Archive for 2010

Are the ‘Sons of the Eagles’ Byzantine?

Dec 30 2010 Published by under Albanian,Byzantine,Dacian,Illyrian,Skanderbeg,Thracian

Boris asks if the Albanian people have their roots in Byzantium.

The Albanian flag prominently displays the Byzantine double-eagle and Albanians refer to themselves as “Shqiptaret” which means “Sons of the Eagles”.  So at first blush it would seem natural to assume that the Albanians- like so many peoples in the Balkans- draw their cultural identity from Byzantium.  But is it ever really that simple?

There are hints that the Albanians are quite a bit older than they seem.  They speak an Indo-European language that is based on an ancient Balkan tongue.  Aside from Greek, it is the only modern survivor- though no one seems exactly sure which paleo-Balkan language it comes from.  The problem is that Balkan history is notorious for its invasions.  The Romans called the original inhabitants Illyrians, and they were joined by waves of Dacians, Thracians,  Slavs, and Greeks among others.

So who are the modern Albanians descended from?  This is where politics enter the mix.  The communist government after World War Two pushed the Illyrian connection to increase its prestige.  Unfortunately for the communists there are some problems with this pedigree.  The Roman writer Polybius claims there was a city called ‘Albonopolis’ in Illyria (hence the name ‘Albania’), but the original inhabitants were extinct by the time of Justinian.  The first mention we have of ‘modern’ Albanians is in 1079 when a Byzantine author referred to certain ‘Albanoi’ who took part in a revolt.  Anna Comnena mentions them rioting again during the early part of her father’s reign, and says that they were under the control of the nearby city of Dürres.

Written Albanian doesn’t appear until 1462, and appears to be more influenced by eastern Romance languages than classical Latin- meaning that the earliest it could have come into the area is late antiquity.

Of course as with any charged debate, there are plenty of dissenting voices.  Some linguists believe modern Albanian has loanwords from the time of Augustus- 85 of which don’t appear in any other Romance language.  The truth is that modern Albanians probably don’t have a single origin but are a mix of things- a microcosm of Balkan history itself.

In a way their flag is a perfect symbol.  Its Byzantine imagery hints at a deep Orthodox history but it’s really a glorification of something else entirely.  In 1443 the national hero Skanderbeg adopted it as his coat of arms and briefly managed to throw off the Ottoman yoke.  When the modern nation repeated the feat permanently in 1912, they could think of no finer symbol for their freedom.

One response so far

Did the Armenians control Byzantium?

Dec 18 2010 Published by under Armenia,Armenians,Basil,Narses,Romanus Lecapenus

Hovig asks how influential the Armenians were in the Byzantine Empire.  The short answer is ‘very’.

Armenia provided some of Byzantium’s best soldiers (there were Armenian contingents fighting in Justinian’s armies), and some of its leading early generals (most famously Narses).  The Byzantines- like the Romans- were always a heterogeneous people.  What counted was not so much ethnic origin but culture.  They would look down their noses if you dressed like a provincial or spoke with an accent, but  inject a little schooling and your children could be mixing with the blue-bloods.  The fact that Justin was a poor, uneducated peasant from the Balkans didn’t stop later emperors from claiming to be descended from his nephew Justinian, and the only reason the pathetic Zoë was allowed to rule as empress was because she was directly related to Basil I- a rough ‘hick’ from the country who murdered his way to the throne.

But to the Byzantines, Armenia marked the limits of civilization (ie Hellenism).  There were parts of Armenia where Greek never displaced the native tongue, and it was the spot where classical Greco-Roman culture faded and Persian influences (and later Arab) began.  Christianity exerted a pull toward Constantinople, but the Armenians were always fiercely independent people.  They were so stubborn that one emperor (Maurice) got fed up with dealing with them and made an agreement with the Persian Shah to deport the entire population.  Fortunately for Armenia the Shah didn’t follow through, but imperial policy for the next several centuries concentrated on deporting Armenians as a way to control troublesome spots, repopulate others, or to bolster military numbers.  Courtesy of the imperial government Armenians were settled in Cyprus, Calabria, Sicily, Crete, North Africa, and Sparta.

