This is coolbert:
Bodyguard - - continued.
Varangians. The Northmen!
Far from home - - devoted again nearly to a fault, the Varangian Guard. Those Nordics, Vikings and those persons, mercenaries from what we now call the Scandinavian nations, augmented after 1066 by a contingent of "Englishmen" the personal bodyguard and military force with sworn allegiance to the Byzantine Emperor.
Functioning much as did the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome. Guarding the capital city and the personage of the sovereign ruler from both outward and inward attack! Attack from: 1. The mob run amok within the city of Constantinople [Miklagarðr (Swedish = Miklagård) (Constantinople)], a riotous, unruly and violent group of street thugs with intent of overthrowing the ruling establishment, 2. Mutinous and insurrectionist military units advancing on the capital city, attempting what we now call a coup d'etat!
"The duties and purpose of the Varangian Guard were . . . as the personal bodyguard of the emperor, swearing an oath of loyalty to him . . . They were headed by a separate officer, the akolouthos, who was usually a native Byzantine."
"The Varangian Guard was only used in battle during critical moments, or where the battle was most fierce."
"The Varangian Guard, also known as the Waring Guard or the Barbarian Guard, emerged in the 11th century in Constantinople as the bodyguard to the emperor. The first mention of this guard appears in 1034, and they were re-organized in the mid eleventh century by Romanus IV."
"Mostly this bodyguard consisted of Danes and Englishmen, many of the latter joined after the defeat at Hastings in 1066, preferring the service to the emperor to life under Norman rule back home in England.
The Varangians were ferocious fighters, with full beards and using two handed battle-axe as their preferred weapon . . . They lived under their own laws, prayed at their own church and elected their own officers."
"the Varangians became famed for their loyalty to the emperor, even their willingness to fight to the death to protect him"
The Varangians, foreigners in a foreign land, an elite military used only during the most crucial and difficult moments of a battle, accompanying the Emperor when in the field on campaign, totally reliant and trusted.
The Varangian having a role most reminiscent of the housecarl from olden times:
"In medieval Scandinavia, housecarls . . . were either non-servile menservants, or household troops in personal service of someone, equivalent to a bodyguard to Scandinavian lords and kings."
And loyal - - displaying a "willingness to fight to the death". As it was with the housecarls accompanying Harold Godwinson at Hastings it was also so with the Varangians serving the Byzantine Emperor.
Bodyguards!
coolbert.
Showing posts with label Byzantines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Byzantines. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Belisarius.
This is coolbert:
Here is a figure from ancient history, a general of the Byzantine Empire, a strategoi, a commander of some repute.
Belisarius.
"Flavius Belisarius (ca. 500[1] – 565) was one of the greatest generals of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire. He was instrumental to Emperor Justinian's ambitious project of reconquering much of the Mediterranean territory of the former Western Roman Empire"
"One of the defining features of Belisarius' career was his success despite the little or no support he received from Justinian. He is also among a select group of men considered to be the 'Last of the Romans'".
Belisarius, a military man of marked ability. In the same league as a Julius Caesar, a Napoleon, a Genghis?
A master of the combined naval and ground offensive, amphibious warfare as practiced during the time [500 A.D.]!
A man whose military conquests in large measure enabled the Byzantine Empire to enlarge by almost fifty percent [50 %] during the reign of Justinian.
[rulers whose realm increased in size are said by historians to have been successful?]
Over a period of thirty years, almost constantly in the field, Belisarius commanding the Byzantine army in battle against a variety of enemies, in various theatres of combat, enemies to include:
* Sassanids. [Persians]
* Vandals.
* Ostrogoths.
* Goths.
* Slavs and Bulgars.
Also - - a man - - Belisarius, whose life and personae have been touched upon by a wide variety of modern writers in various genres'. Literary geniuses to include:
* Isaac Asimov. "Foundation and Empire – a science fiction novel"
* Jorge Luis Borges. "the legend of Belisario as a blind beggar"
* L. Sprague de Camp. "Lest Darkness Fall – an alternate history novel"
* Robert Graves. "Count Belisarius – a novel"
* Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. "Belisarius, 19th century poem"
coolbert.
