the situation, though - the crusaders didn't lead to much directly if at all, and this is ignoring their theft of Antioch. 3rd? What timeline is this?

Anatolia was won back to the extent it was won back by Roman sweat and Roman generalship, not the transitory passage of crusaders who held on to the areas they seized whether they were rightfully Imperial lands or not.

Okay, so maybe I can't ignore them stealing Antioch, because that bit of dishonesty went directly against the oaths they swore. Frankish fidelty indeed.

Also, of course, this ignores earlier periods, but that's okay, since you already named Heraclius as one of the (short to you apparently) list of good emperors.

I take nothing away from the Emperors who arrested the decline when they could, especially in the face of overwhelming Ottoman armies. Here again though it's survival was not just a result of ERE greatness, but the existence of Tamerlane and his grudge against the Ottomans.
Certainly, but a weaker state would not have lived another half century from that. Heck, a weaker state would not have made it to that point.

That the most advanced country in the Christian world not be wracked with religious bigotry and purges, civil war and regicide? That it maintain the professional armies that had reversed their fortunes under Basil II? That they not destroy their art? Maybe that they not butcher enough Italian merchants to attract the ire of Venice and the 4th Crusade?
1) Greatly exaggerated. Especially given the ERE's ability to deal with Muslims better than the West would up to and including probably the last century.
2) Done by a few incompetent emperors with at least two prior to Alexius trying to undue that, and the (post-Isaac I) Comneni not having a good position with which to continue said undoing - though there was some effort made to do so.
3) Iconoclasm is not a reflection of standard operating procedure - and it might be noted, it lost.
4) Are we blaming the state or the fact mobs are psychotic by definition?
Manuel arrested a bunch of Italian merchants, but the riots of...1183, I think, are the responsibility of the state in the sense the king of France is responsible for the sack of Constantinople. Maybe less.

So we agree breaking up the regional armies and replacing them with mercenaries was a bad policy? Good. Even under the better of the Komnenus family it was still less effective than an army of your own citizens.

It was more effective than any army in the West or to the East despite that, and continued rule by the Comneni would have pushed it further in that direction rather than towards what Andronicus II did (to use an example of the "the state depended too much on mercenaries" taken to levels that can't be taken seriously).

Early modern European armies were mostly mercenaries. Picked as an example of what European armies in the age in which nations even remotely comparable in terms of national organization to the ERE existed.
 
Last edited:
Learn a new thing every day. I had always thought Constantine X was a member of the Komnenus Dynasty. Marriage alliances aside, he was a Doukas.

Yeah. And quite honestly, if you want to write a history of the ERE, you'll be unpleasantly surprised how many times the Ducas (Doukas) have some member rearing their ugly head as some form of traitor.

The weak and inept have a way of ruining a country quickly. Vladislas II of Hungary did it to the strongest country in eastern Europe in a couple decades.
Would love to hear more on this. Not arguing with it, but how Hungary went from being mighty to being a pushover for the Ottomans (even giving them the credit they deserve for being very capable) has never made sense to me, and outside the ERE my knowledge of eastern Europe is minimal.

My feeling on the Komnenoi is that their ideas were inferior to many of their predecessors, not that they were cowardly or dumb.
I'll put it this way. Look at the borders in 1081. Then look at the borders in 1180. Had that been maintained, we'd be speaking of "What if the Empire had fallen?"

The saddest part of the change from the Macedonian dynasty is not just a decline of one of the only professional armies in Europe but that this was the last time the ERE had a sustainable geographic shape. Large tax bases, recruitment areas, natural boundaries and enough territory to be called an empire instead of a Greek kingdom. Even though the Komnenoi took back large parts of Anatolia, without the interior I can't see it as secure. And with a Norman nation to their west even Greece was in danger.
I agree, but a lot of this has to do with the external foes of the state, not the incapacity of the Comneni or the mercenary component of the army.

If the Comneni had lasted as long as the Macedonians, they could have reversed that.

Sadly, after Manuel I, all the bad aspects of the ERE came up, and the 4th crusade hit too soon for the empire to weather them and get back to business.

:(

The ERE was a remarkably hard to kill state. If one holds nothing else about it as laudible, this deserves to be held in esteem.
 
