|
underage at the vape shop posted:How much of this is them picking up local customs vs them conscripting barbarians? Could we even tell? Depends on the period, but the timeframe I was thinking of the legions are still largely Roman but acting like Germans because Germans are cool warrior dudes and we want to be cool warrior dudes too. Until Caracalla throws it all into disarray a typical Roman army is made of legionaries and auxilia. The legionaries are citizens, the auxilia are not but are recruited largely from the non-citizen population of the empire, not outsiders (though there's nothing stopping outsiders). Theoretically this is about 50/50, but we know paper numbers and reality were different and the legions were virtually always understrength. The distinction also isn't made clear most of the time because there really was no difference in practice between the legionaries and the auxiliaries. They're equipped and trained the same and doing the same job. Auxilia usually come up when they're specialized auxilia, like units of Balearic slingers or steppe cavalry, but the majority are just regular old heavy infantry like the Roman citizens. Later on what earlier Romans would consider auxilia become the majority of the army and the system is so different it's not worth directly comparing, really. The ideas of training, discipline, and logistics stay relatively the same though, you see Roman armies well into the middle ages maintaining standards of professionalism from the ancient days that no other army in Europe approaches.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
Anyone got a good basic source for how the Byzantine army organized itself and how the soldiers were equipped etc? I'm writing an rpg thing with a Byz-inspired empire, so I could use something that's not your basic wikipedia stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 10:31
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Anyone got a good basic source for how the Byzantine army organized itself and how the soldiers were equipped etc? I'm writing an rpg thing with a Byz-inspired empire, so I could use something that's not your basic wikipedia stuff. It depends very heavily on the period, there's little to no similarity in organization or equipment between the armies Belisarius would command and those of, say, Basil II. The History of Byzantium podcast has periodic episodes on Byzantine life and the state of the empire after each major period ends, and there's always one or two focused on the military in there. I'd start by picking the time period you're interested in and listening to those, he also lists sources. (there's also really a few rather cheesy narrative episodes with second-person stories of Byzantine soldier life, I found them a bit cringey myself but as inspiration for RPG stuff they'd actually be perfect since he's basically GMing  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 12:21
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Anyone got a good basic source for how the Byzantine army organized itself and how the soldiers were equipped etc? I'm writing an rpg thing with a Byz-inspired empire, so I could use something that's not your basic wikipedia stuff. https://www.scribd.com/document/32932734/The-Land-Forces-of-Byzantium-in-the-10th-Century
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 13:11
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Anyone got a good basic source for how the Byzantine army organized itself and how the soldiers were equipped etc? I'm writing an rpg thing with a Byz-inspired empire, so I could use something that's not your basic wikipedia stuff. You could also get the Strategikon of Maurice. Which is probably pretty fitting for Belisarius's time up to the Arab Conquests. There is also Leo the Wises Tactika, which should probably give some good insights for the armies from the Macedonians through to the Komenoi. The references look broken in the above PDF, but it is probably one of the primary sources. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jan 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Depends on the period, but the timeframe I was thinking of the legions are still largely Roman but acting like Germans because Germans are cool warrior dudes and we want to be cool warrior dudes too. Really interesting thanks. WIth the last bit about the Roman armies in the middle ages, is that East Rome or is it generals/fort commanders become kings in the west?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
The eastern empire. The west generally doesn't have professional armies in the middle ages, though there are some small exceptions and you could make an argument for knights in general. Though I'd say while knights are certainly highly trained and skilled military professionals, they're not a professional army in the Roman sense we're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The eastern empire. The west generally doesn't have professional armies in the middle ages, though there are some small exceptions and you could make an argument for knights in general. Though I'd say while knights are certainly highly trained and skilled military professionals, they're not a professional army in the Roman sense we're talking about. I think the Ostrogoths attempted to maintain a semblance of a professional army, but I don't think that really counts as middle ages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:I think the Ostrogoths attempted to maintain a semblance of a professional army, but I don't think that really counts as middle ages. Yeah the Roman cosplay states right after... definitions are weird. I've seen the middle ages broadly defined as 476 to 1453 or 1492 a lot, but Europe in 500 and Europe in 1400 are so different it doesn't seem like a very useful definition. Plus with modern research we know that the real collapse of the Roman world in the west (except Britain) doesn't happen until the 600s so basing something on when Romulus Augustulus is deposed doesn't make a lot of sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:. . . so basing something on when Romulus Augustulus is deposed doesn't make a lot of sense. It's because Odoacer didn't take the title of Emperor. That's why people pick 476 as the end date for