"It was for him I chased
The Persians o'er wild and waste,
As General of the East;
Night after night I lay
In their camps of yesterday;
Their forage was my feast.
For him, with sails of red,
And torches at mast-head,
Piloting the great fleet,
I swept the Afric coasts
And scattered the Vandal hosts,
Like dust in a windy street."
The Persians o'er wild and waste,
As General of the East;
Night after night I lay
In their camps of yesterday;
Their forage was my feast.
For him, with sails of red,
And torches at mast-head,
Piloting the great fleet,
I swept the Afric coasts
And scattered the Vandal hosts,
Like dust in a windy street."
Here is a figure from ancient history, a general of the Byzantine Empire, a strategoi, a commander of some repute.
Belisarius.
"Flavius Belisarius (ca. 500[1] – 565) was one of the greatest generals of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire. He was instrumental to Emperor Justinian's ambitious project of reconquering much of the Mediterranean territory of the former Western Roman Empire"
"One of the defining features of Belisarius' career was his success despite the little or no support he received from Justinian. He is also among a select group of men considered to be the 'Last of the Romans'".
Belisarius, a military man of marked ability. In the same league as a Julius Caesar, a Napoleon, a Genghis?
A master of the combined naval and ground offensive, amphibious warfare as practiced during the time [500 A.D.]!
A man whose military conquests in large measure enabled the Byzantine Empire to enlarge by almost fifty percent [50 %] during the reign of Justinian.
[rulers whose realm increased in size are said by historians to have been successful?]
Over a period of thirty years, almost constantly in the field, Belisarius commanding the Byzantine army in battle against a variety of enemies, in various theatres of combat, enemies to include:
* Sassanids. [Persians]
* Vandals.
* Ostrogoths.
* Goths.
* Slavs and Bulgars.
Also - - a man - - Belisarius, whose life and personae have been touched upon by a wide variety of modern writers in various genres'. Literary geniuses to include:
* Isaac Asimov. "Foundation and Empire – a science fiction novel"
* Jorge Luis Borges. "the legend of Belisario as a blind beggar"
* L. Sprague de Camp. "Lest Darkness Fall – an alternate history novel"
* Robert Graves. "Count Belisarius – a novel"
* Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. "Belisarius, 19th century poem"
"Ya puedes ver el tragico escenario y cada cosa en lugar debido; la espada y la ceniza para Dido y la moneda para Belisario"
"You already can see the tragic scene and each thing in place due; the sword and the ash for Dido and the currency for Belisario"
"You already can see the tragic scene and each thing in place due; the sword and the ash for Dido and the currency for Belisario"
coolbert.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Heraclius.
This is coolbert:
Here is a man who is perhaps the archetype of the warrior/king? A man who gets very marks indeed from the military historian Trevor Dupuy! Heraclius [Hercules?], the emperor of Byzantium [610]!
A man, who, when beset by enemies from all sides simultaneously, was able to re-organize his army, almost singlehandedly, and then LEAD his troops, personal fashion, into combat. LEAD and emerge victorious against all odds.
[a man leading and fighting in the fashion of the English kings Arthur, Alfred, Henry, Richard.]
A man, also, establishing [this is disputed to some degree] an institutionalized legacy that enabled the Byzantines to last as a sovereign entity for eight hundred years longer.
According to Dupuy:
"Heraclius became emperor at Constantinople in 610, when it appeared that the Byzantine Empire was about to disintegrate from a combination of internal decay and corruption and apparently irresistible external threats from east [Persian] and west [Avars]. When he died thirty-one years later, he had eliminated both of the external threats and established a sound administrative system as a basis for a sturdy military organization and political region control. A new external threat [Muslim Arabs] had appeared, but the system bequeathed to them by Heraclius enabled his successors to hold that threat a bay for more than eight centuries."
