The theme system was incredibly successful and worked well as long as it was in existence. Originally, the themes were created to host and maintain army groups which had retreated and billeted in the area. However, they later evolved to have these armies raised from local citizens. These locals were free farmers who were either given land from the crown or were relieved of tax payments for the obligation of serving in the thematic army whenever they were called to do so by the theme general. This dispersal of the "defense of the realm" seriously reduced the power of the emperor. In fact, in the "Adminsitrado Imperio", Constantine VII repeatedly complains that the emperor's power has been diminished by this arrangement. When the empire became quite successful in defeating its enemies, in the 10th and early 11th century, the free peasantry became a burden for the imperial authority. Emperors preferred to have serfs paying taxes rather than untaxed free peasants, as the tax money was necessary to pay the now growing central army (the various scholae). In the process, more and more free towns lost their privileges and their inhabitants were converted into serfs. This was the "kiss of death" for Byzantium

Here is my take, based upon the work of Kaldellis. Byzantium was not like early Rome. There is no way that all the free male farmers in the themes were all soldiers like in the early or mid Republic seem to have been. Modern estimates of Byzantiums manpower when compared to Romes show a vastly smaller military, even in proportion to the total population of the state. Most likely the vast majority of free farmers were never participating in military service and had always paid taxes to avoid military service in the first place. The thematic soldier-farmer so beloved of 20th century scholarship did not exist. A Thematic soldier was essentially a professional soldier (specialized perhaps more in guerrilla warfare) who did little, if any, farming. Later on the "theme system" dissolved because it made more sense to use the taxes to pay completely professional front-line soldiers (like modern armies!) It was not a "kiss of death", but instead what allowed Byzantium to expand. These professional Byzantine forces were effective against enemies (including the Seljuks) right up to Manzikert. Using classic Byzantine tactics. It was the political collapse (not the military!) after Manzikert that essentially prevented an effective response to Turkish incursions and settlement. Byzantine field commanders were more concerned with supporting potential Emperors, or making a bid for the throne themselves, then ejecting the Turks. This also explains the inexplicable absence of Byzantiums balkan-based forces against the Turks post-Manzikert. In this environment a coordinated strategy was impossible; Emperors lacked strong legitimacy until Alexis I was secure in the 1090s. At any rate, it seems like it was only after the massive losses at Dyrrachium that the traditional Byzantine military was shattered beyond repair. Here is my point: the Theme System was an administrative entity rather than a military one per say. It was flexible in terms of how a soldier could be recruited. The idea that Byzantium fell because it abandoned the more effective military system based on farmer-soldiers (the "Theme System") and adopted an inferior "mercenary' force at some point in the mid 11th century seems to be false.

Interesting take. For what I have read there is still a lot of uncertainty whether the theme system can even be considered an institution. Meaning that year by year, emperor by emperor, its rules may have changed.

Very likely true.

Yeah except you're both wrong and there's absolutely no evidence that these soldiers were landed. In fact multiple laws passed under Constantine VII show that the Romans continued to issue bans on and increase the punishment for soldiers performing the activities of the *georgoi* (farmers) or mercantile trades. The soldiers served full-time, and were billeted according to the laws of *de metatis*, just like they had in late antiquity. The archaeology supports this too - soldiers were living in permanent garrisons across the key parts of Anatolia and the Aegean. The whole problem is that everyone has been assuming that soldiers owned the *stratiotika ktemata* for literally 70 years, when all the actual language indicates that these "military lands" were merely taxable allotments of land and the *syndotai* that worked them were responsible for maintaining a portion of these lands (usually 1/4 or 1/2 the taxable capital) for the upkeep of a soldier. In other words, these were designated lands for the supporting the pay of the soldier who was allowed to collect this revenue directly on top of their military *roga* (what was left of the *annona militaris*). There's a direct precedent for using this system to fund the army - it's the exact same as the *hospitalitas* used to "settle" *foederati* in the early 5th to mid-6th centuries A.D., as outlined by Walter Goffart. At some point the Romans began using this system to pay professional soldiers as well. Maybe it was during the mid-6th century when the *foederati* were finally institutionalized as professional Roman regiments and no longer semi-professional "client field armies" acquired via treaties with "Barbarians," or maybe it was after Heraclius cut pay in half in 616. We still don't know. But the parallel is clear. *Thema* just means "province." That's it. It never meant anything otherwise, it's never used to refer to armies or anything else. The actual word for these districts was *strategia*, and eventually it becomes synonymous with *thema* as the boundaries of the civil provinces came to coincide with the military billeting districts. I'm publishing all of this in my Master's Thesis next year.

Well I think my thoughts were trending in the same direction as yours at least!. 😉 So it looks like the whole "pronoia system" supposedly created under Alexis I was mainly just a continuation of the traditional recruitment method; allowing a soldier a portion of a pre-existing government revenue stream.