the Western Empire. If he had taken the title, it would have been dated to his death or overthrow. So it makes some sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yeah the Roman cosplay states right after... definitions are weird. I've seen the middle ages broadly defined as 476 to 1453 or 1492 a lot, but Europe in 500 and Europe in 1400 are so different it doesn't seem like a very useful definition. Plus with modern research we know that the real collapse of the Roman world in the west (except Britain) doesn't happen until the 600s so basing something on when Romulus Augustulus is deposed doesn't make a lot of sense. Yeah I think the rise of Islam is in my opinion a better end point for Antiquity than the Fall of Rome in 476. I think an interesting point of discussion is the Muslim slave soldiers like the Mamluks and if they qualify as professional standing armies in the Medieval period. Epicurius posted:It's because Odoacer didn't take the title of Emperor. That's why people pick 476 as the end date for the Western Empire. If he had taken the title, it would have been dated to his death or overthrow. So it makes some sense. Its because he was just retaking Rome for the rightful Emperor Zeno 
Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jan 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yeah the Roman cosplay states right after... definitions are weird. I've seen the middle ages broadly defined as 476 to 1453 or 1492 a lot, but Europe in 500 and Europe in 1400 are so different it doesn't seem like a very useful definition. Plus with modern research we know that the real collapse of the Roman world in the west (except Britain) doesn't happen until the 600s so basing something on when Romulus Augustulus is deposed doesn't make a lot of sense. 476 is a useful date for the final end of the time-period in which rulers in Italy, identifying themselves as Roman emperors, sought to establish military and political control over the provinces of the Western Roman Empire. Even Theodoric, who prosecuted control over the west far more actively than a number of actual Roman emperors, identified himself as king, pious unconquered prince, etc. He stopped importantly short of identifying himself as a Roman emperor. It's not wrong to say that the economic and social systems of the 5th and 6th century west still bore a very strong Roman influence that was lost in the 7th, but Jack2142 posted:Its because he was just retaking Rome for the rightful Emperor Zeno this is actually right and a good reason why 476 is an important date. However little power the eastern emperor enjoyed in even Italy, let alone Africa or Iberia or Gaul, the counterclaim of imperial power by the actual rulers of those places was no longer made after Odoacer came to power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
Is it sacrilegious to ask about the Holy Roman Empire in this thread? Is it correct to say that a lot of the detail of how the eastern part of Carolingian Empire morphed into the HRE is lost to history? And that a lot of the details of the early Empire in detail aren’t known for sure? Like I’m confused how the Kingdom of Germany functioned within the Carolingian and then HRE and why it seems to disappear sometime in the high to late Middle Ages. What happened to it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:It's because Odoacer didn't take the title of Emperor. That's why people pick 476 as the end date for the Western Empire. If he had taken the title, it would have been dated to his death or overthrow. So it makes some sense. I'm aware, but I don't think end of the western empire and beginning of the middle ages have to necessarily be the same dating. I think it makes more sense to put the beginning of the middle ages where the Roman system no longer functions, which is more about where we see the collapse of long distance trade and a monetary economy in the 600s rather than whether there's a western emperor on the throne or not. The century and a half or so after 476 is its own thing that doesn't really fit into what came before or what came after and should have its own name. Redefining that as the dark ages doesn't work since that's about availability of written records, and that doesn't fit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is it sacrilegious to ask about the Holy Roman Empire in this thread? I don't think it could be considered lost to history. There are plenty of textual sources covering this period. The Carolingians ran out of steam is all. Once the East Frankish branch died off and the Ottonians stepped in, there was never any serious prospect of a reunification of the Frankish kingdoms because the Ottonians were very much not Franks. The Carolingians (or Charlemagne anyway) had administrated Germany through appointed counts, but Henry the Fowler did not have the same kind of power (his wealth was far less, but so was his military strength, which was relatively very local and concentrated on the east Saxon frontier with the Slavs) and so he ruled through larger, more autonomous and chiefly hereditary political structures aka "stem duchies". The idea of a "kingdom of Germany" was unstable and vague, sometimes treated as synonymous with East Francia or alternatively with the Holy Roman Empire, yet was also often deployed by non-German sources to question the claim of the German kings to imperial title. Basically the concept is wrapped up in the long struggle over whether German kings would rule Italy or not. Eventually the idea became that one could be elected "king of Germany" by the electors, but the king had to be confirmed as "Holy Roman Emperor" by the pope only. "King of Germany" then falls out of use at the very end of the middle ages as "Holy Roman Emperor" becomes a term for the guy the electors elect whether the pope has actually anointed him or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
So when you see a map of Europe in the year 1000 and there’s a large solid mass labeled Kingdom of Germany taking up most of the space of the larger Holy Roman Empire outline it isn’t actually a tangible “Kingdom”? What makes it different than the Kingdom of France which, yes I know was very decentralized in that early period but is still recognized as a dedicated thing?
Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jan 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
ok so why is the HRE word for "dauphin" "King of the Romans" how did that happen
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I'm aware, but I don't think end of the western empire and beginning of the middle ages have to necessarily be the same dating. I think it makes more sense to put the beginning of the middle ages where the Roman system no longer functions, which is more about where we see the collapse of long distance trade and a monetary economy in the 600s rather than whether there's a western emperor on the throne or not. The century and a half or so after 476 is its own thing that doesn't really fit into what came before or what came after and should have its own name. Redefining that as the dark ages doesn't work since that's about availability of written records, and that doesn't fit. Terminal Antiquity?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is it sacrilegious to ask about the Holy Roman Empire in this thread? Tom Holland has a book that covers a bit of this period in the "Forge of Christendom"
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
^^^If we are recommending books, most of what I am saying here is right out of Chris Wickham's excellent "Medieval Europe"HEY GUNS posted:ok so why is the HRE word for "dauphin" "King of the Romans" Similar reasoning to "King of Germany": you don't need the pope to like you to use such a title. It was originally a term used for sitting elected monarchs who had not yet been anointed by the pope: the claim of Henry IV to be "Rex Romanorum" when he was not anointed annoyed the pope sufficiently that the papal diplomatic correspondence used "Rex Teutonicorum" instead. I don't know of any more particular reason why the title migrated to the heir-designate. Shimrra Jamaane posted:So when you see a map of Europe in the year 1000 and there’s a large solid mass labeled Kingdom of Germany taking up most of the space of the larger Holy Roman Empire outline it isn’t actually a tangible “Kingdom”? What makes it different than the Kingdom of France which, yes I know was very decentralized in that early period but is still recognized as a dedicated thing? The Kingdom of Germany may not have been much of an actual entity at that point in time, but it was conceptually distinct from the Kingdoms of Italy and Bohemia, which were also at least nominally subject to the Holy Roman Emperor (in his capacity as emperor, not his capacity as king of Germany). West Francia, for all its decentralization and weakness, was never really subdued by East Francia or its successor state after the end of Carolingian power. It's a good question why Italy, Burgundy, and Germany remained in one tenuous political orbit but France and Aquitaine stayed in another; I don't think I've ever seen a really detailed investigation of it but if I had to guess, I think it's just because no Holy Roman Emperor ever actually swung his dick around hard enough in West Francia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:ok so why is the HRE word for "dauphin" "King of the Romans" During the Investiture Controversy, Henry IV started calling himself "King of the Romans" as a counter to Gregory VII calling Henry "King of the Germans". It was basically Henry IV's way of saying, "Hey, I'm in charge of you, Bishop. So do your sacred duty and crown your king."
