Bartusis -- Late Byzantine Army

De Re Militari | Book Reviews

Mark C. Bartusis

The Late Byzantine Army: Arms and

Society, 1204-1453
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. 438pp.
$34.95. ISBN-13: 978-0812216202.

An ailing economy handcuffed the Byzantine army and its

eventual collapse restricted the army’s scope to merely
defensive operations, thereby sealing the fate of the Byzantine
Empire. In The Late Byzantine Army: Arms and Society, 1204-
1453, Mark Bartusis argues that the success or lack thereof of
the Byzantine army had a direct causal relationship to the
Byzantine Empire. “The successes and failures of the
Byzantine army determined the size, longevity, and even the
tone of life within the empire. And as an institution, it reflected
the problems and possibilities inherent within Byzantine
society.” (p. 8) Rather than a traditional military history,
Bartusis examines the Byzantine army from an administrative
and institutional standpoint drawing much of his evidence from
memoirs, especially John VI Kantakouzenos, military manuals,
and legal documents. The author’s linguistic dexterity was
tested in this undertaking because most of the material was
culled from Slavic, Latin, Greek, and Turkish sources.

The book is divided into two general parts. The first part (ch.
1-6) provides a chronological assessment of the declining
Byzantine army and Empire, analyzing and synthesizing a
broad corpus of secondary literature while alerting the reader
to key concepts that will be addressed in the second part. The second part (ch. 7-14) attempts to dissect the
Byzantine army by looking at each of its constituent parts and examining how the Byzantine army functioned
and operated as a shadow of its former self.

Part two is where Bartusis’ scholarship shines and deepens our understanding of the complexities of the
period. The first four chapters consist of eloquent expositions of the compositional makeup of the Byzantine
army with especially strong discussions of pronoairs, mercenaries, professional soldiers, and peasant/free
soldiers and their relationship to the army and the continuation of the Empire. The subsequent chapters
discuss how soldiers were paid, recruited, and mustered to service, and how campaigns were conducted and
administered. Of particular interest to this reviewer were the two chapters devoted to the varieties of guards
and their unique services. An intriguing look at guard service, especially palace guard service, is a highlight
of the book but regrettably fails to include the critical study of the Varangians by Sigfus Blöndal.[1] Despite
this shortcoming, Bartusis’ rigorous examination affirms many of Blöndal’s conclusions and suggests that the
Varangians were indeed a powerful force in Byzantine society. The last section is an archaeological
exploration of weapons and equipment followed by a concluding chapter that soundly reaffirms Bartusis’
conclusions and its corresponding evidence.

Bartusis has taken great care in constructing his arguments and organized it with the reader in mind. Each
successive chapter builds upon the previous and flows unencumbered by superfluous details or digressions.
One of the great strengths of this monograph is its unrelenting focus. Little will distract the reader from his
task because of the forethought that went into its preparation. This format is welcome, in this reader’s
opinion, because one could easily lose sight of important themes and debates in a quagmire of foreign place
names, personalities, and other terms. Bartusis guides his readers effortlessly through a plethora of
information with relative ease.

This book is a bold statement consolidating a large amount of disparate material into a readable whole. The
original thinking that lay behind its creation and its careful production impressed this reader. Bartusis has
made a respectable contribution to Byzantine, Balkan, and Ottoman studies. However, such contributions
are rarely generated over night but rather assimilated over years of painstaking research and reflection.
John W. Barker’s review in the American Historical Review is the sole review to notify prospective readers
that the present volume was first conceived as a series of articles. A decade after the first article was
published, Bartusis thought it prudent to consolidate his extensive research, accumulated knowledge, and
findings into a single comprehensive volume to the benefit of his readers.

General themes Bartusis stresses are the gradual deterioration of the Byzantine economy and its negative
impact upon the performance of the army. The critical point to remember, Bartusis emphasizes, is that a
sluggish economy provided few viable options and because cash was scarce, creativity would have to be

http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Bartusis_LateByzantineArmy.htm[7/25/2016 3:41:33 PM]

Bartusis -- Late Byzantine Army

employed to entice men to serve in the army. One such program was pronoia. It helped to relieve the
pressure exerted upon an insolvent treasury while supplying a meager force of men through land revenues
and other entitlements to fight when called upon by the Emperor. Such a program was ingenious because it
conscripted men willing to serve without having to add a further burden upon a treasury on the edge of
collapse. Another consequence of a weak economy was the small size of the army. According to Bartusis’
figures, the army could not have been larger than a few thousand men when it defended Constantinople in
1453. Moreover, the Emperor was forced to rely even more upon mercenary forces, no matter how
uncomfortable their stay within the Empire may become. Furthermore, the majority of these mercenaries did
as much harm as good (the Catalans come to mind). No longer a homogenous construct, the Byzantine
army transformed over the centuries into a melting pot of ethnicities whose loyalty remained only as long as
gold filled their purses. No better example illustrates this point than the token force defending
Constantinople against the Turks – the army was composed of more Latin mercenaries than Byzantine
Greeks.

