WI: Byzantine Theme system revived

So in terms of numbers for the army, Manuel I probably had around 40,000 field troops available for campaigns, I would say Basil II probably would have around 60,000 to 80,000 on hand then...especially considering the strength of the Armenian border themes in 1025.
 
So in terms of numbers for the army, Manuel I probably had around 40,000 field troops available for campaigns, I would say Basil II probably would have around 60,000 to 80,000 on hand then...especially considering the strength of the Armenian border themes in 1025.

That sounds right to me. If memory serves, the force he took to Antioch (as as "what I can get on hand quickly") for his famous mule-borne expedition was 40,000 at the start (17,000 actually arriving on time).

Anything more than that though sounds like it would represent the bulk of the actually useful forces available, at any given point. Even if the themes are maintained, 50,000+ is a significant amount of the tagmata and other standing units (the Varangian Guard, for instance).
 
That sounds right to me. If memory serves, the force he took to Antioch (as as "what I can get on hand quickly") for his famous mule-borne expedition was 40,000 at the start (17,000 actually arriving on time).

Anything more than that though sounds like it would represent the bulk of the actually useful forces available, at any given point. Even if the themes are maintained, 50,000+ is a significant amount of the tagmata and other standing units (the Varangian Guard, for instance).

Indeed, that force of 17,000 was likely comprised of the core tagmata of his day (Scholae, Excubitae. Athanatoi, Hikanatoi) and the Varangians as the sources attest to their experience as rapid reaction troops. The Tagmata's "establishment" number was 24,000 but the more I read about medieval armies, the more I think that maintaining a permanent force of 24k heavy cavalry in the capital was impossibly expensive. I'd say more like 6,000-8,000 Tagmata cavalry and some form of infantry tagmata alongside them. A current debate (other than the old Haldon vs Treadgold smackdown on raw numerical strength) concerns the menlavion bearing pikeman: considering their level of training, they have more in common with Tagmatic rather than Thematic troops...
 
Indeed, that force of 17,000 was likely comprised of the core tagmata of his day (Scholae, Excubitae. Athanatoi, Hikanatoi) and the Varangians as the sources attest to their experience as rapid reaction troops. The Tagmata's "establishment" number was 24,000 but the more I read about medieval armies, the more I think that maintaining a permanent force of 24k heavy cavalry in the capital was impossibly expensive. I'd say more like 6,000-8,000 Tagmata cavalry and some form of infantry tagmata alongside them. A current debate (other than the old Haldon vs Treadgold smackdown on raw numerical strength) concerns the menlavion bearing pikeman: considering their level of training, they have more in common with Tagmatic rather than Thematic troops...

Maybe more cavalry, but not more than twice that (so say, 10,000 cavalry and 14,000 infantry).

What makes the menlavion bearing pikemen different than any other pikemen? And what does menlavion mean anyway?
 
Maybe more cavalry, but not more than twice that (so say, 10,000 cavalry and 14,000 infantry).

What makes the menlavion bearing pikemen different than any other pikemen? And what does menlavion mean anyway?


It was a type of "short pike" with an incredibly thick shaft designed to be used to stab the underside of horses covered in barding armor while resisting the charge of said horses. There is still alot of controversy about the weapon, but the military manuals of the 10th century describe it as used by a small corps of elite infantry who line up in front of the regular spearmen.
 
It was a type of "short pike" with an incredibly thick shaft designed to be used to stab the underside of horses covered in barding armor while resisting the charge of said horses. There is still alot of controversy about the weapon, but the military manuals of the 10th century describe it as used by a small corps of elite infantry who line up in front of the regular spearmen.

That sounds like something that you'd issue only to very brave, very well trained troops. Not ordinary thematic soldiers (though the best of them, maybe).
 
