WI: Byzantine Theme system revived

Oh man my first post...so I'm a long time student of Rhomanian economic and military history whose doing a project on where the heck the infantry of the Komnenian Army came from (ie: were they "thematic" levies or standing troops like the Legionaries of old?). So here is an interesting what if scenario. Lets say that the Theme system of Anatolia and the Balkans does not completely collapse, perhaps due to Manzikert being less disastrous and more of a statement (the emperor is not captured, the rearguard drives off the Seljuqs, but Turkish raids continue in Anatolia). What would Romanus IV's reformed Themata looked like if he were given more time to muster and drill them. It seems that he was very focused on using these troops and seems in my opinion to have been trying to form them into a type of standing army to fight in the ruined Armenian borderlands. Would these thematic troops have become full-time, revived provincial tagmata? (similar to those of the Komnenian Army). Thanks for any input you can give, I am a huge fan of BG's Issac's Empire and Elfwine's Eagle of the Bosphorus too...
 
Isn't "provincial Tagmata" a bit of a contradiction in terms, given the Tagmatic armies were by their nature relatively mobile troops designed to move around and deal with issues across the Empire?

Anyway, I think the revival of the Themata can only really be a good thing. Thematic armies would be perfect for dealing with Turkish raiders in a way that heavily armoured Tagmatic forces simply weren't.
 
Very good point...it does seem to be a contradiction, yet the sources refer to "Tagmata" as all of the provincial field detachments of the army (Thracians, Macedonians, Paphlagonians etc), so perhaps the Komnenians merely revived the "themata" system in the Balkans and W. Anatolia in a certain extent (I specifically remember Manuel I founding a theme of Neokastra in Anatolia). Do you think Romanus IV's attempt to revive the Thematic armies could have worked given time? Could the Thematic cavalry have been resettled in the Balkans and Anatolia based upon the system of Pronoia land fiefs as the Komnenians did? (ps: I play Stainless Steel 6.4 and Broken Crescent mods for Medieval 2 Total War alot too, they gave me some interesting ideas about a surviving Rhomania).
 
Isn't "provincial Tagmata" a bit of a contradiction in terms, given the Tagmatic armies were by their nature relatively mobile troops designed to move around and deal with issues across the Empire?

That's the term used by John Haldon, although I think he actually uses the term Tagma, which would have been the professional forces stationed in the provinces, under Basil II and others.

IIRC, the older Tagmata were effectively split into an "Eastern" and a "Western" branch, which is almost like what you think he's implying.
 
Very good point...it does seem to be a contradiction, yet the sources refer to "Tagmata" as all of the provincial field detachments of the army (Thracians, Macedonians, Paphlagonians etc), so perhaps the Komnenians merely revived the "themata" system in the Balkans and W. Anatolia in a certain extent (I specifically remember Manuel I founding a theme of Neokastra in Anatolia). Do you think Romanus IV's attempt to revive the Thematic armies could have worked given time? Could the Thematic cavalry have been resettled in the Balkans and Anatolia based upon the system of Pronoia land fiefs as the Komnenians did? (ps: I play Stainless Steel 6.4 and Broken Crescent mods for Medieval 2 Total War alot too, they gave me some interesting ideas about a surviving Rhomania).

Well Romanus IV was kinda busy all his reign with Turks and he got deposed early... Maybe if he survives a few years after Manzikert or wins Manzikert maybe then he could revive the thematic division...
 
Very good point...it does seem to be a contradiction, yet the sources refer to "Tagmata" as all of the provincial field detachments of the army (Thracians, Macedonians, Paphlagonians etc), so perhaps the Komnenians merely revived the "themata" system in the Balkans and W. Anatolia in a certain extent (I specifically remember Manuel I founding a theme of Neokastra in Anatolia). Do you think Romanus IV's attempt to revive the Thematic armies could have worked given time? Could the Thematic cavalry have been resettled in the Balkans and Anatolia based upon the system of Pronoia land fiefs as the Komnenians did? (ps: I play Stainless Steel 6.4 and Broken Crescent mods for Medieval 2 Total War alot too, they gave me some interesting ideas about a surviving Rhomania).

It certainly had a chance to at least make some difference on the frontiers, which is where it matters, but if you mean the whole package with small holders dominating the countryside of Anatolia, probably not.

The small holders were in the awful place of being torn between the dynatoi and the very demanding state, and for all the Macedonian dynasty's anti-dynatoi policies, that problem isn't going away even if the surviving parts are reinvigorated.
 
It certainly had a chance to at least make some difference on the frontiers, which is where it matters, but if you mean the whole package with small holders dominating the countryside of Anatolia, probably not.

The small holders were in the awful place of being torn between the dynatoi and the very demanding state, and for all the Macedonian dynasty's anti-dynatoi policies, that problem isn't going away even if the surviving parts are reinvigorated.