After 1204, competing rivals sought to control the city and fought to become the Imperial heir. John
Vatatzes vanquished his opponents and consolidated power quickly. Vatatzes assimilated the Cumans and
assuaged the hostile highlanders of Asia Minor transforming them into a buffer zone. These policies were
continued and expanded under his successor Michael VIII (1289-82). Michael was a dynamic ruler known as
a brilliant military organizer and a ‘master diplomat’: “It is testimony to Michael’s abilities that he could be
warring on three fronts and still deal with unforeseen developments.” (p. 64 and 54) Byzantium’s
geographical location was the bane of Michael’s reign because his mission was to restore the pre-1204
borders of the Empire but was constantly harassed by strategic incursions and threats along those borders.
A brilliant military leader and diplomat Michael may have been, but his ill-fated decision to uproot and
transplant Eastern peoples from Asia Minor to the Balkans was perhaps his greatest blunder. It can be
argued that the long-term consequences of this action predetermined the future direction and eventual
dissolution of the Empire in 1453.

Andronikos II (1282-1328) inherited a shaky economy but continued Michael’s military policies. Seeking to
cut costs, Andronikos reduced the size of the fleet and became embroiled in a dispute that exhausted the
treasury and put Byzantium in an awkward position between Venice and Genoa until 1302. This diplomatic
mis-step proved disastrous to the economy and Andronikos resorted to withholding salaries of state officials
and soldiers and heavy taxation in Asia Minor upsetting powerful magnates. It was during this period that
Andronikos recruited the Alans because of their unique horse-archer skills to augment a beleaguered army
but failed to settle them permanently in Asia Minor. Roger de Flor’s Catalans were welcomed into the Empire
in order to work alongside the Alans but only brought dissension and proved to be a greater threat because
of their propensity for wanton destruction. Nowhere is it more clear how important the lack of a homogenous
Greek Byzantine army was during these periods of crisis. Reliance upon foreign mercenaries was a two-
edged sword. They showed time and again how fickle their loyalties were and how easily their bloodlust
could be turned upon their benefactors. This led to the first of three civil wars (1321-57) which grew out of
failed policies, the loss of Asia Minor, a growing population of displaced peoples and refugees, the Catalan
debacle, and high taxes.

By the mid-fourteenth century, Byzantium had shrunk to the city of Constantinople and its surrounding
hinterland, “owing its pathetic existence solely to the Sultan’s pleasure.” (p. 103) Power politics were again
to exert a powerful presence and determine the health of the Byzantine Empire. The Turks toyed with the
Byzantines forcing them to retreat behind the imposing Theodosian walls for protection. Meanwhile, the
Turks began to focus their gaze intensely upon Byzantium and the Balkans. For decades the Byzantines were
able to repulse the Ottomans but the ascension of Mehmet II brought about the fall of Constantinople in 55
days using the dreaded goliath of a cannon that was reported to be 25 feet in length and ejected 1,200lb.
projectiles with ease. Its mere presence was enough to demoralize even the most hardened soldiers and the
majority of those present defending Constantinople’s walls were Latin mercenaries. Small numbers of
defenders, poor cooperation among the mercenaries, and limited resources brought about the fall of
Constantinople. If the Ottomans did not possess gunpowder or the newest technological advancements in
projectile warfare, it is reasonable to conclude, as Bartusis has, that the Empire may well have not fallen.
This is a remarkable statement but one that speaks to the quality and character of the Byzantines. They
were an ancient people who were the inheritors and guarantors of an accumulated knowledge and wisdom
handed down from generation to generation since the time of Rome; their longevity, in spite of a lackluster
field army, heavy reliance upon foreign mercenaries, enemies pressing from all directions, and a bankrupt
economy, is an enduring monument to their adaptability. It shows just how tough it was to subdue and
conquer a people who refused to accept defeat. Three successive Ottoman rulers could not do what Mehmet
II did in 55 days! Cannon and gunpowder were the difference between victory and defeat. The Byzantines
possessed an innate resilience and, perhaps, that was the key attribute that define the Byzantine army and
Empire and their desire to endure.

As noted earlier, the fascinating study of Blöndal is absent from the discussion entirely and does not even
merit a basic reference in the extensive bibliography. In fairness, Bartusis’ study does a fine job collating the
source materials and presenting a clear picture of the various Palace guard corps serving the Emperor
without the benefit of Blöndal’s analysis. For those unfamiliar with the palace guards who served the
Emperor, this may seem an excessive criticism but this reader believes the omission of such a valuable
study such as Blöndal’s is grave enough to merit attention. Perhaps, in Bartusis’ estimation, the palace
guards were not as pivotal since they were not part of the army proper but their exalted station attests to

http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Bartusis_LateByzantineArmy.htm[7/25/2016 3:41:33 PM]

Bartusis -- Late Byzantine Army

their inestimable value in the eyes of the Emperors. Bartusis includes basic information concerning the
largest and most feared contingent of palace guard – the Varangians. More than a palace guard, they were
the Imperial bodyguard trusted and relied upon to execute orders in complete obedience. For this and other
reasons, they were often charged with unsavory tasks, such as guarding high-profile prisoners, torturing
those who defied the Emperor, and intimidating any who dare oppose the Emperor. It is probable that
Bartusis underestimates their true value and the scope of their duties. Bartusis states the Varangians were a
supplemental force; if Blöndal’s monograph had been consulted, Bartusis may have amended this erroneous
statement.