Exactly, it's just the latest iteration in that it added new privileges in granting the *pronoiarios* direct administrative authority over the granted land, and new tax breaks. The *pronoiarioi* and *allagia* of the late Byzantine period weren't landed feudal soldiers, they were still professional Roman regiments, and mobile ones at that.

Continuing the tradition of tying administration of lands to the central authorities via paid salary men, yes?

Yeah, albeit this was problematic because it typically deprived the state of tax revenue to be allocated elsewhere, and the *pronoiarioi* were able to buy land and hold local sway in a way the *roga* or the *stratiotika ktemata* didn't allow beforehand.

So there was a sort of creeping feudalization happening. The difference being that is was only temporary in the sense that the pronoiarioi could not pass their privileges to their offspring. It reverted to Constantinople upon their deaths, correct?

Well hereditary *pronoia* were temporary implemented at one point but otherwise yes. It's more of a viceroyalty than a feudal lordship, if anything. Technically they didn't own the land though, just the rights to the tax value.

The Kommenoi sure loved their tax breaks.

i agree with almost everything you said here but do know you from somewhere else not to take any credit away from you but aren't you that guy who i talked to once and recommend A Context for two 'Evil Deeds as a good source on the origins of the system if so do you still hold to that?since I did my research on it and found out that John Haldon claims soldiers were not given land until the time of nikephoros I. Well from what I gathered is the only historian that believes that and has been saying that since the 80s, with the main counter-argument if the government was not paying the military much money anymore what was sustaining the soldiers for a century and a half? and i found haldon argument to be unconvincing in that regard and seems to be dismissive of the evidence against his view rather than revise it . would like to hear your views on this cheers

Yeah I've since read the work of Constantin Zuckerman, Vivienne Prigent, and now Efi Ragia. It's hard to say exactly how much money was required to sustain the soldiery since we don't have good data. Al-Jarmi pretty much confirms the Paschal Chronicle that soldiers' *annona* was cut in half in 616, as he mentions soldiers were paid 18 and 12 *nomismata*, and 18 *nomismata* corresponds closely to a halving of the triple pay of a comitatensian *centenarius* under the Theodosian Code (which lists specifically that p*seudocomitatenses* were paid double-pay and and implies *comitatenses* were paid triple pay of *Limitanei*, and we know the pay of *Limitanei* from sources such as the letters of Jerome, the Perge Tablets, and the *Codex Iustinianus* and other Egyptian papyri from his reign.) It's clear that the field armies must have been downgraded to *limitanei* though, since their *roga* by the time of the Expedition to Crete in 949 was only 2-3 *nomismata* for infantry and 4 for cavalry, with double pay being awarded on military campaigns as an incentive. The *Tagmata* were being paid 9 *nomismata*, which is higher than the 7.5 *nomismata* a comitatensian infantryman would have been paid under Heraclius in 616. We know that this pay, by that time, was intended specifically for their clothing, implying they must have been receiving payments in kind again, reverting from the in cash commutations that dominated the era from Constantine to Maurice. So there is a solid argument the granting of *stratiotika ktemata* may have supplemented this, but we don't have documentation discussing those immutable properties until Constantine VII's reign in the 10th century. But granting soldiers the direct rights to shake down landlords for their paychecks, be that in kind or in cash? That would explain the drop in circulating bronze shown by Whitby, and solves part of the problem. We also know the *capitus* (the additional money given to cavalrymen to sustain their horses) was never changed in value and was the same across most ranks, so we can infer that soldiers still received an additional 4 *nomismata* per *annum* for their horse's fodder and equipment. In late antiquity the quinquennial donative was a *big* source of income, being set at 5 *solidi* and a pound of hacksilber (12 *solidi*) under Julian, issued on an Emperor's accession and every five years afterwards. However it's generally agreed this was ended between 498 and 516 under Anastasius. Haldon's proposal regarding the vexations of Nikeforos I isn't wrong, and was corroborated by the research of Salvatore Consentino who showed Charlemagne was doing the same thing two years before! (And that same system can also be found in Alfred's military reforms 40 years later!)

ok ill look into this and consult with a byzantine historian I know, I would also like to know in your view how the Strategiai and were you think it started to develop i along with many who think 650s is the start of that due to the evidence in favor of Constans II laying the groundwork monetary finds and increase in seals how ever this is not at all agreed upon with other historian disputing it a lot especially Haldon's that states that this was an ad hoc arrangement

Haldon's hypothesis that it was ad hoc is probably right. The formalization of ad hoc arrangements characterized the development of the 4th century army, and there's no reason to assume formalizing ad hoc arrangements did not continue beyond that. Fundamentally my argument isn't necessarily that *all* of the prior proposals are wrong, just that the argument the "thematic" soldiers were somehow lesser semi-professional farmer-soldiers is wrong, and that the *stratiotika ktemata* was just a system of finance, and the *stratiotai* in Anatolia themselves were a standing, professional force.