In the 8th century, however, things began to change.  The Arab advance had pushed the imperial army out of Armenia and a stream of refugees had come with it.  An Armenian colony had already been founded in Pergamum and in 711 a member of the colony named Bardanes managed to overthrow the emperor and for two years reigned as the emperor Philippicus.

This first experiment in Armenian emperors was not successful (Philippicus was quickly overthrown and had to serve as his successor’s footstool in the Hippodrome), but it was soon followed by a better one.  The Bulgars were raiding Thrace, and to protect Constantinople’s flank the emperor Leo IV settled a few thousand Armenians right in their path.  So many were taken prisoner back to Macedonia that the Armenians remaining in Thrace were given the nickname ‘Macedonian’.  In 867 one of them- a man named Basil- made his way to Constantinople and killed off the reigning emperor (who was actually half-Armenian himself).   Basil founded a new dynasty (the so-called “Macedonian” Dynasty) which ruled for the next 190 years.  During that time Armenians dominated the government.  The important generals, administrators, governors, bureaucrats, and at least one major historian (Genesius) were all Armenian.  Even the usurper Romanus Lecapenus who briefly elbowed aside the legitimate ‘Macedonian’ emperor was an Armenian.  It was a period of brilliance in nearly every field, and it witnessed a renaissance of learning overseen by three of the most educated men Byzantium ever produced- the Patriarch Photius, John the Grammarian, and Leo the Philosopher- all Armenians.

Basil II- the last of the “Macedonian” emperors- did start an Armenian colony in Macedonia, but that turned out to be the apogee of both Armenian influence, and imperial strength.  46 years after Basil’s death a Turkish army engaged a Byzantine one in the little Armenian town of Manzikert and the disaster led to the permanent collapse of Byzantine power.

As a final postscript I should point out that terms like ‘Armenian’ and ‘Byzantine’ are a little anachronistic.  Today we tend to think in terms of nationalities or states- the term ‘Armenian’ for instance is tied both to ethnic origin and a citizen of the country of Armenia.  This was not the case a thousand years ago.  There was no Armenia, just a collection of princes, a population sharing common dialects, and vague, shifting borders.  As for the Byzantines, their identity was tied to culture, traditions, religion, and civilization.  In other words, if you crossed yourself from right to left, dipped your bread in olive oil, and knew your Homer, than you qualified as a Roman.

If you had walked into the court of Basil II and asked him what he was, he would have given you the same answer as every one of his predecessors since Augustus.  Roman.

Then knowing Basil, you’d have your eyes put out.

11 responses so far

Movie Review: “Agora”

Dec 01 2010 Published by under Agora,Cyril,Hypatia,Movie Review,Orestes

David asks what I thought of the movie Agora.

Hollywood usually churns out bland (and increasingly re-fried) fare, consistently light on content or imagination, but this one promised to be different.  It had so many attractive points for a history nerd- the early fifth century, the ‘Byzantine’ half of the Roman Empire, the most famous library of the ancient world, and the tension between the fading classical and emerging medieval worlds.

The movie re-tells the tale of the brilliant Hypatia, a female scientist/philosopher from Alexandria who was lynched by a mob in 415.  It bases its account on Edward Gibbon who elaborated how the pagan Hypatia clashed with Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria who whipped up his followers into a superstitious fury and killed her- burning the great Library of Alexandria in their rage.  Hypatia comes across as a virtuous defender of secular rationalism (desperately gathering scrolls to save them from destruction) against the rising tide of Christian intolerance and ignorance that was drowning classical culture.

