Official list of factions and Q&A about them

[AnthoniusII]

Anthonius I believe tries to point out that the art of war was a science in Constantinople, and that the Eastern Roman commanders had more theoretical training than their Western counterparts. Now theory is one thing, and practice another, as evidenced by history, wehere not every single Eastern Roman Emperor was a great tactician - some were, and some were not. The Eastern Romans devoted considerable effort to study their enemies, devising manuals for dealing with them and copying successfull tactics and weapons. However, as evidenced by the plentiful defeats they had to endure against pretty much all their neighbors, great theoretical knowledge and training was not enough to ensure victory. Anthonius has a good point about overtaxation creating internal dissent and helping bring about the collapse of the Empire, but I think he should also consider giving the deserved credit to the Byzantine enemies', especially since one of these enemies succeeded in creating an Empire of proportions, similar tot hos of the Eastern Roman Empire at the end of Justinian's reign. At the end Western and Turkish tactics and military technology simply proved to be better.

You have a point when you say that in the end other factions overcome the art of war the byzantines.Economical reasons but most of all the way they saw the world as part of thinging forced them to stick to nonmodern ways of life and war.Even they had artilery in the last years of the empires life they didn't have clear tactics for it.For examle the first nations developded artilery tactics where a:the ottomans,b:the french.According to arabs and byzantine historians of medeival time western military thinging focused around chivalry (bravery) and force of strait attack.Westerns beleived that bravery solves any problem in the battlefield and the opponets should behaive the same way.All other ways of thinging where ways of sniky and cowerd.The only sence of tactics they had was obout whedge or square formations...They didn't understand mouvements on the battlefield etc...When crousaders of the 1st crudade arrived outside the huge fortifided eastern cities asked byzantines for help.Anthioch falled whith ageement and not by asault...Do you see my point?

[Innocentius]

You have a point when you say that in the end other factions overcome the art of war the byzantines.Economical reasons but most of all the way they saw the world as part of thinging forced them to stick to nonmodern ways of life and war.Even they had artilery in the last years of the empires life they didn't have clear tactics for it.For examle the first nations developded artilery tactics where a:the ottomans,b:the french.According to arabs and byzantine historians of medeival time western military thinging focused around chivalry (bravery) and force of strait attack.Westerns beleived that bravery solves any problem in the battlefield and the opponets should behaive the same way.All other ways of thinging where ways of sniky and cowerd.The only sence of tactics they had was obout whedge or square formations...They didn't understand mouvements on the battlefield etc...When crousaders of the 1st crudade arrived outside the huge fortifided eastern cities asked byzantines for help.Anthioch falled whith ageement and not by asault...Do you see my point?

Did you even bother to read what I just wrote about two posts above?

Of course the understood manouvers on the battlefield! That's why Richard I and the Italian city-states developed their infantry and crossbow-heavy armies that could counter cavalry. The crusaders themselves were also very quick to adopt (at least somewhat) to the Saracen way of fighting. Their foot-archers and crossbowmen were often able to drive off harassing bands of horse archers, and they hired turcopoles themselves. There are also Saracen reports from the 12th century reporting how the crusaders appeared as hedgehogs as they were simply covered in arrows that did not manage to penetrate - but got stuck in - their maille.
If they asked the Byzantines for help that's no wonder, as the crusaders were an isolated army on enemy ground. Of course they could use some help of the powerful neighbour they had?

[Kavhan Isbul]

Innocentius, I agree that it would be overly-simplistic to stamp all westerners as poor tacticians, but while I am certain that they all had a good understanding of battlefield movements, the history of the Crusades is full of examples of Heavy Knights craging recklessly into the enemy, falling into ambushes and suffering defeat.
For example, after the fall of Constantinople, the newly proclaimed Latin Empire decided that it felt powerful enough to immediately go in war with its neighbor Bulgaria, despite the fact that nominally Bulgaria was Catholic and the Pope warned the Latins to remain in piece. When the armies met in front of the walls of Adrianople, the Bulgarian Tzar deployed his infantry in the swamps and forests arounf the Maritza river, and sent his auxilliary Cuman cavalry to harass the Crusaders. Apparently all the knights decided to try to charge the Cumans without waiting for any of their other troops, and the whole Latin cavalry simply took off after the Cumans without even holding its formation, falling into the ambush in the swamps and forests, which all resulted in a disastrous defeat, in which the Emperor Baldwin himself was captured.
Several years later, there was another battle between the Bulgarians and the Latins in front of Plovdiv. The Bulgarians pulled the same trick and the Latins fell for it again, which comes to show that Western Knights who faced eastern armies simply showed a complete disregard for tactical movement and relied heavily on their devastating charges.
To further illustrate the point, the lack of discipline of such Knights brought about the catastrophic losses for the Christians against the Ottomans in battles of Nicopolis and Varna. Apparently, the Western Knights chose to ignore lessons learned in the past.