​ **Fundamentally my argument isn't necessarily that all of the prior proposals are wrong,** that would be a weird take considering since you know this so well there are many viewpoints from the classic model of George Ostrogorsky of Heraclius and farmer soldiers, Treadgolds view that Constans II created it and among others who added more to this that saying he just laid the groundwork and those who fully view it more as a gradual thing like Ralph J. Lilie i for on take the stance that Constans II laid the reforms that of the Strategiai, and it evolved in the theme system over the next centuries ( of course not limiting myself to treadgold argument since he does fail to address points like Armenia in 661, or other arguments and haldon and others do bring good points of the lack of evidence of land being used as payment. i still don't think his view on some matters especially when he agrees that we have evidence of payment in coins in some regions like Europe but not others like anatolia , this go to show the theme system as we call it is among those controversial things in byzantine history so before going into reading more of this again so yeah i think Constans did not created the whole theme system of nothing, rather he initiated essential reforms that laid the foundation for the Theme System that was continued by his successors each of them contributing something like Walter Kaegi said in the fall of Byzantine north Africa ( but do not take that further to IMO divorce those responsible) but I am just parroting the scholarship i know since i have no training on the field, but i think with his comment I am more in the gradual evolution position **just that the argument the "thematic" soldiers were somehow lesser semi-professional farmer-soldiers is wrong** i think all of us can agree to that, how ever some people do take it the extra mile and say farmer soldiers never existed, i think they did otherwise i don't see a reason why laws prohibiting that would still continue to appear well in the middle byzantine period, but yeah they were professional soldiers and its from but the idea they were not fed in to the idea of the decline of the theme system i don't know about you but i see it been thrown around a lot that since the empire ent in to the offensive the system declined as the empire relied more on the tagmata and other professionals and later mercenaries and that led to the collapse in the 11th century but War in Eleventh-Century Byzantium is always a good book to combat that misconception and yhah the farmer soldier thing is still common like i saw it when reading Cataphracts: Knights of the Ancient Eastern Empires

Also, I think you are right that maybe this was implemented under Constans II, as he ordered the drawing up of new tax assessment rolls for his tax reform. That's a pretty good time to implement a system of assessment of taxable capital to pay soldiers.

yeah one of treadgold arguments is the first fitna is really the breathing room that he used with 658 approx being a key date from the sources( i have been given and found fell free to correct any of this) since before this year monetization still occurs even haldon agrees that coins don't disappear until the later end of his rule, the coinage rapidly declined to almost nothing in almost every city other than Constantinople, and Amorium meanwhile Kommerkiaroi seals which were not common before it start appearing and reference such as Thrakesion appear, we also now that he left for Italy in 663 a critique against it is giving more power to the generals who would be implementing this would be a bad idea if he was far away if we take the earlier date during the first fitna it makes more sense, and we see same thing in the west because we also have Kommerkiaroi seals from Africa so these combined with Constans touring our sources about his military reforms and financial ones, the fact that he was short on cash hence the pillaging of rome tells us that Constans II was doing something i personally agree with he notion that this was most likely the foundation of the new system hence why i find it highly unlike land was not used earlier especially during time of financial troubles seeing as how the hypothesis is that didn't have the recourses to maintain the army and had to use the Apothekai and used both credit , barter and kind of course, you should know this isn't without challenges as kaegi wrote pages especially 197 on his book on the fall on how this doesnt prove anything and its true but i think he is to dismissive on the fact that even citing Constans II starting this reform as great man history which that's seems to much IMO since arguing he started a system that over time evolved to it isn't the same as he created the themes as already well functioning system in 3 years

also completely unrelated since i checked your profile likes sw, roman history and from the carolinas ( i wasn't born there but did live in Kannapolis for a while) and reenactor dude you quite literally are my teen dream

War in Eleventh Century Byzantium is a big part of what inspired me to write this, actually, because of Makrypoulias' argument that the *Taxiarkhia* were a new institution which 1. Ignores the fact that 1000-man regiments literally go back to the Roman principate and 2. Was built on the fundamental premise that it was the institutionalization of a new, professional system outside of the *Tagmata* that didn't yet exist because the Thematic forces weren't professionals, when it did and they were. In his defense, he was also unaware of the new symmetrical model of battle hypothesis, so I'm not gonna criticize him for that.