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
What are some good books on the HRE? Peter Wilson recently put out a big book but from what I’ve read it’s less of a narrative history and more of a survey of different themes. Everything else I can find that is recently published covers just the Hapsburg period, I can’t find anything about the years 800-1400 that isn’t some $200 Cambridge University volume.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:32
|
|
|
skasion posted:The Kingdom of Germany may not have been much of an actual entity at that point in time, but it was conceptually distinct from the Kingdoms of Italy and Bohemia, which were also at least nominally subject to the Holy Roman Emperor (in his capacity as emperor, not his capacity as king of Germany). West Francia, for all its decentralization and weakness, was never really subdued by East Francia or its successor state after the end of Carolingian power. It's a good question why Italy, Burgundy, and Germany remained in one tenuous political orbit but France and Aquitaine stayed in another; I don't think I've ever seen a really detailed investigation of it but if I had to guess, I think it's just because no Holy Roman Emperor ever actually swung his dick around hard enough in West Francia. I think this makes sense because if you look at the Ottonians almost all their attention was directed at fending off/christianizing the Danes/Magyars/Slavs to the East & North, or trying to take/maintain control of Italy. Otto II the son of Otto the Great I think is the only one who ever goes to war with West Francia, but that war ended pretty inconclusively. West Francia (France) was likely just to powerful to effectively subjugate, and any attention directed that way would be a multi-year campaign which would leave the opportunity for other parts of the realm to break away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The eastern empire. The west generally doesn't have professional armies in the middle ages, though there are some small exceptions and you could make an argument for knights in general. Though I'd say while knights are certainly highly trained and skilled military professionals, they're not a professional army in the Roman sense we're talking about. I was thinking about this recently and trhying to break down all the ways pre-modern peoples raised armies. Some of the systems I could think of and basic characterizations: Tribal levee: all males outside of harvest season, poor discipline, equipment, organization, and power projection but large numbers of bodies Citizen levee: potentially all persons meeting property requirements, moderately good equipment and organization but fewer bodies and still constrained by citizen needs for normal subsistence Volunteer professional: As in early Roman empire, good equipment, organization, power projection potential. Extremely expensive, corporate identity and loyalty presents continuous threat to the head of state. Heritable professional/semi-professional. Military service is a hereditary obligation. Late Roman Empire and many Chinese dynasties, for example the Tang. Relatively well equipped and effective in normal circumstances, making military service an obligation of a minority of the population allows for states to spend less per soldier than if they had to entice volunteers. Often soldiers spent much of or part of their time in civilian occupations like farming, only to be called up when required. Downsides: makes service an onerous burden on the soldiers, who often seek to escape their obligation. Makes quickly raising new forces in emergencies difficult and reduces professionalism compared to volunteer troops. Feudal knights/levees: Land and power in exchange for military obligation. Excellent equipment for noble elite whose grants of land enable them to afford the best chariots and armor. Levees less well equipped. Weakens central authority and reduces army organization, as grants of land decentralize state authority. Power projection moderate, as wrangling feudal forces into long campaigns can be difficult. Mercenaries: Good equipment and power projection. Very expensive during campaigns and occasionally politically untrustworthy. Levee en masse: Extremely expensive, before modern era only used by Qin China and maybe some other Warring States period Kingdoms? Good Equipment, power projection, massive numbers, excellent organization. Difficult to organize and risks strangling the normal functioning of society as labor is siphoned off into the enormous scale of military activity. Anything else anyone can think of?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
There's bandits, pirates, vikings, and unemployed mercenaries. People in the weird gray area where they're not actually currently employed by an official political power, but still make bank off of violence, and in the event of a war, they make better soldiers than normal civilians. Except sometimes when they're doing their thing, they wind up conquering a place for themselves. I guess what I'm getting at are weird blurred areas between categories. Professional soldiers who aren't full mercenaries but aren't just volunteers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
there are part time mercenaries, and families for whom it's a profession
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:There's bandits, pirates, vikings, and unemployed mercenaries. People in the weird gray area where they're not actually currently employed by an official political power, but still make bank off of violence, and in the event of a war, they make better soldiers than normal civilians. Except sometimes when they're doing their thing, they wind up conquering a place for themselves. yeah those are pretty common. The systems where military service is a hated hereditary obligation always struck me as especially weird. Like where being a soldier is dishonorable, they have to brand or tattoo soldiers so they can track them, Emperors offer exemptions from service to the kids of especially exemplary soldiers. The big picture makes sense, if you can't afford true universal conscription because you can't afford to have that many men away from the fields it makes sense to just focus on conscripting from a small sub-population that can anticipate and prepare for service. But if the guys with the swords hate the status-quo what stops them from killing the people arming them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 08:38