The only problem is that the story is complete nonsense.  Beyond the fact that Hypatia was indeed a philosopher who was lynched in 415, there is barely a reliable detail to be found.  Hypatia was a neo-Platonist who was hardly an opponent of the Church.  Many Christians attended her classes and she had several very prominent bishops among her inner circle of friends.  This was only natural since the heavyweights of Christian theology- Augustine, Ambrose, and Origen among others, enthusiastically supported neo-Platonism and viewed the pre-Christian philosophers as men who pointed the way to Christ without having all the details.  In a sense they had come as close to the truth as possible without the benefit of revelation.  In the fifth century Christian view the classical texts of Plato and Plotinus were valuable and needed to be preserved (that’s why we still have them today).  To portray Hypatia as the noble champion of secular reason against the dark forces of religious superstition is just silly.

But the movie seems to want to specifically push that stereotype.  It parrots Gibbon- who was deeply anti-Christian and eager to believe any smear.  He was the first to turn Hypatia’s death into a lynching by a Christian mob and he threw in the burning of the Alexandrian Library as the coup d’état of Christian ignorance.  In fact, Hypatia was killed in a turf war between the two most powerful figures of Alexandria- Orestes (the Roman governor of Egypt) and Cyril (the newly-appointed bishop).  They were feuding over ecclesiastic encroachment on secular authority and Hypatia was unlucky enough to be caught in the middle.  After some of Cyril’s supporters were killed by Orestes’ henchmen, Hypatia (a vocal supporter of Orestes) was killed in retaliation.  A terrible injustice, but hardly the victory of superstition over rationalism that the movie would have you believe.

Most egregious of all, however, is the slanderous accusation that these ignorant Christians then pillaged the great Library of Alexandria.  This unfortunate bit of mudslinging by Gibbon has been copied by nearly every anti-Christian polemic since, despite the lack of a single shred of evidence to back it up.  Though it was one of the wonders of the ancient world, the Library of Alexandria didn’t even survive the Roman Republic.  Half a millennium before Hypatia’s birth, it was destroyed by Julius Caesar when he was fending off Cleopatra’s brother/husband in 48 BC.  A temple to the Egyptian god Serapis was built on the ruins and if it housed any scrolls they were destroyed in the riots of 391- a full 21 years before Hypatia’s death.

Agora could have been a fascinating story- certainly the time period is interesting enough.  Instead, it is yet another tired example of a progressive agenda that was already worn out in Gibbon’s time.

6 responses so far

Where is Belisarius buried?

Nov 17 2010 Published by under Belisarius

Nate asks where Belisarius was buried.  This is sort of the Byzantine equivalent of Princess Di and Mother Teresa dying in the same week.  Had the latter expired at any other time it would have made international headlines, but the shock of the tragic royal death drowned out everything else for several weeks in September of 1997.  Belisarius was likewise forgotten.  He died in the same year as the emperor Justinian and- as if that news wasn’t big enough to overshadow him- the historian Procopius also perished leaving the great general’s final resting place unrecorded.  We can, however, make an educated guess.

Belisarius was tremendously popular throughout his career and lived out his last years on his estates on the Asiatic side of the Bosporus.  There were two churches in the vicinity (Saint’s Peter and Paul), and my guess is that he was buried there.  You can still visit the area- now the Turkish district of Kadıköy- but there is little to see.  Aside from the occasional Byzantine arch or bit of masonry, the Roman past has been largely obliterated.  (a disgraceful situation since it is also the site of the famous Council of Chalcedon)  Of course Belisarius may still be there.  If it was still visible, his tomb was probably destroyed during the Turkish conquest of the area in the 14th century, but the raiders would have had little interest in the bones within.  Either they were scattered to mix with the soil, or they are lying in some undiscovered crypt.

I’m choosing to believe the latter.

3 responses so far

Did the Byzantines invent lacrosse?