[Innocentius]

I see your point there Kavhan Isbul and I know that European knights did commit some very foolish charges (like at Lake Peipus or Durbe to add more to the list). What I reacted in the first place was the statement that Byzantium was the only kingdom/empire in Europe that used tactics.

Nicopolis however is a very interesting battle. By this time most Europeans must have learnt that cavalry charges weren't very effective thanks to such battles as Bannockburn, Courtrai, Morgarten, Crécy and Poitiers, yet the "Franks" still managed to inflict relatively high casualties on the Ottomans.

[Kavhan Isbul]

I see your point there Kavhan Isbul and I know that European knights did commit some very foolish charges (like at Lake Peipus or Durbe to add more to the list). What I reacted in the first place was the statement that Byzantium was the only kingdom/empire in Europe that used tactics.

Nicopolis however is a very interesting battle. By this time most Europeans must have learnt that cavalry charges weren't very effective thanks to such battles as Bannockburn, Courtrai, Morgarten, Crécy and Poitiers, yet the "Franks" still managed to inflict relatively high casualties on the Ottomans.

Nicopolis is interesting in showing that heavy cavalry can indeed decide battles, only if used properly. The French Knights, despite inflicting serious casualties on the Ottomans, eventually were one of the main reasons for the battle's outcome, and at the same time the Serbian Heavy Cavalry's charge was another main reason why the Christians lost that day, as ironic as this was.
There is no absolute rule, and most deffinitely each medieval army had a commander with some tactical skills and knowledge, but sound tactical decisions seem to have often been ignored by over-confident Western Knights. But Byzantine and other Eastern Armies had their share of foolish charges too, just perhaps not that many as the ones for the Westerners combined.

[AnthoniusII]

I fill that i must explain my self...Historians expert in medeival era gave us the main differences betweeen byzantine and european armies of that time. Proffesional groups of soldiers existed all over the world all of eras.The main difference was that in byzantine armies still existed the ancient greek and roman sence of soldier reqruiting and unit separation like companies,battalions,divisions and army groups placed in specific military areas called themata for example.Western leaders also had a number of proffesional eskorts like sergents owned by them and not by the kingdom they served.Byzantine units proffetional or not where part of the empire's army owned by the emperor and not by their general.Generals where state's clerks and not semiindipantand vassals.A byzantine general could recongnise a unit by the colour of it's uniforms and by the shield drawings they had.For example let's imagine a division(meros) part of a thematic army group,having red as formal colour.All sub units have the same colours in uniform and on their shields.Each battalion (vandum) had it's own drawing on it's shields.A new general even from the other side of the empire could take over the managment of this numper of units and used them properly with or whithout any other emperial units like his one.Both thematic and main army groups had a numper of auxiliary units like engineers,smithers and supplay units as part of it.THIS style of army didn't exist in west europe.Vassals had to privide their armies and had the final word in their use.THAT is not what we call regular and tactical army.About tactical and stradegic manouevrability...Eastern generals byzantine,arabic even persian had a varaity of books and studies about stradegic planing and field unit development to help them to create their own style of battle.Noone can claim that there where no briliant army leaders in europe!!!There is no human race that is create only fools or genius.The huge difference was that in byzantine army elite units existed also like schools for senior army laeders, same way centurions existed in late republic and imperial roman armies... First time western lords had access in stadegic studies was after the fall of Constandinople and final after the fall of Granada.Sun gu apears as a name in europe in that time.Historians like ostrogorsky and others insist that the last regular(tactic)army in medeival era was the ottoman one copying the forgoten at that time byzantine style.Military education in military leaders in europe became fasion in renaisance.In medeival era a leader in europe relaide in his personal experience and he didn't share it whith others!!!

[Anarzius]

...

[DukeofSerbia]

Nicopolis is interesting in showing that heavy cavalry can indeed decide battles, only if used properly. The French Knights, despite inflicting serious casualties on the Ottomans, eventually were one of the main reasons for the battle's outcome, and at the same time the Serbian Heavy Cavalry's charge was another main reason why the Christians lost that day, as ironic as this was.

True. Our knights under prince Stefan smashed Hungarian center (that decided battle), which caused total anarchy in Crusading army. And we had reasons - those knights all the way pillaged through Serbia in way to Nicopolis.

[Vazul's Ghost]

OK, I know this seems off topic as this thread seems to have strayed from faction list discussion, and this could already have been covered in a previouse thread but i have to ask...

What about bulgaria as a faction?! I obviously don't mean volga bulgaria but Bulgaria. To my knowledge (which is no where near as vast as people like dukeofserbia, so feel free to eat me alive for this ) factions like serbia seemed to alternate between being controlled by the ottomans or being protected by hungary, apart from their fourty years as the serbian empire. Meanwhile bulgaria remained militarily, economically, and politically (or royally however you wish to put it) independent far more of the time. For example, the second Bulgarian empire proved to be a major thorn in the side of the hungarians and Rus. This is just speculation... and faction proposels seem to be a dead topic, just thought i should mention it...