Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: RichBliss on July 27, 2020, 02:50:29 AM
-
Title says it all. I’ve been wondering for some time now and I can’t find a clean answer.
-
Good morning. I don't think there is a 100% clean answer. Given that people talk about the Western and Eastern Roman Empires I normally date "Byzantine" from when the Western Empire "fell".....and that's a topic in its own right. However, the last Western Emperor is conventionally viewed as Romulus Augustulus who was deposed in 476AD. Thus, by my logic the first "Byzantine" Emperor would be LeoII who was reigning at the time in the East.
However, loads of other views/dates I'm sure !
-
Good morning. I don't think there is a 100% clean answer. Given that people talk about the Western and Eastern Roman Empires I normally date "Byzantine" from when the Western Empire "fell".....and that's a topic in its own right. However, the last Western Emperor is conventionally viewed as Romulus Augustulus who was deposed in 476AD. Thus, by my logic the first "Byzantine" Emperor would be LeoII who was reigning at the time in the East.
However, loads of other views/dates I'm sure !
Definitely. There's a huge overlap. If you mean when did the cultural change take place within Constantinople from Western Roman to Eastern Roman then that's an even harder question to answer concretely. Greek was not adopted as the official language of the Eastern Roman empire until 620 CE by Heraclius.
-
My understanding is that the Byzantine empire is a term that was actually never used by the contemporary citizens, who still saw their realm as a Roman empire and themselves as Romans, even though Greek had become an official language. The term, though now generally used, has been assigned by later historians. On the other hand, on the west later on there existed the Holy Roman Empire, established by Charlemagne.
As regards wargaming, the interesting issue might rather be the transition from the infantry dominated armies of the antiquity to the cavalry dominated armies of the early medieval times, though this is a gradual transition taking place over a century or so.
-
Oman's books on Medieval warfare start with Adrianople in 378AD - and that's also more or less the time cavalry starts to dominate
-
My understanding is that the Byzantine empire is a term that was actually never used by the contemporary citizens, who still saw their realm as a Roman empire and themselves as Romans
They did. I doubt they ever felt any less Roman throughout their history until after the Walls of Constantinople came tumbling down in 1453.
I think for the sake of simplicity there is merit to "us" referring to an Eastern Roman and a Western Roman Empire. Even a Byzantine Empire. Though of course not technically correct. :)
-
May I give my feeling about this tricky question of the transition between Roman Empire and so-called Byzantium. Feel free to disagree of course.
The Greeks in the Roman Empire had always considered themselves apart from the " true " Romans, who they saw as culturally inferior. This evolved into a kind of cultural bipolarity when the differences became less and less pertinent between former barbarian come True Romans and former oriental come True Hellenes ( as for example Maximinus Thrax and Lucian).
And simultaneously they shared a common sens of " us " compared to " them ": the real barbarians: they called it the Oikumene.
So when the Roman political power collapsed in the western part of Empire, nobody considered that it was " the end " of the Romans. In the west, because the elites continued to rule by the Roman law, culture, land property ( more or less according to place and germanic deals) and commerce, while the Barbarians had long appropriated the military. No emperor? so what! Business as usual. So much so that when, much later, Carl the Frankish king took the imperial title back for himself, it seemed only natural in the west.
Not so in the east, for they had received the western imperial insignia from the Senate of Rome, no less, which had accepted Odoacre as king in 476. That was the end, not of the Roman Empire, but of a special co-ruling of the western and eastern parts by separate persons, a political mode used since Diocletian, and tested early in several instances. The only thing was that there had to come a time when the Empire would be reunited. Justinian and his successors made several attempts at that.
There was also a second level of consideration as to what is Roman: the religious question. The orthodox church, and by this I mean the catholic orthodoxy of the great councils, was linked with the Imperial power, apart from some monophysite emperors. The great question was: who led spiritually? The Pope in Rome or the Patriarch in Constantinopolis? This also contributed to the sense of a common spiritual destiny, and at the same time of a political competition inside the Church, which supersaded the lay politics of western and eastern imperium.
