In the previous video we saw how the middle Byzantine army was organized into the provincial
Themes and the Imperial Tagmata, and how it was equipped to fight its adversaries,
namely the Muslims and the Bulgars. However, the catastrophic battle of Manzikert resulted in
huge loss of lands for the Empire in Anatolia and consequently weakened the theme system.
Despite the reforms that were enacted as early as during the reign of Alexios I
in the late 11th century and later during the Palaiologoi era,
the Byzantine army would never be able to reclaim its past glory and would remain a shadow of
itself until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Welcome to our video on the late Byzantine army.
We use many sources for research and inspiration, and nothing inspired us more to make this series
than the documentary called Byzantium, Crusaders, and Venice from the sponsors of today’s video
and the documentary platform of our choice - MagellanTV.
This documentary explains the intersection of Eastern Roman, Venetian, and Crusader interests,
why they so often were opposing each other due to a variety of political, cultural, and religious
reasons, and it was essential for our research of this series on Byzantine history. Byzantium,
Crusaders, and Venice is part of the series called Empire Builders, which talks about various empires
throughout history, including Rome, Britain, Spain, and many more and we recommend it to
all history buffs! You can join us and watch this documentary by using our link in the description!
However, MagellanTV has much more than that – there are more than 3000 documentaries waiting
for you, and hundreds of them are on the history of various eras. New ones are added weekly and
all of them are in 4k and available on most devices, including phones and pcs. MagellanTV
has a kind and exclusive offer for our viewers that we highly recommend you taking advantage
of it! Click the link in the description to get a one-month free trial and watch hundreds
of history documentaries anytime, anywhere! The most known of the reforms introduced under
the rule of Alexios I Komnenos was called the pronoia system. The pronoiai were grants of the
revenue of the land and the labour services the inhabitants of the district owed to the
state. The fiscal rights were bestowed to an individual by the Emperor and they were generally
claims on taxes burdening the peasants and immovable property such mills, mines, docks, etc.
The pronoiar, as the one receiving the grant was called, appropriated the fiscal rights only over
properties which the Byzantine state itself owned and since revenue sources varied from region to
region so too did the forms of the grants. Like their predecessors, the theme soldiers of the
middle Byzantine era, the pronoia-holders characterized the military of their age.
They might not have been the more numerous type of soldiers nor the most important but they are what
represents the Late Byzantine army better. The pronoiars were, most often natives of the Empire,
though there were foreigners whose remuneration was tied to the land,
yet unlike the thematic soldiers, their employer was the central government,
not the local administration. Thus he was not a provincial soldier but one of the central army and
was consequently quite often an absentee landlord. This should not create a misconception that
they were full-time military men, as they were reservists that were called upon when needed and
otherwise his taxes would be used to raise troops elsewhere. The wealthiest were also accompanied by
small retinues, the largest not exceeding 80 men, while the norm was probably a mere handful. These
men were called oikeioi or kinsmen, and sometimes were supplemented by household mercenaries.
They were expected to fight as heavy cavalrymen while the infantry was provided by smallholders
who had been granted land to cultivate, though even in their case it wouldn’t have been necessary
to do the farming work themselves and they could instead lease the land to peasants.
The pronoia system has a lot of similarities with Western feudalism yet there are substantial
differences: Unlike fiefs, the pronoiai could only be granted by the Emperor and thus couldn’t be
subdivided. Furthermore, the land was technically still owned by the state, and was not the personal
property of the pronoiar who had only been granted the fiscal rights to it. Thus, unlike serfs,
the paroikoi were free men, able to buy and sell the property or move from their village.
The pronoiars, whether poor or rich, were still soldiers and therefore had
to be organized into units. Unfortunately, late Byzantine authors are inconsistent
and use archaic terminology. Yet there is one term that is tightly connected to the pronoia soldiers,
the allagia.. Commanded by the allagator, who was the equivalent of a dux or the modern day major,
these units probably consisted of 300 to 500 men. In the “Chronicle of Morea”, general Constantine
Palaiologos had 18 allagia for a total of 6000 pronoiars which would mean around 330 men in each.
Theoretically speaking, they could be subdivided into smaller units of 100, 50 or 10 men and going
up in the scale, several of them could be merged to form taxeis, syntaxeis, lochoi, and tagmata.