Again, according to Dupuy, after re-organizing his defeated and dispirited army:
"[Heraclius began] six years of campaigning in which Heraclius fought the Persians across eastern Anatolia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Media, and Persia itself. He won battle after battle"
Also, NOT neglecting the Avar threat, Heraclius:
"supervise[d] the construction of new fortifications to cover the approaches to the city [Constantinople] from the north and west and to conduct occasional raids against the Black Sea coast of the Avar kingdom."
[make the enemy bleed, make him wonder where you are coming from, make him keep his head down!! - - G.S. Patton.]
Finally defeating an alliance comprised of Avars and Persians, "Heraclius supervised a series of campaigns that soon cleared the Avars from the region south of the Danube."
In response to yet one more threat [Muslim Arab], at a latter stage of his reign:
"Heraclius contented himself by organizing the security of Anatolia with the theme system, which was to become the basis for Byzantine military organization and regional governments for centuries to come." [this is disputed?]
Again, we find the history of the Byzantine gettidng short shrift by the scholars? NOT held in high esteem as it perhaps should be? Who else has never heard of Heraclius?
Heraclius was not only the archetype of the warrior/king, but he had outstanding intuitive military understanding of combined arms [navy/army] and how to keep the enemy off balance! And an excellent administrator to boot. Rare combinations to find all in one man!
AND, ONCE MORE, ALL THE WHILE PERSONALLY LEADING HIS TROOPS INTO COMBAT!! MOST SUCCESSFULLY SO!!
coolbert.
Here is a man who is perhaps the archetype of the warrior/king? A man who gets very marks indeed from the military historian Trevor Dupuy! Heraclius [Hercules?], the emperor of Byzantium [610]!
A man, who, when beset by enemies from all sides simultaneously, was able to re-organize his army, almost singlehandedly, and then LEAD his troops, personal fashion, into combat. LEAD and emerge victorious against all odds.
[a man leading and fighting in the fashion of the English kings Arthur, Alfred, Henry, Richard.]
A man, also, establishing [this is disputed to some degree] an institutionalized legacy that enabled the Byzantines to last as a sovereign entity for eight hundred years longer.
According to Dupuy:
"Heraclius became emperor at Constantinople in 610, when it appeared that the Byzantine Empire was about to disintegrate from a combination of internal decay and corruption and apparently irresistible external threats from east [Persian] and west [Avars]. When he died thirty-one years later, he had eliminated both of the external threats and established a sound administrative system as a basis for a sturdy military organization and political region control. A new external threat [Muslim Arabs] had appeared, but the system bequeathed to them by Heraclius enabled his successors to hold that threat a bay for more than eight centuries."
Again, according to Dupuy, after re-organizing his defeated and dispirited army:
"[Heraclius began] six years of campaigning in which Heraclius fought the Persians across eastern Anatolia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Media, and Persia itself. He won battle after battle"
Also, NOT neglecting the Avar threat, Heraclius:
"supervise[d] the construction of new fortifications to cover the approaches to the city [Constantinople] from the north and west and to conduct occasional raids against the Black Sea coast of the Avar kingdom."
[make the enemy bleed, make him wonder where you are coming from, make him keep his head down!! - - G.S. Patton.]
Finally defeating an alliance comprised of Avars and Persians, "Heraclius supervised a series of campaigns that soon cleared the Avars from the region south of the Danube."
In response to yet one more threat [Muslim Arab], at a latter stage of his reign:
"Heraclius contented himself by organizing the security of Anatolia with the theme system, which was to become the basis for Byzantine military organization and regional governments for centuries to come." [this is disputed?]
Again, we find the history of the Byzantine gettidng short shrift by the scholars? NOT held in high esteem as it perhaps should be? Who else has never heard of Heraclius?
Heraclius was not only the archetype of the warrior/king, but he had outstanding intuitive military understanding of combined arms [navy/army] and how to keep the enemy off balance! And an excellent administrator to boot. Rare combinations to find all in one man!
AND, ONCE MORE, ALL THE WHILE PERSONALLY LEADING HIS TROOPS INTO COMBAT!! MOST SUCCESSFULLY SO!!
coolbert.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Byzantines
This is coolbert:
Here is reprinted in almost entirety, an account of how the Byzantines saved western civilization and Europe from Islamic conquest.