Thats why I sometimes wonder about where 10th-12th century Rhomanian armies were getting their infantry from. The Komnenians also used alot of heavy infantry to serve as a battlefield base for the cavalry, but aside from the Varangians, we do not know how those infantry were recruited, trained and supported. If they were landed troops, they were likely retainers of the Pronoia cavalry aristocrats. On the other hand hand, they could have been urban professionals equipped by the state like legionaries (a Komnenian combined arms Legion would be so cool)
 
Thats why I sometimes wonder about where 10th-12th century Rhomanian armies were getting their infantry from. The Komnenians also used alot of heavy infantry to serve as a battlefield base for the cavalry, but aside from the Varangians, we do not know how those infantry were recruited, trained and supported. If they were landed troops, they were likely retainers of the Pronoia cavalry aristocrats. On the other hand hand, they could have been urban professionals equipped by the state like legionaries (a Komnenian combined arms Legion would be so cool)

I presume they got them where they could find them - a mix of mercenaries and noble retainers and recruits from the commoners (urban or otherwise). Standardization would be hard when trying to rebuild the army, after all.
 
I presume they got them where they could find them - a mix of mercenaries and noble retainers and recruits from the commoners (urban or otherwise). Standardization would be hard when trying to rebuild the army, after all.


Thats very true too, one of the main reasons that the Komnenian Army is harder to study has been the historical tendency for scholars of the period to claim that "mercenaries" were an intrinsically bad thing for the Empire (or that "native" troops were intrinsically better, which they were not). The Komenoi seem to have mixed mixed mercenary and "native" troops and organized them by function into combined arms forces, just a slight degree more of institutionalization and their army would have been truly scary (considering their resources and how good at siege warfare they were)...Oh well, the Ottomans pretty much did the same thing, just on a larger scale...
 
Thats very true too, one of the main reasons that the Komnenian Army is harder to study has been the historical tendency for scholars of the period to claim that "mercenaries" were an intrinsically bad thing for the Empire (or that "native" troops were intrinsically better, which they were not). The Komenoi seem to have mixed mixed mercenary and "native" troops and organized them by function into combined arms forces, just a slight degree more of institutionalization and their army would have been truly scary (considering their resources and how good at siege warfare they were)...Oh well, the Ottomans pretty much did the same thing, just on a larger scale...

I tend to agree with Machiavelli on mercenaries (not all mercenaries, but mercenaries vs. native troops...give me native troops, all thing sbeing even) - and as a Byzantine example of mercenaries as a horrible disaster: The Catalan Company.

And yeah, the Komnenoi were good. Alexius and John were brilliant, Manuel...its like a case of imperial ADHD.
 
Short term mercenaries with no attachment to the land (like those Catalans) don't work, but if more detachments like the Varangians could be created, then all will be well in the Tagmata. I would have liked to see more native regiments in the sources though, Choniates keeps mentioning "Eastern and Western Tagmata" without any specifics on what the units were sadly
 
Sorry to bring this old thread of mine back up, but I've been doing alot of research lately on the Komnenian Army and have increasingly come to the conclusion that they did indeed re-establish the Theme system in most of their border regions, but seem to have created these provinces as units of "stall troops" in the tradition of the Late Antique Limitanei, in Anna Komnene, Choniates and later texts relating to the Empire of Nicaea, the following themes with local troops can be identified:
East:
Theme of Neokastra
Theme of Opsikon/Optimates
Theme of Paphlagonia
Theme of Chaldia/Trebizond
Theme of Mylassa and Melanudion (in Caria)
West:
Theme of Paristrion
Theme of Nis/Branicevo
Theme of Sardika
Theme ofDyarrachion
Theme of Scopia
Theme of Phillipipolis

The Naval units of the Empire were definitely raised from Hellas, Crete, Cyprus etc...ie: under the command of the Megas Doux, the commander of the fleet. As "stall troops", these Komnenian Themes were likely mostly infantry, and were used for local garrisons, policing and defense. The cavalry of the army, however, were fully "Tagmataized" (I know, not a word) and were recruited from the core territories such as Thrace and Bithynia.

So overall, my thesis is that the Komnenoi's reforms of the army ended up resembling the army of Justinian in organization...albeit on a much smaller scale in terms of numbers and territory. If this is totally crazy, feel free to let me know, just some conclusions I came to after a few months of intensive research partially inspired by the great minds on this site!
 