-
As a slight aside, I can recommend the history of Byzantium podcast for those who like to listen to that sort of thing. https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/
-
As a slight aside, I can recommend the history of Byzantium podcast for those who like to listen to that sort of thing. https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/
It's good to have playing background when painting up Eastern Romans/Byzantines :)
-
Unfortunately, though you say 'the title says it all', it really doesn't. It begs a lot of questions, which ultimately come down to 'what do you think the question means?'. Do you think there was a 'Byzantine Empire'? If you do, what do you think it was? If you can tell us what it is/was, maybe we can help with narrowing down when it might have come into being.
I think it's very difficult to argue that the Empire of AD312 (to pick a convenient date) was anything like the Empire of AD800 (to pick another convenient date). But I don't there's a definitive point where you can say one thing became the other. As many others have intimated, from a historical perspective, it's a process, that people did not see at the time, that has been given a name by people later that also would not be recognised at the time. Go to Romania and ask when they stopped being Roman. The question will not make sense.
The transfer of the Imperial Insignia in AD476 is a good candidate for 'when' the Empire ceased to be two parts (East and West) of a whole, and became in theory a single entity (a reunited Empire) but in fact the Eastern Empire with an independent west. So if that's what you mean by Byzantium, then maybe that's a good marker.
The point (that Atheling brings up) about use of Greek might be important so maybe AD620 is the year.
I'd wonder about Justinian and Belisarius. Justinian was the last Emperor (allegedly) to speak Latin as a first language, and he (like other Emperors before) re-codified the laws... I think it's arguable that the Justinian reorganisations and attempted reconquest of the West mark the recognition (to some extent) that might be regarded in current parlance as a 'new normal', a de facto situation where the West was not re-united but wholly independent. I wonder what people in Italy in and Spain and North Africa thought of Belisarius's armies - liberators or invaders? Romans, restoring Roman laws and administration to Roman citizens of Roman provinces, or foreigners seeking to establish alien rule by conquest?
Arguably, the situation between AD476 and AD800 was one in which the Emperors in Constantinople were theoretical overlords of the West, no matter what the situation actually was, and by proclaiming himself Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne provoked the changeover, so maybe AD800 is the date that the (theoretically unitary) Roman Empire became two states and the Eastern became the 'Byzantine' Empire.
And then, as Griefbringer intimates, there's another important question - are you looking for a 'historical' answer, or a 'wargaming' answer?
In terms of board admin, I think AD476 is generally taken as the formal end of the Western Empire and the beginning on the 'medieval' period. If you want Eastern Empire troops fighting Goths, then, Myths Gods and Empires is your board. If you want Eastern Empire troops reconquering Italy under Belisarius, I think Medieval is your board. What different rule-sets might make of the question, that probably depends a lot.
-
Thanks everyone for some thoughtful and thought provoking answers. In regards to my intent, I perhaps should have been more specific. Since this is a miniatures group, I was hoping to get a better understanding of how me would determine which figures to use for which period.
-
OK, understood. I would use any range labelled “Late Roman” ( eg Gripping Beast or Footsore) for the period up to c450 ( no real rationale for the date!). If you want 6th or early 7th century I would look no further than the new Aventine Miniatures Range.
-
I'd go with Peter Heather's view. Once Egypt, north Africa and the Balkans are lost Byzantium begins its transformation from the East Roman super power to the Byzantine regional power.
The troops still look quite Roman for a while after Justinian.
-
OK, understood. I would use any range labelled “Late Roman” ( eg Gripping Beast or Footsore) for the period up to c450 ( no real rationale for the date!). If you want 6th or early 7th century I would look no further than the new Aventine Miniatures Range.
That's exactly the way I chose to go.
Years ago I put together a Justinian army using Gripping Beast mini's mainly, but not exclusively from their Lat Roman range. The army still looked decidedly Western which wasn't that much of an actually problem because I had the army of Belisarius in mind.
The thread can be seen here:
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=80561.0 (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=80561.0)
Currently I'm putting together the same army but using Aventine- it can be seen in it's infancy below:
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=126018.0 (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=126018.0)
-
What amazes me is how little we know about these old, Eastern empires, in the US. We barely mention Byzantium, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and so on. This si probably not a surprise to anyone else, though.
I'd argue that, for wargaming and miniature-painting purposes, we consider "Byzantine", "Eastern Roman", "Greek-Roman", and "late-Roman" all the same.
For actual historical purposes, this thread is fantastic, please keep posting, folks!!!