I agree with that also, the small holder stratiotae are on their way out, some border guard thematic troops, such as the Acritae, are still useful but in general I see Romanus IV's revived themes being similar to the regional tagmata of Pronoia holders that Manuel I could muster a century later. Considering the wealth of the Empire during this period (I've been reading alot of Angold's work on the Rhomonian economy during the Komnenian dynasty) does anyone think it would have possible for the a fully professional standing army to be fielded by the Komnenoi?
It seems from the research I've done that the army started to perform alot better in the field after the decline of the theme levies and the rise of the professional army of the Komnenoi...perhaps without a Manzikert disaster Alexius I would have fielded regional armies supported by border "stall" troops similar to the late Roman/late Antique era....
 
I agree with that also, the small holder stratiotae are on their way out, some border guard thematic troops, such as the Acritae, are still useful but in general I see Romanus IV's revived themes being similar to the regional tagmata of Pronoia holders that Manuel I could muster a century later. Considering the wealth of the Empire during this period (I've been reading alot of Angold's work on the Rhomonian economy during the Komnenian dynasty) does anyone think it would have possible for the a fully professional standing army to be fielded by the Komnenoi?

Yes, though it has to be noted on just how expensive standing armies are. Even for something as wealthy as the Byzantines, maintaining more than the Komnenoi did would be hard (assuming the same resources).

Agreed on the rest though. That would be a fairly workable compromise, if you could keep it working the way its supposed to (see how it didn't under Andronicus II).

It seems from the research I've done that the army started to perform alot better in the field after the decline of the theme levies and the rise of the professional army of the Komnenoi...perhaps without a Manzikert disaster Alexius I would have fielded regional armies supported by border "stall" troops similar to the late Roman/late Antique era....

That might be true. I haven't read Angold, but it seems sound to me.
 
Treadgold's book on the Byzantine Army doesn't really go that far, but it's probably still a good starting-point. The Themata were progressively broken into smaller and smaller units, but mostly still 80% infantry and 20% cavalry.
 
Angold's work is nice because in focuses more upon the "big picture" of the Empire during the 11th and 12th centuries, his work reminded me of how close Rhomania came to going a different route...I mean I wouldn't expect the Empire to reclaim Egypt or Syria (I love Manuel I, but he should have spent more time fighting the Seljuqs), but I would expect it to retain its position in the Balkans and Anatolia while maintaining a presence in Italy. Its still a mystery to me how the Komnenian Army was organized: for example where did the heavy infantry (aside from the Varangians) come from?

Furthermore, considering the military strength of the Serbian state during the 13th and 14th centuries, would it be stretching it to think that a stronger, longer lasting Komnenoi dynasty would field Pronoia regiments of Serbs as "native" troops?
 
Angold's work is nice because in focuses more upon the "big picture" of the Empire during the 11th and 12th centuries, his work reminded me of how close Rhomania came to going a different route...I mean I wouldn't expect the Empire to reclaim Egypt or Syria (I love Manuel I, but he should have spent more time fighting the Seljuqs), but I would expect it to retain its position in the Balkans and Anatolia while maintaining a presence in Italy. Its still a mystery to me how the Komnenian Army was organized: for example where did the heavy infantry (aside from the Varangians) come from?

http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/review17.htm

That book might give some useful answers.

Furthermore, considering the military strength of the Serbian state during the 13th and 14th centuries, would it be stretching it to think that a stronger, longer lasting Komnenoi dynasty would field Pronoia regiments of Serbs as "native" troops?
Not at all. The main thing would be retaining Serbia in the first place, but "a stronger and longer lasting Komnenoi dynasty" should be able to do so.

I'm writing a timeline on that very subject (link in sig), so anything you have that I don't, or any other comments on that would be most welcome for The Eagle of the Bosporus.
 
Treadgold's book on the Byzantine Army doesn't really go that far, but it's probably still a good starting-point. The Themata were progressively broken into smaller and smaller units, but mostly still 80% infantry and 20% cavalry.

Honestly, I'd avoid Mr. Treadgold. He tends to go way overboard with his calculations and make claims the evidence really can't back. I'd say his claim for the Byzantine Army having 250K soldiers is very dubious at best, and if anything, can only count as a theoretical paper strength in the best case scenario.
 
Honestly, I'd avoid Mr. Treadgold. He tends to go way overboard with his calculations and make claims the evidence really can't back. I'd say his claim for the Byzantine Army having 250K soldiers is very dubious at best, and if anything, can only count as a theoretical paper strength in the best case scenario.

Why so?

If that's counting militia (thematic) units (which make up four fifths of that), that wouldn't be unaffordable for a state with a population of - if I'm remembering correctly - 10+ million.

That would mean something better than one in forty, or <2.5% of the population - large for the standing army, and probably too much to muster all at once, but that many passably-trained or better adult males doesn't sound high.

