Byzantine Infantryman

The 'fall of the Roman Empire' is by far the most misrepresented event in Western history. The sack of the city of Rome in the early 5th century was certainly a dramatic and tragic event in the life of the empire, but it was by no means 'the end'. Part of the reason for this development was that, since Constantine (Kônstantinos) I had, in AD 330, designated the ancient Greek city of Vyzantion (Latin Byzantium) the new capital and renamed it the City of Constantine (Kônstantinopolis), Rome and the western provinces had increasingly diminished in importance in terms of the political and economic life of the empire. It should not be imagined, however, that the elite of Constantinople were content to wave the West goodbye. Imperial forces fought to recover and hold Italy for the empire with varying degrees of success right through to the late 12th century. In fact, the Roman Empire endured for another thousand years until the Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople in 1453. Not even the disaster of the Fourth Crusade was able to break an evolving but continuous heritage of cultural and political transmission. From as early as the 1st century AD the empire's residents called it 'Rômania'. The expression 'Byzantine Empire' did not exist until coined by a German historian in 1557 to embody Western prejudices dating back to the Crusades.
From the late 6th century to the end of the 9th century the concerns of the rulers were rather more pressing and closer to home. After Justinian, the ancient rivalry with Persia dominated military matters, until it was conclusively settled with the destruction of the Sassanian Empire by Emperor Herakleios in 629. Along the way one of the most important monuments of Roman military literature was created around 602, the Stratêgikon, sometimes attributed to the emperor and successful general Maurikios. The Stratêgikon was to remain influential right through the middle Byzantine period. Reasons for rejoicing were short lived, however, as a new wave of northern barbarians culminated in the Avars besieging the capital itself in 628. The 4th–century walls were more than enough to deter them, despite the fact that they seem to have brought traction trebuchets with them, although the residents of Constantinople themselves were of the opinion that the Virgin Mary, whose likeness had been paraded about the walls, deserved the credit. At about the same time a much more serious threat arose in the East with the advent of Islam. These newly proselytized 'Warriors of God' conquered the southern and eastern provinces in a remarkably short time. It is commonly accepted that resistance in these areas was undermined by widespread disaffection prompted by religious policies emanating from Constantinople, which had tried to impose centralized Orthodoxy on a region that had very diverse traditions of Christianity, as well as substantial enclaves of older religions. The Muslims' successes led to their mounting repeated sieges of the City between 668 and 677. Again, the walls were more than equal to their task, but could not have remained so indefinitely against continuing assaults. The prospect of capture was forestalled by the schism in Islam and ensuing civil war that created the division between Sunni and Shi'a, and ended Muslim expansion into Anatolia. This period of combined external threat and internal division is known today as the Dark Age of Vyzantion, not to be confused with Europe's Dark Ages.
No sooner had stable borders been established with Islam than the empire was wracked internally by an argument over whether the use of religious icons constituted idolatry. The seriousness with which Eastern Orthodoxy of the time took such religious debates, and the fact that the emperor had a crucial role at the centre of the Church, meant that for a century the empire was violently divided against itself. At the end of the 9th century the issue was resolved in favour of icons, and a period of stability and restoration ensued under the Macedonian emperors.
Emperor Leo (Leôn) VI, known (not entirely justly) as 'the Wise', reformed the legal system. More significantly for our interest, he initiated a renewal of the study of military practice at the highest levels. It is evident that while the disruptions of the preceding century had undoubtedly compromised military practice in addition to other areas of life, the development of new techniques and adaptation to new circumstances had continued. Leo's contribution was to have these recorded and codified for the first time since the Stratêgikon. Leo's Taktika preserves those portions of the Stratêgikon that were still relevant, and adds the new developments, including the first mention of lamellar armour. Leo was succeeded by his son, Constantine VII, 'Born in the Purple' (Porphyrogennêtos). Constantine continued his father's literary activities, but on the military side his contribution is confined to a manual on imperial participation in military expeditions, which tells us much about the imperial encampment and arrangements, but nothing about ordinary soldiery.
The third quarter of the 10th century was an erratic period for imperial administration, but important for this study. Two generals who had proved themselves under Constantine VII undertook to write military manuals. The more significant of these was Nikêforos II Fôkas, who had a short period on the imperial throne between 963 and 969. His manual, A Composition on Warfare (more commonly known by a modern Latin title, Praecepta Militaria) also shows a combination of continuities with and revisions of what had gone before, which tells us much of both his knowledge and his pragmatic experience. The Taktika of the second of these later 10th–century generals, Nikêforos Ouranos, owes a great deal to the Composition on Warfare, but also reveals the benefit of Ouranos' campaign experience.
Throughout late antiquity and the earlier middle ages the primary cultural influences on the empire came from the East, especially from Persia, despite the wars and the destruction of the Sassanian Empire, and notwithstanding Iran's incorporation into the new Muslim caliphate. The extent of these influences cannot be underestimated; they took in religion, and diverse aspects of everyday life, especially clothing.
After 976 Basil (Vasileios) II, who had been co–emperor since 963, occupied the imperial throne as the sole or senior emperor. Over the course of 50 years on the 'golden throne' he stabilized imperial administration and campaigned effectively to expand the empire's borders to the greatest extent they had achieved since the 7th century. His most notable success was in defeating the Bulgarians at the battle of Kleidôn in 1014, where he is said to have captured 15,000 of the enemy. The story that he blinded 99 out of 100 and left the remaining man with only one eye to lead them home is doubtful, and his nickname of 'Bulgar–slayer' (Bulgaroktonos) was not invented until the 12th century. Basil was not an innovator by any means. His contribution was to consolidate and consistently implement policies and practices developed or codified in the earlier 10th century.