-
What amazes me is how little we know about these old, Eastern empires, in the US. We barely mention Byzantium, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and so on. This si probably not a surprise to anyone else, though.
I'd argue that, for wargaming and miniature-painting purposes, we consider "Byzantine", "Eastern Roman", "Greek-Roman", and "late-Roman" all the same.
For actual historical purposes, this thread is fantastic, please keep posting, folks!!!
Although most history lessons at school were focused upon British history, mainly social history (heavily emphasised in the Late 70's/early 80's), we did look at the Ottoman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. I remember it well as I up until those lessons was not aware there had been an Eastern Roman Empire! lol The sheer size of the Ottoman Empire was astonishing to me. Funny what you remember :)
-
From a wargaming point of view maybe we should consider ancient representations. For my own needs the most important documents are two Egyptian wood carvings showing actual eastern soldiers. The shields are identical as far as we can see: the one attributed to the Legio Quinta Macedonica in the Notitia Dignitatum, which was actually in Egypt after leaving Dacia and the Danube region.
The first document is dated from the fifth century, and is now in Berlin ( see page 48 of Osprey Warrior late Roman Infantryman). It shows a column releaving a besieged city from mounted raiders that Phil Barker once designated as Blemmyes. They are either in mail shirt or muscled cuirass, with a crested "ridge" helmet, like many late Roman figures have.
The second document, now in Trier, is dated from the sixth century. It shows another group of marching soldiers, infantry and cavalry, guarding some mounted personality who is making a hand signal. Maybe he is a high-ranking official, or maybe some kind of bishop ( the religious conflicts inside the Church or related to Nubian paganism or Arabian Jews could be linked to the scene). You can see it page 56 of the same Osprey book. The troops are very identical: so-called Attic helmet, with a crest only for the cavalryman, scale armour, and the Quintani shield once again.
In both cases, nobody has pants of any kind: troops are all bare-legged and wearing high boots. The Egyptian desert oblige.
Now, at least for the Legion Quinta Macedonica, we have reliable information to select miniatures for the first two centuries of the Eastern Roman Empire as a separate entity.
I am very attracted to the Aventine range and I just ordered more of these beautiful figures. However I was disappointed not to see any true eastern dressed troops from these documents. I keep with mine, from older lines, with no pants (today every late Roman miniature has pants unfortunately). All are in subarmalis.
But I'll introduce front-liners ( propugnatores or prostates ) using Byz 27 Standing early Byzantine infantry in heavy armour, although the helmet and pants will not match. An alternative could be the guards references, with actual bare legs and boots, but a little too much presentarmish for me.
Other references are ideal for the Danubian front or the Italian, or North African, Justinian campaigns.
Philippe
-
Percel:
I take it you have seen these from Aventine:
(https://aventineminiatures.co.uk/catalog/images/Aventine%20BYZ29%20.jpg)
(https://aventineminiatures.co.uk/catalog/images/Aventine%20BYZ28%20.jpg)
-
Thanks everyone for some thoughtful and thought provoking answers. In regards to my intent, I perhaps should have been more specific. Since this is a miniatures group, I was hoping to get a better understanding of how me would determine which figures to use for which period.
So essentially, you are interested in the visual changes in the military from the late antiquity onwards (say 400-600 AD). I think this issue can be approached at various levels.
1.) Individual infantryman or cavalryman: I do not claim great expertise on this subject, but my understanding is that the change on the individual appearance would be quite gradual, and that there would be no great differences between 5th and 6th century units.
2.) Unit level: probably the most noticeable single difference would be the replacement of the Roman style standards with large, more modern-style flags during 6th century. Cavalry armament in the 6th century started to become a combination of bows and spears, where as previously the Roman cavalry had been mainly armed with spears - many of the opponents that Romans/Byzantines faced in the east also contained horse archers, which may have provided some influence.
3.) Army level: there are two main aspects to consider, the ratio between infantry and cavalry, and the presence of "barbarians" in the military. Classical Roman armies had been dominated by infantry, with the cavalry as a supporting arm, though towards the late antiquity the amount of cavalry gradually increased. In the 6th century, cavalry became the dominant arm in field armies, with the infantry declining in quality and quantity in field armies until the reforms of late 6th century would again improve the status of heavy infantry. As regards barbarians, they had become a major presence of Roman field armies in the 5th century, and this trend continues to the 6th century, with Byzantine armies including units of barbarian allies and mercenaries. Reforms towards the end of the 6th century aimed at integrating the barbarian elements to become a part of the regular army.