Strictly speaking no.  The term ‘lacrosse’ was coined in 1637 by a French Jesuit missionary named Jean de Brébeuf who was watching some Iroquois play a tribal game.  What he described, however, had very little in common with the sport played today.  Games could last several days, were played on fields that could be several miles long (and wide), and some matches had teams numbering in the hundreds.  The game was started by throwing the ball against the official’s head- an interesting choice considering the balls were large objects made of deerskin, clay, wood, and occasionally stone.  The modern rules for the game weren’t applied till 1867 when a Canadian dentist named William George Beers founded the first official club and standardized the game.

So what’s the Byzantine connection?  In the 5th century the emperor Theodosius II brought the game of ‘Tyzkanion’ to Constantinople.  This unpronounceable sport was soon all the rage among the upper crust.  It was played on horseback by two small teams of equal size each carrying a wooden stick with a net on the end.  A small leather ball the size of an apple was placed at the center of a field and each team would have to scoop it up and throw it toward the opposing goal.  Basil I was such a devotee that he built an official course on the grounds of the imperial palace and several emperors personally competed (one even died falling off his horse).  In the 12th century visiting French Crusaders caught the tyzakanion fever and brought it back to France.  They didn’t see the need for horses, so they modified it to be played on foot and changed the name to ‘chicane’.  This slowly evolved into the game ‘la soule’ or ‘choule’ which French settlers brought with them to Canada.  In 1867 William George Beers mixed the Native American and European sports and the modern game was born.

It’s not a straight line, but I think it’s fair to say that if lacrosse has an Iroquois mother, it may also have a Byzantine father.

One response so far

What was the point of the Byzantine Senate?

Nov 03 2010 Published by under Byzantine Senate,Heraclius,Justinian,Nika Riots,Senate

It’s the morning after an election and as luck would have it Shane asks a political question- what did the Senate do other than enrich itself and plot?

Aristotle first observed that ‘man is a political animal’ and as far as senators go that animal hasn’t changed in more than 2,000 years.

From the beginning Byzantine senators were lured east by the perks- free grain and land at the state’s expense.  There were relatively few duties to get in the way of enjoying the good life.  While the Roman Empire held on to the conceit that it was a Republic long after any trace of representative government had vanished- as late as the 6th century it was still issuing coins proclaiming the Republic- actual responsibilities were few and far between.  There was an obscure clause in one of Justinian’s law codes that said any new law had to be discussed by the Senate, but it was never enforced.  Their sole administrative duty was to manage the spending of money on the exhibition of games or public works.  This was not a highly lucrative job, so most senators (there were 2,000 of them) used the office for tax reasons- namely to escape the fees levied on others. (the more things change…)

Of course the Senate never quite forgot its august history and there were sporadic attempts to grasp real power.  In 532 they participated in the Nika Riots hoping to replace Justinian with one of their own members.  (Justinian repaid them by confiscating the Senate House and turning it into a reception hall for the Great Palace.)  In 608 they elected Heraclius as Consul, then elevated him to emperor against the usurper Phocas.  On his deathbed in 641, Heraclius thanked them by entrusting his young son Heraklonas to their care.  The Senate promptly deposed the boy and replaced him with a grandson of Heraclius named Constans II.  For the next three years the empire was openly ruled by the Senate- the first time since the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC.

That turned out to be the swan song of senatorial ambition.  After Constans came of age their importance quickly declined.  The Macedonian emperors stripped them of most of their remaining duties and the Senate was turned into a glorified imperial court.  Ordinary criminals were given a jury of 5 senators chosen by lot, while high treason involved the whole body.  There was still a whiff of prestige attached to the name, but Alexius Comnenus did away with that by allowing anyone to purchase senatorial rank directly from the emperor.

Their last known act was to elect a man named Nicholaus Kanabus as emperor in opposition to the pathetic Isaac II during the fourth Crusade.  Nicholaus- a gentle man- immediately fled to the Hagia Sophia and refused to come out.  But his resistance to the imperial summons failed to save him.  Another man seized control of the government, and as a warning to any challengers had Nicholaus dragged out of the church and strangled.

5 responses so far

If Basil I was illiterate how good could Byzantine education be?