Should be considered and appreciated as a military victory over the Muslims that is of the same consequence as the Frankish defeat of Abd al Rahman at Tours?
A high-water mark of history? Thus and no further. At least for a period of over seven hundred years in the case of the Byzantines.
Thanks here to Raymond Ibrahim through JihadWatch. And also to Robert Spencer.
My comments in [brackets] of course.
"The year was 715, and one Suleiman had risen to the caliphate. He immediately made it clear that he would be the one Muslim who would fulfill Muhammad’s prophecy that Constantinople would eventually be subsumed into the umma [Islamic nation world-wide]. After spending nearly two years mustering the Muslims and preparing a massive navy, he unleashed the full might of the caliphate: the chroniclers say that 120,000 infantry and cavalry, along with 80,000 seamen, were sent to seal Constantinople’s fate. To further give his 'blessing' to this campaign, and evincing how seriously he took it, he appointed his own brother, Maslama, at the head of the land army."
"While making their way through that great desolate no-man’s land between the Byzantine and Umayyad empires, where certain Turkic tribes (then mushrikin) [mushrikin = pagan unbelievers] frequented the region, the Muslims would often wait till near dawn, and then shout in mass 'Allahu Akbar!' (God is greatest), attacking and slaying all in their path. According to the Muslim chronicler al-Tabari, 'The inhabitants of the city were filled with terror the likes of which they had never experienced before. All they saw were Muslims in their midst screaming ‘Allahu Akbar!’ Allah planted terror in their hearts…. The men were crucified over the course of 24 km.' (Al-Tabari goes on to explain that they did so, and were successful, in accordance to Koranic verse 3:151: 'We shall cast terror into the hearts of infidels!')"
"Simultaneously, the Muslim fleets were on their way to the Bosporus. Luckily for Constantinople, Leo III came to power [Byzantine Emperor], since it was in part due to his many stratagems that the Muslims were repulsed. (Tabari simply relates that Leo continuously duped Maslama, as if the latter were 'a silly plaything of a woman.') "
"At any rate, the Byzantine war-ships, which had recently come to utilize a new 'secret weapon' commonly known as 'fire-water' or 'Greek fire,' [the exact chemical composition of Greek Fire is unknown to this day?] according to Theophanes, set ablaze almost the entire Muslim fleet. After this Christian victory, the Byzantines settled into their fortified city for the winter, and let the elements have their way with Maslama’s massive land force. According to the chroniclers, this was by far one of the harshest winters; many thousands of Muslims perished of starvation and disease. Says Theophanes: 'Some even say they put dead men and their own dung in pans, kneaded this, and ate it. A plague-like disease descended on them, and destroyed a countless throng.' The second sentence verifies the veracity of the first."
"The new caliph, Omar II (the ambitious Suleiman had by now died of 'indigestion,' apparently after consuming two baskets of eggs and figs, followed by marrow and sugar for dessert) had just assumed the caliphate. After many Muslims had died out on the frontiers (where snow lasted on the earth for 100 days), Omar finally sent reinforcements and supplies. It was by now spring, and the Muslims tried one last effort. The chroniclers relay that some 800 ships were sent from Alexandria and North Africa to the Bosporus, this time on guard against the Greek fire. Maslama had also renewed the siege."
"Delivery for Constantinople came from the least expected source—the Egyptian crew of the Alexandrian ships. During the night, they all fled to Constantinople, acclaiming the Christian emperor. Why? Because they were all primarily still Christian—Copts—and, contrary to the many apologetics that suggest the Copts 'welcomed' the invading Muslims [Egypt prior to the Islamic invasion was Christian [Coptic persuasion], and to this day, 10 % of the Egyptian population is still Christian], as this anecdote clearly reveals, had no great love for Islamic rule. Theophanes says that, as the Copts were fleeing in desertion to the city, 'the sea looked entirely made of wood.' Taking advantage of this, Leo released from the citadel once again the fire-ships. Considering the loss of manpower with the Copts’ desertion, the confrontation was more a rout than a battle."