How could the komenoi reestablish theme system, if they tried the aristocracy would immediatly revolt. Through 1025-1081 All of Basil and Constantine VIII polocies were repealed by the nobility. Should Alexius restate thema nobility will revolt. Plus because the Turks are right across the border Alexius realized it would be suicide.
The Thema could have kept the aristocrats in line.

Hah relegious purges, you think Normans were better. Here is a term heard of the rape of thessalonoki or the sacking of Dyrachion or even the massive loot and raping of thesally. Oh yes if you were not Christian you would suffer crapily unde Normans. A state based on military with little to no cultural achievement,militaily they did brilliantly.
Better? They had a huge population of Greek Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims and still did not have as much religious turmoil as the ERE.


Killing of Venetian merchants had hardly anythin to do with 4th crusade it was purely a vile politicol move. True andronikos killed latins but crusaders retaliated and slaughtered many of the greek orthodox pop of Constantinople raped thessalonoki doin horrible thugs to woman killin men and children it got so bad that woman were forced to sell their bodies just to survive. Said merchants controlled Byzantine economy and occupied all high places. Please don let me go on about the vile lootage of Constantinople.
Did you know what happened to non Christians in countries like Napoli... You don't want to find out.
A vile political move, prompted by mass murder. How is it better to kill thousands of Italian merchants than to attack Constantinople?

Yes it is an accomplishment that before 4th crusad the byzzies brilliantly let their enemies fight each other. Classic foreign policy, the byzzies used their enemies to retake lands, please tell me how that is not brilliant. Please don't let me go on about the exploits of Manuel and John. I hate Andronikos and the angeloi. Angeloi screwed Rome over, under them it became backwards.
Lucky and opportunistic does not equal brilliant.
 
Fine by me.

Is Totila or Totilla (I swear I've seen it spelled with one L) in a position to take over early on?

And could he offer a status mutually acceptable to Justinian and the goal of Ostrogothic control of Italy?

Looking at alternatives to the Italian War/s, since win or lose that's bad for the Ostrogoths.
 
Fine by me.

Is Totila or Totilla (I swear I've seen it spelled with one L) in a position to take over early on?

And could he offer a status mutually acceptable to Justinian and the goal of Ostrogothic control of Italy?

Looking at alternatives to the Italian War/s, since win or lose that's bad for the Ostrogoths.
Wiki spells it with 1 L. Hmm, I think if Totila can take over right after Witiges (with the support of Ildibad or maybe he dies?) and Italy can avoid the worst of the plague while Justinian dies from it...
 
Fine by me.

Is Totila or Totilla (I swear I've seen it spelled with one L) in a position to take over early on?

And could he offer a status mutually acceptable to Justinian and the goal of Ostrogothic control of Italy?

Looking at alternatives to the Italian War/s, since win or lose that's bad for the Ostrogoths.
Would the ERE have been satisfied with Rome itself? I think the Goths would have been willing to give it up in exchange for keeping Sicily and the rest of Italy. Ravenna was their capitol and Rome was a greatly diminished city at this point, most notable for being the center of a faith the Goths did not embrace. Rome to the ERE on the other hand would have huge significance.

If peace was made, I'm not sure how long it would last. Especially if the Goths saw an ERE war with Persia as an opportunity to take back Rome or even Vandal North Africa. Their chances only get better if they can ally with the Visigoths.
 
Ok so back to topic. turkey ERE may have been satisfied with Rome but I doubt it. Now that I think about it kill off justnlinian he was after all a peaseants who became emperor. With him dead I doubt other ERE empserors would be as ambitious with the Persians at their border. Better to try to control the goths than destroy them. This could work because if Justinian dies so does his ambitions, he was one unique emperor.
 
Would the ERE have been satisfied with Rome itself? I think the Goths would have been willing to give it up in exchange for keeping Sicily and the rest of Italy. Ravenna was their capitol and Rome was a greatly diminished city at this point, most notable for being the center of a faith the Goths did not embrace. Rome to the ERE on the other hand would have huge significance.

If peace was made, I'm not sure how long it would last. Especially if the Goths saw an ERE war with Persia as an opportunity to take back Rome or even Vandal North Africa. Their chances only get better if they can ally with the Visigoths.

I'm not sure. Justinian wanted to restore the Roman Empire to its former extent, and even his successors would have wanted to keep what could be kept.

And if the Goths see an ERE war with Persia as an opportunity to attack, the likelihood of the ERE accepting that are poor.
 
Top