Nov 01 2010 Published by under 12 Byzantine Rulers,Byzantine,Byzantine education

Nick asks how good the Byzantine educational system really was if the founder (Basil I) of its most illustrious dynasty was illiterate.

The average literacy rate for Byzantium probably averaged around 30%- which may not seem particularly high by contemporary standards, but for comparison’s sake is higher than 18th century France.  Of course there were the inevitable ups and downs- the 7th and 8th centuries are known as the ‘Byzantine dark ages’ where the literacy rate probably plunged well below 30%- but on the whole imperial subjects were better educated than their western brethren.

The fact that several emperors (Basil I and Justin I) were illiterate is not surprising considering the class they came from.  They were both peasants  (a swineherd and a shepherd), and as such had little time or money for school.  Once they gained the throne, however, they made sure their successors had the finest education available- and the remarkable thing is just how good that education was.  Justin was followed by Justinian and Basil by Leo the Wise, both famous for their scholarship and considered among the most erudite of rulers.

The fact that a good education was available was due in large part to the excellent university of Constantinople.  When it was founded in the 5th century it had 31 chairs: 10 each for Greek and Latin grammar, 2 for law, 1 for philosophy and 8 for rhetoric.  It was underwritten by the state and provided instant access to education for both genders of the nobility- during the latter half of the Macedonian Dynasty literacy among the aristocratic class probably was nearly universal.

The middle classes could also expect a practical education.  Byzantine clerks, notaries, and accountants had several years of training and government officials could measure land with a small margin of error.  Workmen routinely constructed items which were considered miraculous in the west- Thophilus’ famous elevated throne and golden lions that roared, a 9th century system of fire beacons that relied on synchronized clocks, buildings like the Hagia Sophia, aqueducts, silks, glass, and ceramics, as well as the famous silk industry.  None of this would have been possible without a widespread specialized education.

The real question is how much the poor had access to any of this.  The University of Constantinople was funded by the state even through the troubled ‘dark age’, but the vast majority of the imperial citizens lived outside the capital.  In fact the lack of education in the countryside became somewhat of an issue for the imperial government.  In their law codes both Leo VI and Justinian complain about the woeful state of ‘knowledge’ among peasants, and they authorized wills to be witnessed by ‘ignorant’ people if a literate one couldn’t be found.  In 867 Basil I (who could certainly sympathize) ordered that fiscal documents should write out the fractions to be more easily understood by peasants.

It’s tempting to think that the poor were all uneducated- and the vast majority of them most likely were- but there are a few hints that this might not be universally so.  Saints’ lives- which were popular throughout imperial history- frequently mention in passing the schooling that even impoverished holy men received before entering the church.  In addition, important imperial proclamations were posted in public (implying that someone could read them) and archeological sites have turned up thousands of stone slabs, wooden tablets, potsherds, and papyri, covered by inscriptions, signatures, transactions, accounts and contracts.  These combined with the inevitable graffiti that appeared on public walls down through the centuries testifies to the essential role of writing- even during the dark times- in Byzantine daily life.

The illiteracy of Basil I (and Justin) was seen as embarrassing by the court- and was considered rare enough that it needed to be pointed out.  Basil’s great grandson Constantine VII (a prolific author in his own right) went to great lengths to excuse his ancestor’s intellectual inadequacies, while making sure his offspring didn’t share it.

In the end, if Basil’s illiteracy represents a failure of the Byzantine educational system, by its very rarity it also brings into sharp relief how many times that same system succeeded.

One response so far

Why did the Caliphate fear Justinian II?

Oct 15 2010 Published by under Caliphate,Justinian II

Derrick asks how Justinian II was able to exact tribute from the Caliphate.  Though certainly colorful, the great, great grandson of Heraclius was a disastrous emperor.  Only 17 when he took the throne, his heavy taxes soon made him unpopular with the rank and file, and his disdain for the Senate alienated the nobility.  After a decade he was so despised that a mob in the Hippodrome deposed him, cut off his nose and split his tongue.  Somehow he managed to claw his way back from exile (with replacement gold nose in tow), sneak into Constantinople through an unguarded aqueduct and regain his crown.  The next six years were spent killing anyone who looked at him sideways until the fed up population overthrew him again- this time cutting off his head to be sure there wasn’t a third reign.

