The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-06-12

between the ancient Roman army aud the troops
which had replaced Il. II was, a. we have said,
about q quarter ola century after the death Of
tho conqueror OF tho Cloths and Vandals, that the
old military systom was superseded by n now
one whose nomenclature. tactical units, and
methods were as unlike those Of Justinian's day
MS The Palatlne and. Limitary NHmcrf Of Con-
stantine were TO the leRlons Of TrRjsn or Angus
tus Cesar. This new system was destined to
survive the shocks of 800 years with small
change; for all practical purposes tho arrange
ments made at the end OF the sixth century
lasted down to tho end Of the eleventh. Thon
only. just before the first crusade, did they van
ish, wrecked by the great disaster at ManZikert,
even ms the old Roman army had been dashed
to pieces at Adrinnoplc 700 years before.
The strength of the East. Roman army, as
1t was reconstructed toward the close OF the
sixth century. lay In It's divisions Of heavy
cavalry. The infantry was altogether a sub
sidlary force, and whole campaigns took place
without its being brought into action. 1t seems
In Truth to have boon destined rather for the de-
fence Of de6les and frontier fortresses, for the
gnrrlsoning Of Important centres and for ex-
petitions on a small scale in mountainous
regions, than for taking tho field along with
the horse. 1t Is also 70 be noted that during this
long period the Byzantine Soldiery were drawn
mainly from subjects Of tho empire. and only
to a minor extent from subsidized barbarians.
1t followed that almost all the officers were
appointed directly by tho head Of the State. and
the natural result was much greater trustwor
thiness. Thus we see that. alike in organiza-
ton and In composition, the army, which for the
500 years between JuStinian and the first cru
SADIE held back the Slav. tho Persian. and the
Saracen from the frontier Of the Eastern Empire,
differed from the troops whose traditions 1t in
haFitad. In One rpan0Cf. at least. IL Feaemhled
the old Roman host; 1t was In Its long day the
most efficient military body in the world.
Tho mon OF the Lower Empire have re-
celved scant justice at the hands OF mod
ern historians. Their manifest faults have
thrown the stronger points Of their character
into the shade and "Byzantinism" has been ac-
copied as a synonym for effete incapacity,
both In peace and In war. Gibbon, with his
usual sweeping contempt. remarks that the i'm.
p~rovcments In organization, arms and tactics,
made by the East.Roman Empire toward tho
close OF the sixth century, seemed to aim at
teaching how to avoid dofeat rather than how
to achieve victory. Mr.. Oman acknowledges
that there is a certain basis Of truth for the
sneer. inasmuch as the main lines OF Byzan.
tine strategy during the greater part Of the his
tory of the empire were somewhat one sided. They
were almost entirely defensive in their scope,
and paid little attention to the offensive. In
this respect they did but reflect the general con.
ditions and needs of those who used them. From
A.. d. 600 to 800. and again from 1850 to 1883,
the rulers Of Constantinople we're making a
strenuous fight for existence and not aiming at
aggressive operations beyond their own borders.
Between the Persian campaigns Of HerA-
clius and the conquest of Cilicia by Nj.
cephorus Phocas the East-Roman Generals
never were able to contemplate an invasion of
hostile territory on a large scale. The tactical
offensive they might often take, but it was
always with tho object Of preserving or recov-
eripg their own lands, not with that of annex.
ing those Of their neighbors. Summed up short
~ the whole military history of the centuries
last indicated consists In a struggle TO preserve
Asia Minor from the Saracen; the Balkan PENN
sula from Slav. Bulgarian and Turk.