As regards figures marketed as Byzantines, my understanding is that the main interest of miniature manufacturers and wargamers has traditionally been in the Byzantine Empire at the peak of its military prowess circa 750-1050 AD, often known as Thematic Byzantines, with much less interest in the earlier or later Byzantines.
-
Thanks Atheling. I recon that I have made a mistake in my order :'(
I intend to duplicate my force to the other terrains of operation, so not a great issue.
Hoping not to bother anyone in going into detail, I would like to ask your and others' opinion about the subject of dual armament for the 6th and mostly seventh century prostates. The Strategicon mentions both bow and spear. They put the spear down when shouting, then take it back when the enemy closes.
Nice but what about the cumbersome large shields?
We have a possible clue in Procopius, describing a 50 infantrymen force placed on high ground to face repeted gothic cavalry charges. Now 50 men corresponds to three full lochagiai of sixteen men plus two officers, maybe a centenarius and a standard bearer? But they may also have been made up of the five sub-officers of ten lochagiai, for these would have been the best armed. Anyway, Procopius details their fighting mode:
in the front ranks (s) are the pure spearmen, heavy ones, and directly behind are archers in mail.
Now some of these move in open order in the front, put down their sword says Procopius, not their spear, and fire very effectively at the Goths.
Some of these archers then take back their sword and fight heroïc duels, therefore with probably at least medium sized shields, with some of the disorganised foe.
Two are named individually by the author, so that must have been an uncommon behaviour.
So I would say that one line of heavy infantrymen with spear and large shield backed by one line of archers in mail ( all available with Aventine) would simulate these troops quite well. They could be backed by more lightly equiped javelinmen. But did you have other informations about it?
Philippe
-
Hi Phillipe,
Thanks Atheling. I recon that I have made a mistake in my order :'(
I intend to duplicate my force to the other terrains of operation, so not a great issue.
Hoping not to bother anyone in going into detail, I would like to ask your and others' opinion about the subject of dual armament for the 6th and mostly seventh century prostates. The Strategicon mentions both bow and spear. They put the spear down when shouting, then take it back when the enemy closes.
This would be my instinctual view too. They are indeed mentioned as being bow and spear armed. I suppose that a shield technically could be slung on the back when mounted and using a bow. Same with a lance as illustrated from art contemporary to the time period.
I think that the thing to really take into consideration is who Maurice's armies were fighting. Mainly the Bulgars, Avars and Slavs who generally didn't stand in formation and wait for melee. Obviously I'm no scholar when it comes to the Eastern roman Military but the conception of multiple arms does at least on the surface be probable.
Unfortunately, today, I don't have time to check any sources.
-
There are a number of lines of "Justinianic" or "Belisarian Byzantines" out there; I don't offhand recall seeing figures for that period marketed as "Roman".
So miniatures manufacturers appear to think the Roman/Byzantine cutoff is somewhere around AD 500. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is in agreement with the WRG army lists, which have the switch between "Patrician Roman" and "Early Byzantine" in AD 493.
-
There are a number of lines of "Justinianic" or "Belisarian Byzantines" out there; I don't offhand recall seeing figures for that period marketed as "Roman".
So miniatures manufacturers appear to think the Roman/Byzantine cutoff is somewhere around AD 500. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is in agreement with the WRG army lists, which have the switch between "Patrician Roman" and "Early Byzantine" in AD 493.
They were written a long time ago.
I don't think there is any clear cut off point, nether militarily or culturally. Change is gradual, most of the time. :)
-
They were written a long time ago.
I don't think there is any clear cut off point, nether militarily or culturally. Change is gradual, most of the time. :)
I do believe you misunderstand me. I wasn't speaking of when the (East) Roman Empire became Byzantine, or if any such thing ever happened, I was speaking of how miniatures manufacturers tend to label their products. If you find a range labelled as "Late Roman" it's probably meant for the fourth or fifth century, if as "Early Byzantine" probably the sixth. This is perhaps not the best terminology, but it's the de facto standard among manufacturers.
