Western European States vs Byzantine Empire (Military Comparison): 800-1204

Western European States vs Byzantine Empire (Military Comparison): 800-1204

  • Western European States

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Byzantine Empire

    Votes: 15 75.0%
  • Indeterminable

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Western European States vs Byzantine Empire (Military Comparison): 800-1204

I'm interested in comparing the Western European States to the Byzantine Empire and determining which was more powerful. Start date Charlemagne coronation in 800 and end date is sack of Constantinople in 1204. I would like to put a particular focus on Byzantium under Macedonian and Khomenoi Dynasties and their Western European counter parts. For instance how would an army of say Basil II or Manuel I Komnenos fare against Otto the great or Henry II of England?

Size of Armies?
Tactics?
Unit types?
Weaponry?
Battlefield examples?

Curious to hear your thoughts on this topic and who you voted for.:)
 
Last edited:
I may be biased as a byzantophile, but I'd put the Byzantines in nearly all periods - against any individual Western European state. Partially because the ERE despite the politics, was more reliably stable and wealthy, but because of their consistently large variety of troop types, and as such tactical flexibility. Combine that with centuries of treaties on war to train their leaders with (which regularly happened), and they have every edge - besides possibly manpower (which is largely influenced by their rather unfortunate problem of being invaded constantly). Reality has extenuating circumstances that would lead to military defeats and being outmanned (but IMO not outclassed)
 
It really depends.Quality of feudal armies generally remain the same,there were the peasants mobs,there were the professional men at arms and knights.While the quality of the East Roman Armies fluctuate a lot.You might get highly trained armies under Basil I but when you have a shit emperor or two,the quality of the army declines considerably.Just look at Southern Italy for example,the East Roman Army got kicked out by a bunch of Norman bandits.In terms of organization,the East Roman Army was definitely better than the feudal armies of WE,a large part of the latter's army consisted largely of peasant mobs as mentioned.If lead by competent emperors,the East Roman army was most likely more disciplined than the WE armies.On the other hand,I often have a feeling that the WE knights were much more highly motivated soldiers than the East Romans.
 
It really depends.Quality of feudal armies generally remain the same,there were the peasants mobs,there were the professional men at arms and knights.While the quality of the East Roman Armies fluctuate a lot.You might get highly trained armies under Basil I but when you have a shit emperor or two,the quality of the army declines considerably.Just look at Southern Italy for example,the East Roman Army got kicked out by a bunch of Norman bandits.In terms of organization,the East Roman Army was definitely better than the feudal armies of WE,a large part of the latter's army consisted largely of peasant mobs as mentioned.If lead by competent emperors,the East Roman army was most likely more disciplined than the WE armies.On the other hand,I often have a feeling that the WE knights were much more highly motivated soldiers than the East Romans.

Good point about the Normans. It's also telling that the First Crusade achieved greater success then the Byzantines ever could have hoped for in such a short period. I still though give an edge to the Byzantines because I think they are structurally superior and have a more varied army. The Western European Armies many times seem hit or miss.
 
Top