"Finally, and due to Leo’s 'diplomatic' overtures to the warlike Bulgars [still a pagan people at the time?], he managed to get this Turkic people to attack Maslama’s already wearied army—killing, according to the chroniclers, 22,000 Muslims. It was over, and, on August 15th, 718, the siege was lifted, and the dejected Muslim army made its way back to Dar al-Islam."
"Though many historians have rightly hailed the somewhat contemporary Battle of Tours of 732, where Charles the Hammer repulsed the invading Muslim armies, as one of the most decisive victories for Western civilization, in fact, the Byzantine victory over the Muslims is more important: it had the full backing of the caliphate, and consisted of far greater manpower. Had the Muslims won, and since Byzantium was the bulwark of Europe’s eastern flank, there would have been nothing in their way from turning the whole of Europe into the north-western appendage of Dar al-Islam [House of Islam. Within the "fold" of of Islam]."
15 August, 718, a date that will live in history? Hardly thought of anymore? But ask yourself this - - is Tours ever thought of anymore, remembered, or even casually mentioned in the history of Europe, etc.?
The Byzantines in general are given short shrift by historians? Quite a remarkable people if one considers that their civilization [empire] existed in some form for about 1,000 years. And can be considered in some regard as a continutation of the prior Roman Empire? In that case you are talking about a continuity that lasted for almost 2,000 years!!!
The Orthodox persuasion of Christianity too is also not held in high regard by Catholic or Protestant historians? This should not be the case! The earliest forms of Christianity are remarkably similiar to current Orthodoxy!? And when one considers the various other forms of "eastern" Christianity, to include the Copts, Maronites, Nestorians, Chaldeans, Armenians, Ethiopians, etc., there is a very long and amazing history that "western" Christians should not ignore!!
Raymond Ibrahim is wise to remind us of this particular Byzantine military success?
I think so! Otherwise, no reprint in almost entirety.
coolbert.
Here is reprinted in almost entirety, an account of how the Byzantines saved western civilization and Europe from Islamic conquest.
Should be considered and appreciated as a military victory over the Muslims that is of the same consequence as the Frankish defeat of Abd al Rahman at Tours?
A high-water mark of history? Thus and no further. At least for a period of over seven hundred years in the case of the Byzantines.
Thanks here to Raymond Ibrahim through JihadWatch. And also to Robert Spencer.
My comments in [brackets] of course.
"The year was 715, and one Suleiman had risen to the caliphate. He immediately made it clear that he would be the one Muslim who would fulfill Muhammad’s prophecy that Constantinople would eventually be subsumed into the umma [Islamic nation world-wide]. After spending nearly two years mustering the Muslims and preparing a massive navy, he unleashed the full might of the caliphate: the chroniclers say that 120,000 infantry and cavalry, along with 80,000 seamen, were sent to seal Constantinople’s fate. To further give his 'blessing' to this campaign, and evincing how seriously he took it, he appointed his own brother, Maslama, at the head of the land army."
"While making their way through that great desolate no-man’s land between the Byzantine and Umayyad empires, where certain Turkic tribes (then mushrikin) [mushrikin = pagan unbelievers] frequented the region, the Muslims would often wait till near dawn, and then shout in mass 'Allahu Akbar!' (God is greatest), attacking and slaying all in their path. According to the Muslim chronicler al-Tabari, 'The inhabitants of the city were filled with terror the likes of which they had never experienced before. All they saw were Muslims in their midst screaming ‘Allahu Akbar!’ Allah planted terror in their hearts…. The men were crucified over the course of 24 km.' (Al-Tabari goes on to explain that they did so, and were successful, in accordance to Koranic verse 3:151: 'We shall cast terror into the hearts of infidels!')"