As for the WRG lists being old, that's part of why they're influential. Plenty of manufacturers across the decades have been influenced by them when decided what figures to make and what to call them.
-
I do believe you misunderstand me. I wasn't speaking of when the (East) Roman Empire became Byzantine, or if any such thing ever happened, I was speaking of how miniatures manufacturers tend to label their products. If you find a range labelled as "Late Roman" it's probably meant for the fourth or fifth century, if as "Early Byzantine" probably the sixth. This is perhaps not the best terminology, but it's the de facto standard among manufacturers.
As far as I can tell, sometimes late Romans are marketed under an "Arthurian" label, but I'm not sure whether the figures in those ranges necessarily work as stand-ins outside of a Romano-British setting, or if they'd be appropriate for the Danube, and the Middle East!
My understanding on the miniature manufacturing periods they tend to be grouped under:
- "Arthurian" Romans (for the 4th and 5th centuries)
- Belisarian Byzantines (6th century, around the time ol' Belisarius was knocking around)
- Thematic Byzantines (a more vague bunch from the 8th century to the 11th century)
In terms of a historiography perspective, as others have said, it's pretty vague (and often slightly arbitrary!), personally I agree with OB here in the thread, and put the demarcation line between ERE -> Byzantine Empire to after the 7th century, when the language is definitively Greek, and the territory is more regionally focused....but again, it's a pretty arbitrary choice!
-
I do believe you misunderstand me. I wasn't speaking of when the (East) Roman Empire became Byzantine, or if any such thing ever happened, I was speaking of how miniatures manufacturers tend to label their products. If you find a range labelled as "Late Roman" it's probably meant for the fourth or fifth century, if as "Early Byzantine" probably the sixth. This is perhaps not the best terminology, but it's the de facto standard among manufacturers.
Right, Got you. I understand. I think I was thrown buy the original question and your response.
As for the WRG lists being old, that's part of why they're influential. Plenty of manufacturers across the decades have been influenced by them when decided what figures to make and what to call them.
True. The WRG lists have been influential with the caveat that research into uniformology, armours and weaponry etc moves on too. :)
-
Right, Got you. I understand. I think I was thrown buy the original question and your response.
True. The WRG lists have been influential with the caveat that research into uniformology, armours and weaponry etc moves on too. :)
But so do the lists. The DBM lists incorporated much new research compared to the 7th lists, and the DBMM lists also benefited from up to date info from the likes of Duncan Head
-
But so do the lists. The DBM lists incorporated much new research compared to the 7th lists, and the DBMM lists also benefited from up to date info from the likes of Duncan Head
With all due respect to Duncan Head, who deserves the praise he receives, he isn't alone on the research front for Ancient and Medieval Armies. Off the top of my head take Tobais Capwell, John Feench, Peter Abbot, Chris Peers, John Haldon, Colonel Mike Snook..... OK, different periods of interest but my point is that research is not a singular pursuit, in an academic sense. Is research not made better by peer review ie updating?
I think we're kind of veering away from the original mark of the thread so that is last I will say in this regard :)
-
I haven't got sources at hand, but I remember reading that the term "Byzantine Empire" was coined in modern times.
Byzantium was razed to the ground in a Roman Civil war and when rebuilt years later nobody used its old name anymore. It was called Constantinople, New Rome, or just "The City". Their inhabitants called themselves Romans.
-
I haven't got sources at hand, but I remember reading that the term "Byzantine Empire" was coined in modern times.
Acc'd WP, the term was first used in the sixteenth century, and didn't become generally adopted until the nineteenth. Certainly it was never used by the Byzantines themselves.
(Unlike some, though, I don't think this is itself a good reason to avoid the term. They're far from the only ancient people or state for which we use a term they wouldn't have used themselves, and our chief aim should be to be understood by fellow moderns.)
-
For me.....Never, Byzantine is a modern made up name, still Romans until the fall of Constantinople.
-
For me.....Never, Byzantine is a modern made up name, still Romans until the fall of Constantinople.
Yeah, 100%. Thing is, it's much easier to put Byzantine rather than Late Eastern Imperial Roman in the title of a post lol
-
Yes, as a moderator may kick you back to the ancient period lol
-
Yes, as a moderator may kick you back to the ancient period lol
lol That is exactly what happened to me on TMP recently...... lol
I got scolded lol