The latter shouldn’t be confused with the Imperial Tagmata of the earlier centuries.
Byzantine sources also mention some different “types” of allagia if we could possibly call
them. These are the vasilika (imperial), the megala (great) and the authentika.
The first type most probably refers to units that were part of the Imperial Guards,
while the great allagia are likely to have been large contingents,
the size of a modern day brigade. It’s likely those included every soldier of the province
whether cavalry or infantry, garrisons or reserves, who were referred to as megalollagitai.
They first appeared in the 1280s under the Palaiologoi and lasted roughly a century,
as the provinces on which they were based were gradually conquered by the Ottomans and the Serbs.
From then on the organization of forces in the Byzantine army seems to be entirely ad hoc.
Of the famous guard regiments we saw in the previous episode, only the Varangian Guard
survived the death of Alexios. To them was added a regiment of Vardariotai who mainly performed
police duties. These men were of Hungarian and Cuman origin that during the reign of
the emperor John III Vatatzes had settled the upper valley of the Vardar river, hence the name.
Although viewed as foreigners in their early days, they were gradually Hellenized
until they stopped being considered mercenaries and became citizens of the empire. The Imperial
Guard also included two allagia of Paramonai, one being infantry and the other cavalry, as well as
a unit of foot archers, the Mourtatoi, who were of mixed Greco-Turkish origin or Christianized Turks,
and there was also the mace-armed bodyguard of marines, clad in their distinctive breastplate
adorned with white lions, the Tzakones. Finally, Nicephorus Gregoras mentions that the emperor
John VI Kantakouzenos had as private guard an allagion of 500 Catalans led by Juan Pelatra.
It is from a contemporary of John Kantakouzenos, Theodore Palaiologos’ work called “Instructions”,
that we learn more about the armour used at the time. Theodore’s work constitutes the top military
manual of the Late Byzantine era and although it uses western terminology it isn’t hard to
translate it to the Byzantine equivalents. The typical Byzantine cavalryman of the 14th century
would furnish a pourpoint, haubergeon and gorgeré, the cuiriee and some gambeson,
chapel-de-fer, sword or glaive, greaves, cuisses, with the lance and shield.
The pourpoint probably refers to a padded surcoat similar to those that existed in the Middle East.
Under the surcoat was the haubergeon or coat of mail which was worn in a great variety,
either short or long-sleeved, knee or waist long, and with attached or separate mittens.
Some late Byzantine soldiers, however, preferred to wear cuirasses on top or in place of the
hauberks. These were made out of metallic or hardened leather lamellae resembling those
of Turco-Mongolic origin. The gorgeré was a kind of neck guard either mail or plate.
Contemporary Byzantine art depicts various kinds of neck guards, rigid or semi-rigid made of iron
lamellae or hardened leather. However, the cuiriee Theodore mentions, which was a leather garment
worn under the hauberk is not mentioned nor seen in Byzantine sources. Finally, the most common
type of helmet used during the late Byzantine era was the chapel-de-fer, literally the iron hat.
Its shape ranged from conical to roundish and its brim was either flat and wide or narrow and
sloping downwards. As with previous helmet designs, it wasn’t unusual for it to have
attached mail aventails or be worn over a mail hood. The defensive equipment of
the typical cavalryman was completed with a large shield of an elongated triangular
design, the often called “Norman” shield. On the other hand, it is not a secret
that the infantry branch constituted the Achilles’ heel of the Late Byzantine armies.
It was separated into heavy and light infantry that fought as spearmen and archers respectively.
The spearmen, the so-called kontaratoi, were armed with a long spear, a sword,
and a large western-type almond-shaped shield. Their armour was usually leather or chainmail with
the first ranks often wearing extra protection. In battle they deployed in formations four ranks deep
and unlike their predecessors they had no archers to support them as part of the same unit.
The archers themselves were divided into two subcategories. On one hand,
there were well-equipped and disciplined units able to even defend themselves in melee combat,
however, these troops were limited in numbers. Much larger and common was the second type that
consisted of unarmoured archers that besides their bow were only equipped with a dagger or knife.
From the end of the 13th century, these men weren’t even professional soldiers
but instead peasants that were called to fulfill their duties towards the state.
