Byzantium/Romans info for warband 1200

not sure if anyone did the research yet so
Byzantine Empire
Religion: Orthodox
map location: http://www.mmdtkw.org/MedRom0415-EmpireMap1200AD.jpg
Emperor/ Basileus: Alexios III Angelos, completely infective ruler
claimants for the throne:Alexios IV
senior financial advisor Alexios V Doukas

Megas domestikos (Marshall)
Strategos (vassals)
Michael I Komnenos Doukas, city Mylasa (southwestern Asia Minor)
daughters: Theodora Komnene Doukaina

specific mercenaries for Constantinople: Varangian Guard
Major cities, their towns
Constantinople
Thesselonica
Trebizond ((note) it did not officially seperate from the empire until a few weeks prior to the conquest of Constantinople.)
Athens

will edit when I get a chance to drop by the library or if someone posts some more info

Byzantium would have many contender-settlements for city status. Philippopolis should definitely be one of them (third largest city of the empire (especially in 1200), after Constantinople and Thessalonika), but Dyrrhachium and maby even Adrianople should be considered (from the Balkan ones). Perhaps also Skopie (seat of thema Bulgaria) or Ohrid (seat of autocephalous Ohrid Archbishopric).
And, oh, if we could only have a custom settlement for it and its walls...

Yes, Byzantium should have quite a number of towns... statistically speaking, probably more towns than other factions of similar size. Between that, the special configuration of the army (no nobles, etc) it's gonna be an odd, special faction to work with.

I have to go to work there is actually a very simple solution to the armies/ vassals issue

when i get back from work i will explain

Korinov said:

Yes, Byzantium should have quite a number of towns... statistically speaking, probably more towns than other factions of similar size. Between that, the special configuration of the army (no nobles, etc) it's gonna be an odd, special faction to work with.

Click to expand...

Alright so, it was during this period that the Byzantines societal structures as well as military organization were in complete disarray, the thema system had completely fallen apart a generation before. So in effect the regional governors strategos became very simmilar to the vassals of western Europe.

It was also during this time also that major financial mismanagement and political issues led to a much smaller Byzantine army, that while still being superior in many ways to the states on the western borders was spread thin.

So other than creating units and giving the vassals the title of strategos not much work will need to be done to differ it from other factions.

One feature that could be put in is to make it possible to launch a coup as they were incredibly common, and also to make it possible to if they reclaim some of the lands in the Balkans and Anatolia to create some reforms or at the least return them to a byzantine culture, this would only be applicable in Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania and the crimean peninsula 

The problem with making a Byzantine (though if I recall they called themselves “Romani”) list is the fact that in the period from 1071 (Manzikert) to 1204 (Constantinople) the Imperial armies were completely mercenary in nature, the only locals to serve in some sort of armed forces were hired, trained and fought for Italian merchants (the Italians had completely dominated trade in the eastern Mediterranean by this time and used them to safeguard investments in the region).

Byzantine armies at this time were recruited from several sources, most notably:

Turko and Hunno ethnic Nomads from the Black Sea steppe: Serving as light cavalry (naturally) these men made up the vast majority of the soldiers available to Romani generals though their primary responsibility were tax collection and suppression of dissent (The empires population was very heavily taxed and needed very little provocation to rebel). Surprisingly enough they also made up the most loyal elements of the Imperial armies (bar perhaps the Varangian guard, providing they were paid what they demanded).

Italians: Serving as infantry, mostly crossbowmen.  They’re primary function was garrisoning fortresses and cities. Of course they tended to be more loyal to their relatives in Italy than to the Byzantines.

Sicilian Normans: Serving as heavy cavalry (no surprise). These men were not seen as often as the Byzantines would like as they demanded and received very large sums of money for their service.

English: At this time these men dominated the Varangian Guard and served primarily as cavalry (knights were not fond of fighting on foot after all). Of course their main duty was protecting the Emperor from his subjects and, more crucially, his courtiers.

Armenians: Tended to serve as heavy cavalry and infantry.

All mercenaries fought in their own, “national” equipment, though often enough made in Byzantium as part of their pay. I will stress, however, that even if the equipment was made in Byzantium it was made to suit the taste of those who would be using it in appearance and style of use.

I don’t know how an army list consisting entirely of mercenaries would be introduced into the game…

Would it be too much to ask the mod writers what sort of concept they have concerning the Byzantine army?

niczego said:

The problem with making a Byzantine (though if I recall they called themselves “Romani”) list is the fact that in the period from 1071 (Manzikert) to 1204 (Constantinople) the Imperial armies were completely mercenary in nature, the only locals to serve in some sort of armed forces were hired, trained and fought for Italian merchants (the Italians had completely dominated trade in the eastern Mediterranean by this time and used them to safeguard investments in the region).

Click to expand...