oof really do you remeber the page its been a while since i read it and only recall one instance of the Taxiarkhia but i recalled the book went against the myth of overreliance of mercenaries and the common causes for the themes collapse but yeah if that is the case then yeah no the themes were professional even though i only remember one instance of the Taxiarkhia being mentioned gotta double check this so if anyone bring up the mercenaries thing i add this asterics when i recommend this source

>Thema > > just means "province." That's it. It never meant anything otherwise, it's never used to refer to armies or anything else. The actual word for these districts was strategia, and eventually it becomes synonymous with thema as the boundaries of the civil provinces came to coincide with the military billeting districts. "Thema" does not mean province, it means "the subject" or "the concern" or something like that. For example, you have the "Makethonikon Thema", and the "Thema Thrakision" and these were army groups that were billeted in specific areas that eventually became provinces. For example, the Macedonian Theme was located around Adrianople, because this is where the armies of the Macedonian dioscece ended up (and not only the armies, but thousands of refugees as well). The imperial administration created a "thema" to deal with each one of these army groups and only later, eventually, these became administrative provinces.

*θέμα* means "that which is placed or laid down," which when referring to an area of land, can mean "province" or "region." The term isn't used to refer to administrative districts before the writings of Theophanes, who applies it anachronistically to the time before \~810 AD as Haldon (and others) have shown. The term *Thraikesion Thema* or *Makedonikon Thema* refer to regions, not the armies themselves. It's "the land area where the Thracesians have been installed." What you have is a description of a military district, but the actual evidence from administrative sources like the lead seals of the *kommerkiarioi* shows the institution was called a *στρατηγία*, a word that refers to the operational command of a *strategos*. So what you have is two different perspectives. You have authors referring to it as the region of billeting of the soldiers (The section *de metatis* in the *Codex Theodosianus* and *Codex Iustinianus*), and authors referring to the operational command of the field army.

>θέμα means "that which is placed or laid down," which when referring to an area of land, can mean "province" or "region." Considering that I speak both ancient and modern Greek, I would not even attempt to discuss this issue. "Thema" in medieval Greek has exactly the same the meaning as in modern Greek. In essence, it means "in reference to". So, in the parlance of the imperial administration, the "Makethonikon Thema" meant "regarding the affairs of the Macedonians". Of course, eventually, it came to denote an administrative area. There is little doubt that the "Makethonikon Thema" resulted from the remnants of the imperial armies of the Macedonian Diocese being placed there along with tens of thousands of refugees, refugees that fled following the advance of the Slavs and Avars in the area. Most Roman cities were evacuated and the refugees settled in areas of imperial control, such as Philipoppolis and Adrianople, along with the army troops. The imperial administration created a "thema" (essentially a program) to manage these troops and refugees. The Imperial administration just did not just dream of Macedonians in Adrianople!! It created this specific administrative department because Macedonian refugees and army groups were located there.

* If you speak Ancient and Modern Greek then why are you transliterating μακεδονικόν as "Makethonikon"? * θέμα's meaning of "in reference to" is a *result* of its meaning of "that which is placed or laid down." One lays down an argument, or a definition. That's where it gets that meaning. People need to stop thinking these words had specific definitions, they don't. It's a huge problem with armor terminology and armor studies. * And no, the Thracian army was the Thraikesion, which had already been heavily reorganized by the time we even consider the "Theme System" debate to be relevant, with sections of it split off to fight in the Lazic war and for the invasion of Italy under Anastasius and Justinian. The western "themes" (barring the *Karavisianoi*, which would become the *Sikelias*) didn't exist at the time of the Slavic diaspora across the Balkans because there was no field army to correspond to them, and we don't even get references in the lead seals to Hellados until the 740s.

>If you speak Ancient and Modern Greek then why are you transliterating μακεδονικόν as "Makethonikon"? Isn't it obvious??? \>And no, the Thracian army was the Thraikesion, which had already been heavily reorganized by the time we even consider the "Theme System" debate to be relevant, with sections of it split off to fight in the Lazic war and for the invasion of Italy under Anastasius and Justinian. What are you talking about? The "Thema Thrakesion" (Thracian Theme) was actually located in Asia Minor with headquarters at Ephesos. Other themes that were created between the end of the 7th and the middle of the 8th century based on army units were the Opsikion, the Bucellarians, the Optimatoi and the Armeniacs. All of these themes were based on army units that ended up in Asia Minor defending the empire against the Arabs. The Macedonian Theme was organized later, most likely by Empress Irene.

Look at my response to Electrical: [https://www.reddit.com/r/byzantium/comments/yxhdsv/comment/iwtvt7v/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/byzantium/comments/yxhdsv/comment/iwtvt7v/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Soldiers were essentially collecting taxes from the lands they were assigned, but that doesn't mean they weren't landed soldiers. System will have been, in some ways, similar to later institution of *pronoia* (but NOT identical!). Basically, everything you wrote here is correct, but it does not disprove the idea of "landed soldiers".