So how did such a dreadful leader manage to exact tribute from the Caliphate?  That was largely through the hard work of his father Constantine IV and grandfather Constans II.  They had energetically opposed the surging armies of Islam and largely stabilized the eastern provinces of the empire.  Constantine IV even forced Caliph Abd al-Malik into signing a peace treaty and started to think about going on the offensive, but he died at age 35 before any serious preparations had been made.  Fortunately for the empire the new emperor Justinian II was an unknown quantity and Al-Malik, concerned about revolts within the Caliphate and fearing new Byzantine attacks decided not to risk it.  He renewed the treaty, sweetening the pot by agreeing to increase the yearly tribute and share the income from Armenia, Iberia, and Cyprus.

It must have seemed at first as if the Arabs got the better end of the deal.  Justinian spent the next five years demonstrating that he had fully inherited his family’s military ability. A campaign against the Slavs restored the Balkans to imperial control and a second one drove the Bulgars out of northern Greece.  Turning east, he swept into Armenia and Iberia and the show of strength convinced the Caliph to increase the annual tribute.  By now, however, Justinian II had convinced himself he was his famous namesake and was no longer satisfied with tribute.  He drafted the defeated Slavs into his army and invaded the Caliphate.  The conscripted soldiers took the first opportunity to desert and the outnumbered Byzantines were easily routed.  The Arabs seized Armenia and Justinian II returned to Constantinople to find the populace fed up with his overbearing ways and the taxes needed to fight his never-ending wars.

By the time he regained his throne the pain and suffering had unhinged his mind.  The international situation had drastically changed during his ten years in exile, but all he cared about was revenge.   As the frontiers collapsed around him he descended into a bloody reign of terror.  The empire paid the price of his negligence.  Only six years after his death an Arab army was at the gates of Constantinople poised to extinguish the empire.

With this record it’s hardly surprising that Justinian II doesn’t fare well with historians. The golden nose and brutal reprisals tend to overshadow any more mundane accomplishments, and he’s almost never given credit for his real abilities.  The last descendant of Heraclius may have had lousy judgment, but he was no slouch on the battlefield.

2 responses so far

Did the Crusaders destroy the Byzantine Empire?

Oct 13 2010 Published by under Fourth Crusade,Lost to the West

Justin asks how crippling the Fourth Crusade was for the Byzantine Empire.

Many historians view it (with good reason) as having destroyed the empire- or at least started it on its final decline.  The most obvious impact was economic.  During the initial three days of plundering a vast amount of loot was seized- enough for the Crusaders to breathlessly report that they had captured one fourth of all the wealth in the world.  The pillaging, however, didn’t stop with the initial assault.  For the duration of the Latin kingdom of Constantinople  (roughly sixty years) relics and artwork continued to stream out of the city as hidden caches were found and houses, palaces, and churches were stripped bare.  The more prestigious articles ended up in the reliquaries of western Europe- many in cathedrals established specifically to accommodate them. (Notre Dame was built to house the head of John the Baptist)  The exodus of wealth left Constantinople impoverished and by the end of the occupation, the Latin emperors were reduced to stripping the lead off of the roofs of the imperial palaces.

When Michael VIII recovered the city in 1261 he found it in a sad, dilapidated condition- ‘shrunken like an old man in the clothes of his youth’.  Deserted houses were still sagging from the fires that had damaged them more than half a century before, and vast stretches of land were given over to weeds.  Even worse than the physical destruction was the psychological damage.  The unity of the empire was permanently shattered.  Where there had been one Orthodox Empire there were now three successor states- Nicaea, Trebizond, and Epirus- all claiming to be the same thing.  Epirus eventually succumbed to the restored power of Constantinople but Trebizond never did.  In the view of most Byzantines the relationship with the West- both moral and diplomatic- had been irrevocably sundered.  When the final end came, they would famously say ‘better the Sultan’s turban than the Pope’s mitre.’

