If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.
You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!
Comments (2)
Anonymous said
at 6:56 pm on Apr 16, 2006
With respect to the various Byzantine lists, I wonder if a Dynastic approach would be more descriptive.
Hence, Heraclean Dynasty for the early wars against the Srabs and Umayyad Caliphate, then say Isaurian-Phyrygian for the second stage, and conclude with the Macedonian Dynasty and the 10th C offensives...
Anonymous said
at 1:09 am on Mar 28, 2007
A dynastic approach has some merit, but might not be entirely relevant over the entire period.
For the early parts of our period the rise and fall of dynasties, the Heraclian dynasty for example, pretty neatly correspond to major changes in the fortunes of the Byzantine armies.
There would be a bit of a problem in the later parts of the period, though. The Macedonian dynasty in particular is a bit problematic. The army of Basil I (late 8th C) did not differ significantly from that of his predecessor. The major change really occurs in the 950s-960s with the shift to a more professioanl and offensive-minded army.
The Thematic lists could perhaps be renamed, Isaurian-Phrygian might work as you suggest. On the other hand, this is the period in which the army really is based on the Thematic forces.... Not sure here.
The real candidate for being renamed would, I think, be Nikephorian. How about 'The age of the Soldier Emperors' or 'Later Macedonian Dynasty'?
Not sure.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.