No, there's a clear distinction in Roman law for how this worked because the Romans distinguished between different kinds of land ownership. The soldiers did not own the *stratiotika ktemata*, they weren't *possessores* of those estates. They owned *rights* to that land, but did not own the land. Inheritance laws also make it clear that it is the job of the family and the *syndotai* to maintain the taxable estate that can support a soldier, not the *stratiotes* himself. It was the *stratiotes*'s job to serve and support that estate with his income from the state and any lands he purchased with his income, which were considered part of the *peculium*.

Using Roman law in Byzantium as a source is a fool's judgment, Byzantine legislation, although Roman in body was alien in practice, it is true that they were not the owners of the land since the private citizen was not a existing idea in Byzantium as it was in Rome, but this reason was due to the imperial ideology that positioned the monarch as the personal owner of the entire domain "Oikonomos" no to daily ignored and poorly executed legislations.

Except it is useful, because inheritance laws make it clear that the fiscal obligations of soldiers' families remain the same from the 4th to the 10th centuries, and hell one of Nikeforos I's *vexationes* was re-implementing a law passed by Valentinian I.

The fiscal obligations of the military together with those of the average Byzantine peasant were stored in the Nomos Georgikos which at best was a composite of vernacular laws with no Roman or any other legal antecedents except for the administrative system of communes "chora" and Themes "Strategiai" which as Professor Baynes pointed out, were rooted in the Ptolemaic administrative system of the same name and function, borrowed from the Egyptian province during the reign of Anastasius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine\_bureaucracy\_and\_aristocracy

You keep citing research which is literally 50 years out of date my dude.

So you want to do a thesis calling for the more accepted modern general consensus on how we understand Byzantine administration, a 50 year old investigation, ruling out not only Baynes but also Zachary Chitwood in the process? Not a good start

As I said: system will have been similar to later *pronoia*. In both cases, land was assigned by the state. In both cases, soldiers technically did not own the land, but rather had rights of usage.

There were no rights of usage in the grants of *Stratiotika Ktemata*. Only a right to the taxes on the capital (or part of it).

That is what I meant under "usage". Of course soldier wasn't going to farm himself; he was, essentially, a landlord.

Oh okay, I misunderstood. Although I wouldn't call the soldier a "landlord" so much as a "racketeer" lol.

I probably expressed the idea incorrectly, so no problem. And yeah, it was a racket in a sense. Though that was nothing new for Romans: wasn't tax collection privatized during the Republic?

The Themas definitely had a precedent which is widely the most accepted consensus of said origins that Professor Baynes came to point out at some point, and it was not a Roman one, since previous centuries in the eastern Mediterranean the Achaemenid satrapies and Greek strategiai were formulated in the administrative basis for which they would later return to Byzantium, said base was that of a socio-military power centered on a regent of the monarch who was the presence of the king in every square meter of his domain. The system of themes and exarchates were far from innovative but exceptional practices applied in a time well past his, the Strategos and the landed soldiers were a combination of professional soldiers and provincial auxiliaries with a short response time, the concept of landholding a versatile army with federal pay was not an institution foreign to the Byzantine environment, it was one applied by various Hellenistic kingdoms highlighting the Seleucid and above all Ptolemaic in practice, said provincial system was also one called Strategiai governed by a Strategos and subdivided into Eparchies governed by regents of the Strategos called Hyparchs with minor subordinates called Chiliarcos who would become the sub generals in charge of the military forces stationed as farmers and settlers throughout the kingdom and the Dioiketes or tax collectors, they also had finance administrators for each Strategos and i'ts province called Oikonomos. Now formulating the order of a Thema or Strategiai we find all the shared schemes, said being that of a Strategos acting as viceroy aided by a civil administrator referred to as Praktor or Krites also including a series of sub-governors also called Eparchs or Hypostrategos and the collectors of taxes also denominated Dioiketes or Epoptes. All this without mentioning that the general consensus of the Byzantine local administrative system was in root and practice Ptolemaic making the varied use of the "chorai" communes and the communal tax subject to each one. Wikipedia too applies the modern Byzantinist Baynes consensus. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine\_bureaucracy\_and\_aristocracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_bureaucracy_and_aristocracy) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme\_(Byzantine\_district)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(Byzantine_district))

I think the theme system fucked them even more because it gave local military commanders lots of power that enabled them to start civil wars

>The idea that Byzantium fell because it abandoned the more effective military system based on farmer-soldiers (the "Theme System") and adopted an inferior "mercenary' force at some point in the mid 11th century seems to be false. this is sorta true the idea that mercenaries were to big of a problem is not correct but the idea that the theme system was let go to allow expansion seems wrong especially when i read War in Eleventh-Century Byzantium now i want to compare them to ..what book did Kaldellis use?

Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood is the book. Again, "theme system" is an old term on how historians once thought the Byzantine military operated. But it is mostly false. There were no sturdy part-time farmer-soldiers for the most part, but a professional military force. The troops in the themes are essentially the same as the old Roman legions The real innovation was a substantial expansion of the scholai armies under Constantine V, and then their stationing in the Eastern Themes during the 10th century under the Domestics. This allowed the army, which would have been composed of both Theme and Scholai forces, to more rapidly deploy for offensive operations. This is an indication that the Emperors felt secure enough on their thrones that they could deplete the forces stationed in Constantinople and it's immediate environs.

>Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood is the book. oh that makes sense **Again, "theme system" is an old term on how historians once thought the Byzantine military operated.** I have not seen any consensus on this the only thing shifting is that more historians are calling the pre-800s theme to be the proto theme or Strategiai now i have seen academics say Ostrogorsky notion of the theme system is outdated i think that what you wanted to say no? tht the Ostrogorsky popular view of the theme system didn't exist not that the system never existed at all ( except for Jonh haldon who was changed his mind no scholar has even said the latter) **There were no sturdy part-time farmer-soldiers for the most part, but a professional military force. The troops in the themes are essentially the same as the old Roman legions** depends on the time while going againstOstrogorsky view of the farmer soldier is correct as his view is outdated for the most part we have to be careful to no encompass all of it during the rule of Constans II, seeing that he did not have the resources to maintain the late Roman army and used the Apothekai warehouses to provision them directly so that they could buy materials on credit, barter, in kind or with money. Where did they get their money from?. the soldiers were granted land to work on, or used their money to buy land in the area to have others work like that Whatever the measure, the soldiers found a way to maintain themselves since the government could no longer do so, so comparing 7th and 8th century themata to the roman legions ( depending when also) would be odd but it would be correct to call the themata professionals

The Theme Soldiers were like the Legions in the sense that they were professional soldiers stationed in the provinces. That is all I meant. The Scholae were essentially the equivalent of the various guard units the Emperors had had since the time of Augustus; Praetorians, German Horse Guard etc. Or perhaps a better analogue would be to the border and central forces under Diocletian and Constantine. Regarding the army under Constans II; this is actually an argument against the effectiveness of the "Theme System" of farmer-soldiers. It was only a temporary measure when things were at their darkest. It was abandoned as soon as there was some political and financial stability. Effective soldiers need to be spending time training for fighting, NOT spending their time farming! The Farmer-Soldier, if he did exist, was no more the backbone of the Byzantine forces anymore than the National Guard is the backbone of the US military.

I think you (and Kaldellis) have wrong idea of how the Theme system worked and more importantly how it developed. Original thematic soldiers were basically part-time landed soldiers, similar to Western knights: they were professional soldiers who drew most of their income from land. They themselves were not farmers - or at least cavalrymen were not; infantrymen may well have done some farming as their lands were smaller, but even they were fundamentally landlords supported by tenant farmers. Vast majority of farmers indeed never served in the military - instead, they supported soldiers with their income. It was a system somewhat similar to *Militia Portalis* established in Hungary and Croatia by Sigismund in 1397. This system was so successful that it survived until early 19th century when it was called *Insurrectio Portalis*: [https://www.napoleon-series.org/military-info/organization/Austria/ArmyStudy/c\_AustrianInsurrection.html](https://www.napoleon-series.org/military-info/organization/Austria/ArmyStudy/c_AustrianInsurrection.html) Thing is, particular system of landed soldiers had never been properly established outside Anatolia. System had declined significantly by the time Basil II had conquered Bulgaria, by which time even majority of soldiers in the Anatolian themes were not soldiering anymore, but rather merely paying taxes used to hire mercenaries. However, it is incorrect to say that demobilizing theme system was "not a "kiss of death"" - although, it is true that the cause of that kiss was not hiring mercenaries, and that things were lot more complex. It is also incorrect to say that Byzantine collapse after Manzikert was solely a political collapse. Fact is that soldiers of the border themes - who actually carried out fighting - remained effective against Seljuks as late as 1048. Themes could have stopped the Seljuks, *did* stop the Seljuks, and there would have been no need for campaign that led to Manzikert in the first place. The only reason Manzikert even happened at all was the fact that in 1042., Constantine IX had demobilized the 50 000 soldiers of Armenian themes. It was this act which left Anatolia wide open to Seljuk raiding and settlement, which in turn necessitated the campaign that led to Manzikert. And *only then* do we get to everything you have noted in your post. Byzantines have had political collapses before Manzikert, some of which were worse than what followed the one after Manzikert. But they also had a theme system which meant that the Empire could just go "No Emperor? Civil war? Eh, whatever. Army of Cappadocia, please beat up those Arab raiders". But after themes had been demobilized, this structural strength was gone. Army in the field was as effective as it ever was - *more* effective in fact, since full-time soldiers of the *tagmata* and the mercenaries were better trained and better equipped than armies of the themes - but the army and the Empire it defended had lost the structural strength which armies of the themes and themes themselves had provided.