During the 14th century, a large percentage of the Byzantine archers abandoned the traditional
composite bow for the western crossbow, which the Byzantines called tzagra. These men constituted
a separate force and were commanded by the stratopedarches ton tzangratoron.
Famed archers were also many of the Cretans who served in the Byzantine army of that period
with great distinction and whom Doukas describes as the Empire’s most faithful subjects.
Characteristic of their bravery and loyalty is the story of the Cretans that fought during the siege
of Constantinople in 1453. It is possible that these men were part of a guard unit,
the existence of which was recorded in 1422. But whether guardsmen or not the Cretans showed such
great tenacity in their task of defending three towers near the Blachernae palace
that the Ottomans allowed them to leave the City unmolested.
While archers and crossbowmen constituted the vast majority of missile troops of the time, by the
late 14th century a new technology was spreading in the Balkans, gunpowder artillery followed by
handguns. Despite the fact that the Byzantines knew of the existence of firearms by 1392 at the
latest, the virtually nonexistent economic sources of the Empire meant that it was impossible for
them to participate in this late medieval arms race and it’s unlikely they possessed their own
until 1422 when according to Chalkokondyles cannons were used to defend the walls of
Constantinople from the Ottoman besiegers. These guns were probably acquired from Venice or Genoa.
Any new cannons Byzantium obtained after 1422 were given as gifts from various European states, and
so far there is no evidence that the Byzantines ever manufactured their own. The only known record
of a cannon-founder in the area of Constantinople is that of the Hungarian Orban who had offered his
services to the Byzantines in 1452, one year before the Ottomans would capture the city,
but the Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos could not afford his high salary demands nor
could supply the materials necessary for the gun’s construction. Thus Orban approached the
Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II and was given abundant funds and materials to create a giant gun
that would demolish the City’s walls. Ironically the Hungarian engineer would die during the siege
by one of his own creations when a cannon exploded claiming the lives of both him and the crew.
The Byzantines also used artillery during the siege of 1453, however, their guns were not as
numerous as the Ottomans, and contemporary historians that were also eye-witnesses
inform us that their discharge “shook the walls, and did more damage to them than the enemy”.
Leonard of Chios adds that because of a shortage of both powder and projectiles, the guns could not
be fired very often, but when they did they caused a great number of casualties in the Turkish camp.
From two instances during the siege of 1453, we can see that the Byzantines not only
lacked artillery but also lacked comprehensive knowledge regarding its deployment and usage.
This inability to understand how artillery was supposed to operate seems to have created
frictions amongst the defenders as Leonard of Chios informs us that Loukas Notaras
denied Giovanni Giustiniani’s request to use the city’s cannons to defend his section of the wall.
The second incident revolves around an unlucky anonymous gunner that served the
largest cannon the Byzantines used. According to Chalkokondyles when the gun exploded, which was
a common occurrence at the time, the gunner was accused of having received bribes from the Turks.
The smaller firearms for which the Byzantines had several names like molybdobolon (lead-thrower),
skopeta or touphax, might not have even been adopted by the Byzantines at all.
The only evidence we have is the suspicious account of Doukas who in 1462 wrote that the
Byzantines during the siege of 1453 shot lead balls which were propelled by powder,
5 and 10 at a time, and as small as Pontic walnuts”. However, it is known that among
the Italian defenders of Constantinople there were some equipped with handguns.
The limited artillery and the unimpressive number of defenders that had gathered to
defend Constantinople in 1453 was in fact a small miracle accomplished through the hard
labour of Constantine Palaiologos. Despite his efforts, however, the small, ill-trained,
and ill-equipped Byzantine army couldn’t defend against the might of the Ottoman besiegers.
The conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans signaled the end of the Empire and consequently
the end of the Imperial Army as a constitution that had existed for over a thousand years.
However, we still have a few more episodes on the Byzantine Army on the way,
so make sure you are subscribed and have pressed the bell button to see it.
Please, consider liking, commenting, and sharing - it helps immensely. Our videos would be impossible
without our kind patrons and youtube channel members, whose ranks you can join via the links
in the description to know our schedule, get early access to our videos, access our discord,
and much more. This is the Kings and Generals channel, and we will catch you on the next one.