Judging by what I know of how Theodore I and John III built on the "best traditions of the Byzantine state" so far as semi-theme like organization with the Empire of NIcaea, that this was the seed would make sense.

But it seems to have been far less significant than in the "Good old days" of what that meant, thanks to the fact the Komnenoi were unambiguously an military aristocrat family with the interests thereof, and that colored organization of the provinces (used in the sense of 'territories", not as the proper term for the pieces the empire was broken into).

Still, keep them in power and you might see something. Or some other capable family.

Just not OTL's madman (Andronicus I) or the underwhelming Isaac II (and for the love of the Theotokes, not Alexius III).
 
My impression is that the Komnenians were careful about giving regional Dukes (of Paristrion or Trebizond for example) too many elite, offense troops, the aristocracy was granted military rulership of provinces, but was only given the military means to defend those provinces...not expand them (or challenge the Basileus). The Doux of Paristron (for example) perhaps would have a few taxiarchies of infantry to garrison major population centers/watchtowers plus a basic thematic cavalry tagma made up, of say, the Pronoia holders of towns such as Tavorno for policing his theme.
 
My impression is that the Komnenians were careful about giving regional Dukes (of Paristrion or Trebizond for example) too many elite, offense troops, the aristocracy was granted military rulership of provinces, but was only given the military means to defend those provinces...not expand them (or challenge the Basileus). The Doux of Paristron (for example) perhaps would have a few taxiarchies of infantry to garrison major population centers/watchtowers plus a basic thematic cavalry tagma made up, of say, the Pronoia holders of towns such as Tavorno for policing his theme.

That makes sense.

Although it raises the question of how much such forces would be sufficient for defending those themes - there are always tradeoffs.

Not to mention that even if not given too many soldiers, they still were able to drain away men and money for their own ends and profits, rather than the previous structure's attempts to make the whole of the state be at the service of the state.

Not to say that could have been rebuilt right away, but it is a difference, and a problem to be wrestled with in the 1180s (assuming no significant difference between the empire's position in an alt-timeline and OTL).
 
Overall, the later Macedonians system of small "Armenian" themes on the frontiers and Tagmata in reserve worked quite well, the Komnenians eliminated the bloated "Roman" Themata that took up so much of the imperial budget around the time of Basil II. Elfwine, do you think that a network of small themata along that line could have been re-established in Anatolia if the Komnenians would have completed that reconquest? Perhaps they would have been themes composed mostly of Turkish soldiers, just as the Macedonian themes in the east had been dominated by Armenians! (they would in effect have been "foreign mercenaries" in the eyes of many Rhomanians, but as long as they are granted Pronoia in Anatolia and knew how to fight, I could see it working out for the Empire)
 
Overall, the later Macedonians system of small "Armenian" themes on the frontiers and Tagmata in reserve worked quite well, the Komnenians eliminated the bloated "Roman" Themata that took up so much of the imperial budget around the time of Basil II. Elfwine, do you think that a network of small themata along that line could have been re-established in Anatolia if the Komnenians would have completed that reconquest? Perhaps they would have been themes composed mostly of Turkish soldiers, just as the Macedonian themes in the east had been dominated by Armenians! (they would in effect have been "foreign mercenaries" in the eyes of many Rhomanians, but as long as they are granted Pronoia in Anatolia and knew how to fight, I could see it working out for the Empire)

There's a difference between the pronoia, which are almost feudal grants, and the grants of lands to soldiers as part of the theme system.

http://www.ime.gr/chronos/10/en/o/oa/oa3a.html

Vs. . . . well, basically just modest land grants with no right to state income.

That aside, I think it's workable, whether made up of Turks or Armenians or both.

The main problem is going to be keeping the system from breaking down again - you want strong themes, you need the thematic soldiers not selling their land to the nobility whenever economic troubles hit them, and that takes more than just laws on sales.

Still, it's doable - just make supporting the thematic soldiery in times of crisis and not taxing them heavily (the Byzantine norm) part of the administrative system.
 
Last edited:
Top