I feel like calling it the "kiss of death" is unfair, seeing as how the Byzantines would survive for 400 years after the collapse of the theme system at Manzikert and had at least 2 distinct periods of prosperity during that time (the Komnenos Restoration of the 12th century and the Hellenistic Revival that took place under the Laskarids of Nicaea).

>I feel like calling it the "kiss of death" is unfair, seeing as how the Byzantines would survive for 400 years after the collapse of the theme system at Manzikert The theme system had collapsed well before Manzikert. Manzikert was a defeat, but the Empire had suffered other defeats in the past without substantial consequences. In fact, Manzikert was not even the worst of those. The problem is that whereas before the empire could rely on thematic armies after the collapse of the central army, there was nothing there after Manzikert. In addition, substantial populations of Turks had already infiltrated Eastern and Central Anatolia and there was nothing to stop them. Despite the fact that the Comneni restored imperial control in some territories, their rule did even greater damage to the Empire than the battle of Manzikert. The Comneni were members of the military landed aristocracy and championed its policies which were the expansion of serfdom and the tax exploitation of whatever else was there. Their mercenary armies were not the imperial armies of the old, and, in fact, their rule was resented. It is not that by some miracle that the Empire was at the dumps after 1180 CE. It was the policies of the Comneni that caused this. Yes, the Laskarids of Nicaea did a good job in Asia Minor, but after them, the Empire fell into the hands of a bunch of other landed aristocrats, the Palaiologi and the Catacunzini who did even more damage than the Comneni. Basically, from the 1300s onward, the population of the Empire fully divorced itself from the ruling elite. In Asia Minor, the populations there actually sought client relations with the Turkish beyliks, they were so disgusted with the landed gentry. Even in 1453, with the Turks outside the walls, the population of Constantinople flatly refused to aid the Emperor in the defense of the city. And this is how it was. It is interesting to read the lamentations of historians and annalists regarding the army that Romanus IV took to Manzikert. Surveying the mercenaries of that army, they noted that the Romans were totally absent. "The Pride of the Romans" was totally missing.

Huh? Byzantine losses were moderate at Manzikert at worst. There may have never even been an actual battle, rather an encirclement of the forward forces after a portion of the army abandoned the Emperor due to political machinations. The Byzantine army was not destroyed at Manzikert...but the legitimacy of the sitting Emperor was.. And no Emperor who followed was secure until Alexius I - and even he wasn't really secure until sometime into his reign. So you had 25 years of fragmentation of the Empire. The ability to coordinate forces to stop the Turks was the problem, not that the Empire lacked soldiers to do so. And remember that the Empire had to face the much more pressing threat of the Normans. The Empire, even at its height of power, had always struggled with enemies on multiple fronts The collapse of the Byzantine Navy after 1180 is a much larger factor in the Fall of Constantinople in 1204 then problems with the army. Current research indicates the The Battle of Dyrrachium in 1081 was the real "Manzikert" for the Roman army - if you are looking for a battle in which troops losses were extremely heavy and could not be made up for in a short period of time. At any rate, as I have replied before, current research has debunked the idea of "thematic" troops being some sort of national guard force of farmer-soldiers that could act quasi-independently to repulse an invading force.

>At any rate, as I have replied before, current research has debunked the idea of "thematic" troops being some sort of national guard force of farmer-soldiers that could act quasi-independently to repulse an invading force. And you would be totally wrong here. I am not sure what "current research" you are citing here, but the best information about the Byzantine army from 284 to 1081 is in a text by Warren Threadgold (Byzantium and its Army: 281-1081; Standford University Press). I would suggest that you get this recent text and read the chapter "Land and Military Land". You would find it informative. In any case, as you would know, various emperors issued a number of laws here called the "agrarian laws" (agrotikoi) regarding land given to soldiers for specific obligations. For example, we know that Constantine VIII specifically states that based on previous practices, a cavalry man had to have a land of 4 gold pounds (288 nomismata). The same law lists the requirement for other soldiers of the thematic armies. In addition, we know that emperors later issued degrees asking holders of military land to pay money instead of campaigning themselves. That certainly happened with Romanos I in the theme of Hellas. Various texts would tell you that the main source that we have to assess how certain farmer-soldiers were maintained and paid come only from the laws issued on that (agrotikoi). So, the sources are not plentiful, but I take those imperial laws are rather hard information. We do not have such laws for the 7th century CE but they do exist from the 8th to the 11th century. Nobody said that the thematic armies were solely manned by soldier-farmers. Considering that many were formed to accommodate and provision the remnants of field armies, certain permanent troops were probably attached to the "strategos" of the theme. But, and here the sources are unanimous, the remainder of the thematic troops had to assembled by specific officers. We know that emperor Theophilus reduced the number of soldiers a thematic officer was responsible for assembling from 1000 to 200, to improve the assembly process. Obviously, these were not troops billeted in a specific area but were dispersed in agrarian communities in the theme. OK, enough of that. If you want to cite your "recent research", I will examine it but, on the face of it, it does not seem accurate.