"Simultaneously, the Muslim fleets were on their way to the Bosporus. Luckily for Constantinople, Leo III came to power [Byzantine Emperor], since it was in part due to his many stratagems that the Muslims were repulsed. (Tabari simply relates that Leo continuously duped Maslama, as if the latter were 'a silly plaything of a woman.') "
"At any rate, the Byzantine war-ships, which had recently come to utilize a new 'secret weapon' commonly known as 'fire-water' or 'Greek fire,' [the exact chemical composition of Greek Fire is unknown to this day?] according to Theophanes, set ablaze almost the entire Muslim fleet. After this Christian victory, the Byzantines settled into their fortified city for the winter, and let the elements have their way with Maslama’s massive land force. According to the chroniclers, this was by far one of the harshest winters; many thousands of Muslims perished of starvation and disease. Says Theophanes: 'Some even say they put dead men and their own dung in pans, kneaded this, and ate it. A plague-like disease descended on them, and destroyed a countless throng.' The second sentence verifies the veracity of the first."
"The new caliph, Omar II (the ambitious Suleiman had by now died of 'indigestion,' apparently after consuming two baskets of eggs and figs, followed by marrow and sugar for dessert) had just assumed the caliphate. After many Muslims had died out on the frontiers (where snow lasted on the earth for 100 days), Omar finally sent reinforcements and supplies. It was by now spring, and the Muslims tried one last effort. The chroniclers relay that some 800 ships were sent from Alexandria and North Africa to the Bosporus, this time on guard against the Greek fire. Maslama had also renewed the siege."
"Delivery for Constantinople came from the least expected source—the Egyptian crew of the Alexandrian ships. During the night, they all fled to Constantinople, acclaiming the Christian emperor. Why? Because they were all primarily still Christian—Copts—and, contrary to the many apologetics that suggest the Copts 'welcomed' the invading Muslims [Egypt prior to the Islamic invasion was Christian [Coptic persuasion], and to this day, 10 % of the Egyptian population is still Christian], as this anecdote clearly reveals, had no great love for Islamic rule. Theophanes says that, as the Copts were fleeing in desertion to the city, 'the sea looked entirely made of wood.' Taking advantage of this, Leo released from the citadel once again the fire-ships. Considering the loss of manpower with the Copts’ desertion, the confrontation was more a rout than a battle."
"Finally, and due to Leo’s 'diplomatic' overtures to the warlike Bulgars [still a pagan people at the time?], he managed to get this Turkic people to attack Maslama’s already wearied army—killing, according to the chroniclers, 22,000 Muslims. It was over, and, on August 15th, 718, the siege was lifted, and the dejected Muslim army made its way back to Dar al-Islam."
"Though many historians have rightly hailed the somewhat contemporary Battle of Tours of 732, where Charles the Hammer repulsed the invading Muslim armies, as one of the most decisive victories for Western civilization, in fact, the Byzantine victory over the Muslims is more important: it had the full backing of the caliphate, and consisted of far greater manpower. Had the Muslims won, and since Byzantium was the bulwark of Europe’s eastern flank, there would have been nothing in their way from turning the whole of Europe into the north-western appendage of Dar al-Islam [House of Islam. Within the "fold" of of Islam]."
15 August, 718, a date that will live in history? Hardly thought of anymore? But ask yourself this - - is Tours ever thought of anymore, remembered, or even casually mentioned in the history of Europe, etc.?
The Byzantines in general are given short shrift by historians? Quite a remarkable people if one considers that their civilization [empire] existed in some form for about 1,000 years. And can be considered in some regard as a continutation of the prior Roman Empire? In that case you are talking about a continuity that lasted for almost 2,000 years!!!
The Orthodox persuasion of Christianity too is also not held in high regard by Catholic or Protestant historians? This should not be the case! The earliest forms of Christianity are remarkably similiar to current Orthodoxy!? And when one considers the various other forms of "eastern" Christianity, to include the Copts, Maronites, Nestorians, Chaldeans, Armenians, Ethiopians, etc., there is a very long and amazing history that "western" Christians should not ignore!!
Raymond Ibrahim is wise to remind us of this particular Byzantine military success?
I think so! Otherwise, no reprint in almost entirety.
coolbert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