Romaioi (which means "Romans", yes).
I have to go out soon, so I haven't read everything yet (will do so when I come back), but I have to point out the Byzantine army certainly wasn't composed only of mercenaries. I'm not sure if the stratiotes still existed, but I am pretty sure that the pronoia system was quite well in place and provided the Byzantine army with either the pronoiars themselves or troops the pronoiars sent (somewhat similar to the knights in the West - either knights or... what was the term - schildgeld?). Though, yes, mercenaries played an important role, especially under the Angeloi, the worst dynasty in Byzantine history.
Here's a couple of Wiki-articles on the matter, btw (haven't read them yet either):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_military#The_army_during_the_Komnenian_dynasty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komnenian_army

What about Cesar's research? If I remember correctly, he had some big plans for the Byzantine Empire.
Did he already do any research, or he was just planning to do?
I ask because if there is something that Cesar already researched, there isn't a point in discussing/repeating those things.

NikeBG said:

but Dyrrhachium and maby even Adrianople should be considered (from the Balkan ones).

Click to expand...

Dyrrachium will be present in the next version, but as a Sicilian settlement, not Byzantine.

Hmm, true that...

Anyway, about the mercenaries issue:

Byzantine Army Wiki said:

Native troops were organised into regular units and stationed in both the Asian and European provinces. Komnenian armies were also often reinforced by allied contingents from the Principality of Antioch, Serbia and Hungary, yet even so they generally consisted of about two-thirds Byzantine troops to one-third foreigners.

Click to expand...

Komnenian Byzantine Army Wiki said:

In 1200, the field army numbered 30,000 men while the entire army was estimated at 60,000 men (of which 15,000 men were foreign mercenaries).[9][10] Constantinople had a permanent garrison of 10,000 troops not including the 5,000 Varangians garrisoned in the two Imperial palaces.[11]

Click to expand...

So the mercenaries were still not the majority, although they had "An increasing reliance on foreign mercenaries, which also contributed to the Byzantine Navy's decline." Although, of course, I presume the foreign contingents that were settled in the empire's lands (f.e. Cumans and earlier Pechenegs) are counted as native troops (especially since some of them had been settled generations ago).

Edit: Of course, we should also have CBUR's Komnenean roster in mind, though obviously a number of adjustments (related to the time period etc) would be needed.

MihailoSRB said:

What about Cesar's research? If I remember correctly, he had some big plans for the Byzantine Empire.
Did he already do any research, or he was just planning to do?
I ask because if there is something that Cesar already researched, there isn't a point in discussing/repeating those things.

Click to expand...

Yes, we'll be using what Cèsar has researched, of course. But I think we hadn't still decided 100% on the composition of the army... urban levies ("militias") weren't much of a problem, and if I'm not mistaken there was no noble troop tree but a big, varied and powerful professional one (we could even split it in two professional TTs). About the rural one, I think we had talked about simplifying things a bit, making a single, homogeneous "roman" rural TT... that would also feature in some lands under ottoman control as well.

MihailoSRB said:

What about Cesar's research? If I remember correctly, he had some big plans for the Byzantine Empire.
Did he already do any research, or he was just planning to do?
I ask because if there is something that Cesar already researched, there isn't a point in discussing/repeating those things.

NikeBG said:

but Dyrrhachium and maby even Adrianople should be considered (from the Balkan ones).

Click to expand...

Dyrrachium will be present in the next version, but as a Sicilian settlement, not Byzantine.

Click to expand...

Dont take this for a fact, but from what I've learned in school, Durrës (Dyrrhachium) has been a byzantine city until the House of Anjou, Charles I of Naples more exactly, created Kingdom of Albania. Yett that only happened in 1271

Korinov said:

About the rural one, I think we had talked about simplifying things a bit, making a single, homogeneous "roman" rural TT... that would also feature in some lands under ottoman control as well.

Click to expand...

Ottoman control?
And what I still don't understand about this idea is what happens when the Romans conquer another castle/town and its respective village? Or what happens if, say, Bulgaria conquers a Roman castle/town and village? It would look kinda silly if Bulgaria recruits Roman peasants from Bulgarian-populated areas f.e. Is there a way to make those villages (and towns?) have their own ethnic-marker, like with all other villages across the map, but simply the Roman rural (and urban?) tree would "overlap" them, whenever they control them?

@Black_Scythe - the Normans took Dyrrhachium in 1185 (when they also sacked Thessalonika).

NikeBG said:

Ottoman control?
And what I still don't understand about this idea is what happens when the Romans conquer another castle/town and its respective village? Or what happens if, say, Bulgaria conquers a Roman castle/town and village? It would look kinda silly if Bulgaria recruits Roman peasants from Bulgarian-populated areas f.e. Is there a way to make those villages (and towns?) have their own ethnic-marker, like with all other villages across the map, but simply the Roman rural (and urban?) tree would "overlap" them, whenever they control them?

Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake 

As for the rest... I didn't say anything about the roman culture "overlapping" others... I just said that we had planned for the Byzantines to have one single rural troop tree ("roman peasant", etc). Of course, if there are villages under byzantine control but we know they were populated by vlachs, bulgarians or whatever, then those villages will have their correct culture. The usual thing. I don't see where the problem lies, really 

Ahaa, I get it now. Thanks for clearing it up!
I was left with the impression, from talking with Cesar about this years ago, that his idea was to have the Roman tree overlap the regional differences. Anyway, I think this is easier and better indeed.

Well, one solution to the mercenaries problem could be that we could create a choice for the character as well as the vassals in the form of spreading out their troops tree between the normal areas and the tavern.

So this would require them to use both the troops recruited from the cities and the mercenary corps to have an actual well rounded army.

Of course Constantinople does need Varangians to appear in its tavern as they are confirmed to have been in the city when it fell to the crusaders, in fact it was one of the only units that did fight.

Black_Scythe said:

MihailoSRB said:

Dyrrachium will be present in the next version, but as a Sicilian settlement, not Byzantine.

Click to expand...

Dont take this for a fact, but from what I've learned in school, Durrës (Dyrrhachium) has been a byzantine city until the House of Anjou, Charles I of Naples more exactly, created Kingdom of Albania. Yett that only happened in 1271

Click to expand...

Dyrrachium was Byzantine untill the 1180s, when Sicily claimed it.
Then came Venice, and than Sicily again, if I'm not mistaken, and then the Ottomans.
Meaning, when the Byzantines lost it in the 1180s, they lost it forever.

wafer said:

Well, one solution to the mercenaries problem could be that we could create a choice for the character as well as the vassals in the form of spreading out their troops tree between the normal areas and the tavern.

So this would require them to use both the troops recruited from the cities and the mercenary corps to have an actual well rounded army.

Of course Constantinople does need Varangians to appear in its tavern as they are confirmed to have been in the city when it fell to the crusaders, in fact it was one of the only units that did fight.

Click to expand...

I think it already is possible for lords to have mercenary troops in their armies (at least that's what I was told by both Cruger and Korinov, IIRC, regarding the Cuman troops in the BG armies).  Though I don't think it's necessary for the Byzantine mercenaries to be tavern mercenaries - while they also employed Cumans and other steppe nomads (Skythikon), which might be available as tavern mercenaries as well, there's still some differences between them. Especially when we consider the Latinikon or Allemani, both of which wouldn't work well as tavern mercenaries per se (and using f.e. Errant Knights for the Latinikon would look silly). Not to mention the Varangian Guard, which is quite unique.
I think those kinds of troops should be part of the regular Byzantine troops (there's not much difference in game-terms anyway - IIRC, the only difference between mercs and levies in the game is that the former are more expensive, which can be adjusted in the mod anyway). Of course, it would also look silly if you have the option f.e. to upgrade "Roman heavy infantry" to "Varangian guard" etc. (what? Romans suddenly turning into Varangians, Franks, Germans, "Scythians" etc?), so they'd probably have to be separate special troops/trees. I think that's doable too, as I've seen something like it in other mods as well (PoP and some others I can't quite remember), though it would probably require some extra coding.

MihailoSRB said:

Dyrrachium was Byzantine untill the 1180s, when Sicily claimed it.
Then came Venice, and than Sicily again, if I'm not mistaken, and then the Ottomans.
Meaning, when the Byzantines lost it in the 1180s, they lost it forever.

Click to expand...

That is if you don't count the Epirotes as Byzantines, of course, which they were.

NikeBG said:

MihailoSRB said:

Meaning, when the Byzantines lost it in the 1180s, they lost it forever.

Click to expand...

That is if you don't count the Epirotes as Byzantines, of course, which they were.

Click to expand...

I will correct myself:
Meaning, when the Byzantine Empire lost it in the 1180s, they lost it forever.

Im definitely siding with the idea that it was lost almost continuously forever, although it was briefly reclaimed by the successor states and later by the recreated Byzantine empire it was lost again permanently .

Also the Varangian troops should definitely be a unique unit in the tavern at Constantinople since the idea of normal troops being converted into them is a bit goofy, and it will let you have instant access to them.

The idea of using them as mercenaries mostly comes from the fact that it would simplify them not being Roman proper and separating their troop trees without making it unnecessarily obnoxious for the modders or people in game.

unfortunately I don't know how to mod a game like this so I can't be very helpful other than doing basic research.

I don't think the "mercenary issue" will be too much of a problem. We could just split the professional TT in two (since there's no noble TT, both mercenary TTs could be recruited in castles without any need of extra coding). So one TT could be made of "light" mercs (slavs, cumans, turks, etc) and the other one of "heavy" mercs (italians, normans, etc). Of course, I can also create some units outside the TTs, make them regular mercenaries only recruitable in the empire's taberns but also feature them in the AI's roman armies.

Since the Byzs won't have a noble TT, we can afford giving them elite troops in other TTs that other factions shouldn't have.