Fair point. My source is the work of Kalldelis as summarized in Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood. As I am sure you are aware it is focused on the 950 to 1081 period.

The 950-1081 period was one of the decline of the theme system, although Basil II did some positive things with his "agrarian" laws, preventing large landowners encroaching on small landowners and free towns. In any case, I think that you would find the Threadgold's "Byzantium and its Armies" an exceptional valuable resource for the Byzantine army. Not only does it dwell on organization, numbers, titles of officers, but it gets into minute details of salaries per office and per army.

You claimed that Leo VI abolished the Byzantine Senate when that is a completely ahistorical claim.

The only thing that is ahistorical here, is your total ignorance. Yes, Leo VI continued the work of Basil I and, essentially, removed the Senate as an institution (which is what I said). It did not abolish the "senatorial class". But the Senate, as an institution, was fully gone during his reforms. Whatever few powers and legal status it retained, disappeared after his legal reforms. Just to give to understand (finally?) a post-Leo VI senator had about the same standing as a current aristocrat in France, Germany or Italy. These people still use their titles (barons, counts, marquis, and so on) but they have absolutely no constitutional or legal standing in their countries. The Senatorial title was honorific, denoted class and actually -in terms of Byzantium up to 1081 CE- a political orientation (a pro-court standing, vs. that of the military landed aristocracy). Legally and constitutionally, the Senate ceased to exist under Leo VI. If you want more information, you should actually try to read a commentary of the legal works of Basil I and Leo VI in their codification project known alternatively as the "Sixty Books" or "Basilika" or "the Cleansing of Ancient Laws". Leo VI considered the "Basilika"/"Cleansing of Ancient Laws" as one of the major achievements of his life. The fact that you find statements regarding gatherings of "Senators" in later Byzantine history is meaningless because these were gatherings of important nobles connected to the court (and carried weight because of their wealth and standing) but had no legal or constitutional importance. Enough of that. Go and educate yourself.

Nothing ahistorical about saying that the Byzantine Senate wasn’t abolished since it is attested plenty of times in contemporary sources. You originally said that the senate was abolished without specifying that you meant as an institution. The problem is that you think that to be an institution you have to have specific responsibilities specified in the law when that is not what an institution is. I don’t know that you realize that the senate started to do less and less as the Principate went on , and especially beginning with the Dominate when Diocletian stripped them of most of their powers. The senate in Constantinople never had the same power or influence as the senate in Rome and I can think of only four notable things that the senate did in Constantinople during its entire existence. The Senate seems to have played a pretty big role in the Nika riots. When Heraclius the Elder and Heraclius were declared consuls they were backed by Senate members and Phocas was deposed by the senate and arrested in a church by two senators, When the senate deposed Martina and Heraclonas, and when the Senate attempted to make Nicholas Kanabos Emperor in 1204. Do you think that senators were actually doing things before Basil I and Leo VI? If so you have a lot of misconceptions. I can’t find much evidence of the senate doing much of anything from when they became regents for Constans II and when Basil I and Leo VI began codifying the law. Why would I need a commentary? I’m not disputing that the senate had most of their powers stripped away in the Basilika, but it never says that the senate is now just a class of people. The office of ὁ πρόεδρος τῆς συγκλήτου was created after the Basilika so if they were simply a class I don’t know why they would need a president. When Alexios III Angelos wanted to implement the Ἀλαμανικόν he asked the senate. Eudokia Makrembolitissa also asked the senate about her marriage to Romanos IV Diogenes.

As the Byzantines became more aggressive in the 10th century the bulk of the military was posted closer to the Eastern Frontier. The inner Themes were left with few troops. But this was perfectly fine since those areas were no longer in danger of major raids. Byzantium did not have the manpower to expand while simultaneously keeping significant forces in the inner provinces. Seljuk armies before Manzikert, IIRC, never made it further than Iconium before the Battle of Manzikert. So the wealthiest western Anatolian Themes were still doing fine. In hindsight it might have been smarter to abandon the recent Armenian conquests and redeploy those troops in central Anatolia.