But despite the tremendous physical and mental impact of the Fourth Crusade, is it really fair to say that it destroyed the Byzantine Empire?  In the years leading up to the Crusade Byzantium was decaying from the inside, plagued by foolish leaders, aristocratic greed, and military incompetence.  It was a very sick patient by 1204 and its illness went much deeper than a weak army or neglected defenses.  It was dying a slow death before the first Crusader showed up, and it lingered on for another 249 years after the sack.  Did the Fourth Crusade weaken the empire? Certainly.  Did it hasten its demise? Probably.  But did it destroy Byzantium? No.

3 responses so far

Would Britain be great without the Normans?

Oct 05 2010 Published by under Anglo-Saxon,Great Britain,Norman Centuries

Monty asks if Great Britain would have become a great nation without the martial input of the Normans.

Of course we can’t know for sure what would have happened if the Normans hadn’t crossed the Channel, but to answer the question briefly I think the answer is ‘no’.  Without the Normans I doubt there would even be a Great Britain much less a British Empire.  The union of Scotland and England into a new entity called Great Britain came about with the Act of Union in 1707 (Ireland wasn’t officially added until 1801), but despite the late date it was the final act in a play that had begun with William the Conqueror.

The Anglo-Saxons were always more defensively minded than the Normans.  Harold and his predecessors had contacts with the neighboring kingdoms- Godwin’s family involved themselves with both Macbeth in Scotland and Diarmait mac Maíl na mBó in Ireland- but never on a large scale.  Where they did exert themselves (the Welsh border for example) they settled for a sort of ‘over-king’ recognition.  Scotland was more organized and therefore a more difficult conquest, and if one of Harold’s successors had the inclination and ability to pull off an invasion, they most likely would have tried to impose the same kind of recognition.  Ireland on the other hand, was probably too much of a stretch even for the most ambitious Anglo-Saxon king.  The Irish Sea was notoriously difficult and the English didn’t yet see the value of a fleet.  The real obstacle to an Old English empire was the Anglo-Saxon style of fighting.  They didn’t have professional armies, and shield walls (as the name implies) are better for fending off an attack than carrying out one.

The Normans by contrast, had both the organization and more importantly the desire to invade.  They cut a swath through medieval Europe dominating the stage for over a century and rarely losing a battle.  Their heavy cavalry raids were nearly unstoppable- there is no better example than at Cerami in Sicily where 500 Norman knights smashed an army 70 times their size.  It was this martial spirit that carried Norman arms into Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and triumphed at Crécy and Poitiers.  The Act of Union- and the British Empire- was the end result of that drive.

One final postscript: I think the Anglo-Saxons generally get short-changed by historians.  The heavy cavalry charge that saw the Normans to victory in nearly every battle dramatically failed in two cases.  The first was at Hastings- the shield wall/axe-wielding huscarls more than held their own against repeated charges.  The English lost because their discipline let them down- they abandoned the higher ground in scattered groups to chase fleeing knights and were butchered out in the open.  The second case was exactly fifteen years later near the Albanian city of Dürres.  The Varangian Guard- composed largely of Anglo-Saxon refugees met the Norman army of Robert Guiscard.  Once again the Norman charge failed and the Anglo-Saxon huscarls inflicted horrendous casualties on the attacking cavalry.  Unfortunately for the English, large segments of the imperial army chose that moment to desert and the Varangians were left exposed and surrounded.  The result was a second defeat, which effectively obscured what the English had accomplished.  They might never have become a great power with a defensive mindset, but the fighting abilities of the Anglo-Saxons stopped the foremost military machine of the 11th century in its tracks.  Twice.

One response so far

Next »