On balance, however, Bartusis manages to offer a fairly accurate picture of the Varangians that can be
pieced together from his text. The sources he does draw upon note that the Varangians wielded axes.
Another source, Adam of Usk, noted this peculiar feature of men bearing axes as well in 1404, which leads
one to the conclusion that the Varangians were still a functioning unit at the dawn of the fifteenth century, a
conclusion not found in Blöndal’s (p. 275). Bartusis concludes that it is probable that the Varangians “had
maintained their ethnic identity, their military role, and their reputation” leaving the reader with a one-
dimensional view of the most feared palace guard (p. 276). An excellent opportunity was missed by Bartusis
to explore the changing ethnic composition of the Varangians and his concluding statement that their ethnic
composition remained intact is flawed. Furthermore, a discussion of Varangian service at strategic garrison
locations throughout the Empire is missing and this may partly be due to the author’s ignorance further
illustrating the necessity of Blöndal’s thoughtful study. However, the author admits that his study on
garrisons is far from authoritative because of the scanty source materials. For this and the reasons discussed
above, it would have behooved Bartusis to consult Blöndal’s groundbreaking study. It is unlikely that he is
unaware of or unfamiliar with its publication because of the appeal of the topic.

Feudalism was a socio-military construct that governed day-to-day affairs in Western Europe but should not
be, according to Bartusis, accepted as a thriving institution in Byzantium. The East-West feudal connection
was first made by George Ostrogorsky in the 1950s and has not been seriously challenged for decades.
Bartusis shatters Ostrogorsky’s romanticized vision of feudal ties between Western Europe and Byzantium
while systematically presenting the fundamental differences between the Western fief and Byzantine
pronoia. Pronoia shares “undeniable similarities” with the fief, its procurement and administration through
the bonds of vassalage but there are more “substantial differences” that make pronoia antithetical and
irreconcilable to the Western concept of feudalism (p. 182-3).

The first distinction is that the grant of pronoia came directly from the Emperor. Such a grant was purely a
fiscal transaction and bore none of the personal touches found in the bequests of a fief in the feudal
relationship. A personal relationship was entirely lacking from this arrangement. As Susan Reynolds has
argued, the personal relationship between a lord and vassal was the key condition of that relationship.[2]
Without it, feudalism could not function as it did. The second key distinction was that the land could not
legally belong to the pronoair. The only rights the pronoair had regarding the land was to the income
generated from it. A third distinction is that feudalism and fiefs were commonplace in Western Europe; in
Byzantium, pronoia were limited and Bartusis notes that they are scarcely mentioned in the sources, giving
more credence to the fact that this institution was selective in nature and not a significant part of the fabric
of society. There are aspects concerning pronoia, however, open to speculation and debate because the
sources do not tell the complete story and leave many details to the imagination thus allowing an ember of
hope to burn for scholars who do not agree with Bartusis. A stronger connection can be made between the
Turkish iqta and timar according to Bartusis and the similarity between these social constructs as “striking”
(p. 185). Further research should illuminate our understanding of these social constructs and their
development while deemphasizing the faulty link between Western feudalism, the fief, and Byzantine
pronoia.

A bankrupt economy haunted Byzantium and its effects are best seen in the army. Unable to pay soldiers
timely or outfit them appropriately, recruitment dwindled until the army had no other choice than to rely
predominantly upon mercenaries. Directives issued by Michael and Andronikos accelerated the decay and
helped bring about the future dismantling of the Empire. Their myopic visions may have addressed short-
term problems but produced long-term consequences the Empire could not withstand. The Byzantines
possessed strong character qualities and were adept diplomats but they could not continue unchecked
forever and the Ottomans dealt the deathblow in quick order. Everett Wheeler’s thoughts are worth
pondering as we conclude this discussion of Byzantium and its fall: what is most impressive is not the
circumstances of Byzantium’s fall, but that they lasted as long as they did.

Notes

[1] Sigfús Blö

ndal and Benedikt S Benedikz, The Varangians of Byzantium: an aspect of Byzantine
military history (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).

[2] Susan Reynolds. Fiefs and Vassals. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).

Christopher Berg

http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Bartusis_LateByzantineArmy.htm[7/25/2016 3:41:33 PM]

Bartusis -- Late Byzantine Army

Sam Houston State University <Cwb004@shsu.edu>

Page Added: AUgust 2011

http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Bartusis_LateByzantineArmy.htm[7/25/2016 3:41:33 PM]