Louis XIV in 1710 had 350,000 out of around twenty million Frenchmen (one in fifty-seven Frenchmen, around 1.75%), but that was actually in arms at once.

Of course that was at horrific expense and seven centuries later, but...
 
Treadgold's numbers are a little inflated, but they may be an official "paper" total for the army during the era right before the old themes (whose troops were rarely used by the era of Nicephorus II) were demobilized. In terms of useful troops, I'd say each theme in Anatolia probably had a core of 2-3,000 full timers and a few thousand more troops "on the register" who could theoretically be mustered if needed.

In terms of the Komnenians, I am surprised that they did not systematize their army reform more: Ha, when I play Medieval 2 Stainless Steel I like to form my armies into field forces of the East and West with a central force in Constantinople, perhaps 50,000 field troops total...that may be a bit of an overestimate for the Komnenoi era though, so much for realism in computer games!
 
Why so?

If that's counting militia (thematic) units (which make up four fifths of that), that wouldn't be unaffordable for a state with a population of - if I'm remembering correctly - 10+ million.

That would mean something better than one in forty, or <2.5% of the population - large for the standing army, and probably too much to muster all at once, but that many passably-trained or better adult males doesn't sound high.

Louis XIV in 1710 had 350,000 out of around twenty million Frenchmen (one in fifty-seven Frenchmen, around 1.75%), but that was actually in arms at once.

Of course that was at horrific expense and seven centuries later, but...

I am not so familiar with later Byzantine history, but to make sense of late Roman and early Byzantine history, some neighboring peoples must have had militia strengths [for relatively short musterings] exceeding 5% of the population, so why is it so implausible for the Byzantines to approach 3%?
 
Why so?

If that's counting militia (thematic) units (which make up four fifths of that), that wouldn't be unaffordable for a state with a population of - if I'm remembering correctly - 10+ million.

That would mean something better than one in forty, or <2.5% of the population - large for the standing army, and probably too much to muster all at once, but that many passably-trained or better adult males doesn't sound high.

Louis XIV in 1710 had 350,000 out of around twenty million Frenchmen (one in fifty-seven Frenchmen, around 1.75%), but that was actually in arms at once.

Of course that was at horrific expense and seven centuries later, but...

Well, the economy was stronger than a hundred years prior, whenever the Empire had a paper strength of 120K, but which most scholars say can't be any higher than 80K in actuality, but I don't think it was 3x as strong.
 
Treadgold's numbers are a little inflated, but they may be an official "paper" total for the army during the era right before the old themes (whose troops were rarely used by the era of Nicephorus II) were demobilized. In terms of useful troops, I'd say each theme in Anatolia probably had a core of 2-3,000 full timers and a few thousand more troops "on the register" who could theoretically be mustered if needed.

That's roughly my (and to a certain extent Haldon's) belief.
 
Its actually incredible just how much information we have on the classic themata/tagmata system of the middle Rhomonian period. What is really a bummer is that we have almost zero organizational information about the Komnenoi and their military establishment. Sometimes I really have a pause thinking about what John II would have done with the economic and manpower resources of Constantine IX...A Rhomanian standing army organized into "Tagmas" (Tagma I Athanatoi) named and numbered akin to the old Legions would have been perfect...
 
Well, the economy was stronger than a hundred years prior, whenever the Empire had a paper strength of 120K, but which most scholars say can't be any higher than 80K in actuality, but I don't think it was 3x as strong.

Again, most of those aren't actually serving, so why can't the economy support having that many soldiers, counting the part-time themes (some rarely if ever called up, but still counted)?

So its not as if there are actually 250,000 soldiers being paid at any one time.

Sassanid Saxon said:
Its actually incredible just how much information we have on the classic themata/tagmata system of the middle Rhomonian period. What is really a bummer is that we have almost zero organizational information about the Komnenoi and their military establishment. Sometimes I really have a pause thinking about what John II would have done with the economic and manpower resources of Constantine IX...A Rhomanian standing army organized into "Tagmas" (Tagma I Athanatoi) named and numbered akin to the old Legions would have been perfect...

That would be interesting.

Did you see the link (with a book review)?
 
Yes I did! its actually a book that is on my wish list at the moment, as its one of the only scholarly works on the Komnenian Army. Yeah the legion idea really springs from BGs Issac's Empire, but in reality it seems that that the army of John II and Manuel I had an organization totally unique in the 12th century Med. perhaps even organized along the lines of army corps...which I know is a very early modern/enlightenment era method of organizing the military. For example you have the Scythikon and Turcopouli Corps of horse archers, units that have a standing strength of "native" Pronoia holding troops but which are augmented in wartime from a large body of Cuman and Seljuq mercenaries that reside in the area. The same seems to go for the Latins. Germans, Alans and Siege Artillery troops for Rhomania in this era...
 
Top