Why Bulgarians?didnt they use a completely different military structure than romans?fast moving cavalry and such.
because they were still within the empire’s border, but I might be mistaken. That’s why I put Bulgarians quite below.
Current Bulgaria sure, was within Empire’s borders, but first Bulgars arrived around 680, so Legionary dont fit at all.
I used to be in favor of byz having legionary but now I think more about it, it doesn’t actually fit. However, I still believe they should have a unique infantry upgrade from long sword and I think Varangian guard is a perfect replacement instead of legionary.
Varangians are ok but not very “byzantine”. It would be like giving Romans something like “Alan foederati” instead of legionaries. It would fit but it’s not something you would define Roman.
For what I know skoutatos is still the best option for a mid byzantine civ.
I think byzantines are nothing but medieval Greeks and should have a Greek kind of unit rather than a Latin or Norse one. Yeah I know some people still cling to the idea of byzantines being the same as Romans however their people were arguably never Romans but Hellenes (subjugated by a Roman army) and the army gradually lost what romanity was left during late antiquity to revert back to Greco Hellenic sounding names and titles but with a new Christian sensibility… That’s what “byzantine” basically mean and even if the term is invented it makes more sense to me than “Romans” to refer to the Eastern empire from 700 AD on.
From 750 circa on (fall of the exarchate of Italy) Romans were basically just in Rome except for some few exceptions in old western provinces. The first duces of Venice (later doges) were more Romans than byzantine contemporaries… People like magister militum per Venetia Dominicus Leo for example.
All of this why? Idk I like talking about this stuff like a broken record.
flamethrower
4 Likes
Alright, THIS needs to be on Byzantine’s siege workshop ASAP