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I was thinking about this recently and trhying to break down all the ways pre-modern peoples raised armies. Some of the systems I could think of and basic characterizations: I think the Mongols/Mongol successor states would fall into your 'tribal levee' category, but they certainly didn't match the characteristics you ascribe to this category. Maybe that warrants a new category, not sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 08:40
|
|
|
Thanks for the Byz suggestions!Grand Fromage posted:The eastern empire. The west generally doesn't have professional armies in the middle ages, though there are some small exceptions and you could make an argument for knights in general. Though I'd say while knights are certainly highly trained and skilled military professionals, they're not a professional army in the Roman sense we're talking about. Re: knights, Mirkka Lappalainen in Pohjolan Leijona, which is about the early 17th century and Gustav II Adolf, has a good line about the change in culture going on at the time. Sweden was backward in the 15th century, so what you'd call knights elsewhere were professional warriors, not professional soldiers. It was a lot more about personal poo poo and personal performance than waging war in an effective manner for the state/monarch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 09:33
|
|
|
81 years of existence, and one stupid state gets to be the stand in for the whole drat Roman Empire. It's absolutely criminal. The stupid and pointless Empire of Trebizond lasted 2.5 times as long and nobody cares about them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 12:06
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What are some good books on the HRE? Peter Wilson recently put out a big book but from what I’ve read it’s less of a narrative history and more of a survey of different themes. Everything else I can find that is recently published covers just the Hapsburg period, I can’t find anything about the years 800-1400 that isn’t some $200 Cambridge University volume. That's something I would also like to know! I think the last books about the HRE I've read was a long-winded, 12 volume series about German history, covering everything up until the 80s of the Federal Republic (when the series ended because that's when it was written). But that series is now in a library in another city and I forgot the title anyway. Would be sweet to see what people after the 1980's wrote about the HRE Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:81 years of existence, and one stupid state gets to be the stand in for the whole drat Roman Empire. It's absolutely criminal. The stupid and pointless Empire of Trebizond lasted 2.5 times as long and nobody cares about them. The Empire of What?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 13:59
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I'm aware, but I don't think end of the western empire and beginning of the middle ages have to necessarily be the same dating. I think it makes more sense to put the beginning of the middle ages where the Roman system no longer functions, which is more about where we see the collapse of long distance trade and a monetary economy in the 600s rather than whether there's a western emperor on the throne or not. The century and a half or so after 476 is its own thing that doesn't really fit into what came before or what came after and should have its own name. Redefining that as the dark ages doesn't work since that's about availability of written records, and that doesn't fit. The Between age
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
Squalid posted:yeah those are pretty common. It makes sense how they arrive at the idea. Armies are necessary, but are one of the primary vectors for the downfall of the government they serve, so if you could just train them like a dog... In practice, armies still continue to pull coups every so often, and some states that went so far as to defang their militaries to keep them from becoming an internal threat then got their grumpy army plowed through by outside invaders. Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:81 years of existence, and one stupid state gets to be the stand in for the whole drat Roman Empire. It's absolutely criminal. The stupid and pointless Empire of Trebizond lasted 2.5 times as long and nobody cares about them. It's almost as if the practice of deciding for a singular successor state to have all the prestige of the biggest, fanciest title conferred upon it is implicitly absurd and more bound up in various politics than it is in actual history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:. The century and a half or so after 476 is its own thing that doesn't really fit into what came before or what came after and should have its own name. Redefining that as the dark ages doesn't work since that's about availability of written records, and that doesn't fit. In British history, the period of time between the pullout of Roman troops to the Saxon conquest (so say about 400-600) is usually called "sub-Roman Britain or "post Roman Britain". You could probably talk about a sub-Roman Italy that ends with the Lombard conquest. Epicurius fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jan 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The Empire of What? Trebizond
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
The Roman Empire stopped existing in 395 with the death of Theodosius I. After that it was two extremely large kingdom sometimes working together and often at odds with one another. Change my mind
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
How cute, the Empire of My rear end Edit: Looking at Wikipedia right now. The Trebizond Empire was a lot larger then I thought possible. But don't worry, it was still tiny. 
Libluini fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jan 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
Dalael posted:The Roman Empire stopped existing in 395 with the death of Theodosius I. After that it was two extremely large kingdom sometimes working together and often at odds with one another. Uuuuh Rome and Byzantium are both empire-tier titles, not kingdom-tier. Everyone knows that! Empires can’t even use the same succession laws as kingdoms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Rome fell in 1204. I will stand behind this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:56 |
|
|
underage at the vape shop posted:The Between age Grundle Era
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 20:06
|
|
