Should Byzantine be seens as a Greek Empire, instead of "we wuz Roman n shiet"?

Should Byzantine be seens as a Greek Empire, instead of "we wuz Roman n shiet"?

It was Rome.

>literally the economic and political core of Rome well before the fall of the west
>Romaboos try and find any excuse to get around this one simple fact because "muh segmentata, muh grorious pagan empire"

Fucking impostors

Why did they even split? Rome was able to control all that land before. What was the need to break off?

To summarise a subject that thousands of scholars have written about.

For a variety of reasons including the northern tribes joining together into larger and more dangerous confederations due to Roman punitive raids on their lands, population decrease, civil wars etc. emperors gradually began to see the need to divide the empire up into several parts so multiple emperors could supervise each area better. The previous situation had involved the emperor being at one end of the empire, a bunch of barbarians attacking the other and a disgruntled legate declaring himself emperor. Various reforms were meant to address this but ended up not really working too well in practice. It's crucial to note that the Roman Empire was never legally divided. The Western and Eastern (later Byzantine) Empires were the same state, but de facto divided for administrative purposes. East and West were divided under Theodosius in 395 AD who gave each half to his incompetent, young sons. The East was able to weather the consummate retardation that was to follow from each emperor due to its natural strategic situation and much more urbanised nature, the West, with most of its people still to some extent speaking their own native languages and cities being an essentially artificial phenomenon, was more hard pressed. It had more vulnerable frontiers, and a weaker tax base with which to defend it. By the 5th century the West was terminal as various massive civil wars between usurpers, warlords and emperors such as Constantius III, Bonifacius and others meant there was little army left to deal with barbarian groups who began to be settled en masse into the empire. As it became clear to everyone that the army could no longer demand the loyalty of these groups, the western administration began to fail, until all that was left was a puppet emperor in Ravenna. By 476 the last emperor Romulus Augustulus was deposed and the Western Roman symbols of office were sent to Constantinople.

Technically, the ERE lasted politically and economically till 1453.

I think from a cultural viewpoint, it became Greek rather than Roman after the conquests of the Arabs, or even the death of Justinian I. They lose all traces of "Romaness" which is admittedly a difficult concept to define.

Note, I still don't think that the
>
>
>
deserves the title.

tog
>They lose all traces of "Romaness" which is admittedly a difficult concept to define.
Unless you're coming at it Histographically Roman Catholic perspective I can't think of any meaningful reason not to consider the ERE Roman. It'd be like if USA split up, the Southern States continued to call themselves America and share in Americana (albeit their side of it) for another thousand years despite not having Washington DC in their territory.

The byzantine empire doesn't exist without that pagan empire and the only thing christianity did for byzantium was to ensure that they could only cling to the past.

Oh and Lorica Segmentata was a million times more appealing then any byzantine armor you care to name.

By and large this: The split was largely a direct response to the Crisis of the Third Century as well, where Rome came dangerously close to imploding on itself due to the constant internal conflicts and almost routine assassinations/deposing of Emperors and the rise of pretenders trying to claim the title. The Roman Empire became so large and convoluted that it was nearly impossible for just one person to assume absolute control over it for any meaningful amount of time, usually resulting in an untimely death at the hands of an ambitious general or their own Pretorian Guard.

With that realization, dividing the task of administration to multiple emperors was seen as a way to lesson the burden of one emperor trying to control it all. A very necessary idea for the time, but the Western Empire really got screwed over in terms of leadership and revenue with the far more lucrative eastern provinces of Egypt and Greece gone.

Continued on this, the crisis basically was the death throes of the great imperial army. Never again would Rome be so fantastically trained and disciplined, due largely to veteran officers and local troops being exterminated in civil wars and such. This is the point where the whole transformation of the distinctly "Roman" legion we have come to know and love turns into the Germanic mercenary army and foederati. I mean, troops by the 1st Century BC never panicked when they saw an elephant, and by the 4th CE they lost their nerve frequently.

Goddamn tragedy that was

I think the empire should be called Roman until the Islamic conquest. Because when they stopped being a truly world empire a lot of what it meant to be a "roman" changed. I would still not call it"Greek" though. They were neither truly Greek nor truly Roman, and so I think it is easiest to just call them "Byzantine".

Should England be seen as a French kingdom? Should Spain be seen as an Austrian kingdom?

I think it is relevant that they considered themselves to be the Roman Empire.

In roman empire east was always more greek. When west fall byzantine lost its roman culture. So it can be said expect early periods it is greek empire.

Nice way of putting it. I'm going to remember that next time one of these threads get made.

> It'd be like if USA split up, the Southern States continued to call themselves America and share in Americana (albeit their side of it) for another thousand years despite not having Washington DC in their territory.
And they also adopted Islam and started speaking Spanish.

Not really. The eastern Roman Empire always spoke more Greek than Latin. Also the adoption of Christianity was an empire wide decision.

They still practiced reformed roman law and the state was bureaucratic and office-structured af
That makes them pretty Roman in a sense. Definitely more than the
>
>
>
>Muh lord and muh peasantry

I think people seriously overestimate this aspect. People seem to be under the impression that the late Roman army was a decadent waste of space filled with ill disciplined pussies. If you read sources like Ammianus Marcellinus it becomes pretty clear that individually Roman soldiers from the late empire were actually better soldiers than the legionaries of earlier times. There was far more demanded of them, they had to fight in far smaller detachments, they fought guerilla operations and ambushed enemies, they threw their all into battle and had to defend fortresses with 30 men against thousands. People seem to be under the impression that they regularly fought and lost against barbarian tribals. In reality, the Roman army destroyed itself. Adrianople was one of the only actual battles the late Roman army lost against barbarians and it was due to Valens being a total fuck up, not the soldiers' weakness. The transformation to an army of mostly Germanic foederati was not just because of personnel losses, but because, and this may be hard to believe, but foederati were cheaper and arguably more effective.

>New Rome is Established at Byzantium
>The Emperor moves there
>The Imperial line continues in Constantinople for a thousand years
>Roman law in effect, Graeco-Roman culture, hippodromes, mosaics and sea trade
VS
>The pope is angry at the ERE because they despise his ass
>Goes to Charlemagne
>you are the Roman Emperor now
>A confederacy of Germanic kingdoms is now the Roman Empire because the Pope said so and they control the old capital

Eeeeh...

>but foederati were cheaper and arguably more effective.

>implying that Roman legionaries weren't always mercenaries

>implying that nationalist ideas were responsible for Roman troops signing up

>implying that Romans really gave a fuck about the Roman state

>implying that pre-modern civilizations had any notion of "serve your country"

>implying that money and land isn't all

>What was the 2nd Punic War
Land and benefits was what developed a little prior to the Marian reforms.
Also
>Paying soldiers = Mercenaries
You're fucking retarded

>weren't always mercenaries
You had to be roman citizen who owned a land and had to bring your own equipment for not really good pay. cant see that as mercenary you tard face.

It's another episode of some historically illiterate retard who obsesses over Romans thinks they are Proto-Americans episode

Legionaries were often loyal to their general more than the state and bringing your own equipment is an argument for them being pseudo-mercenaries not against. On top of that Romans always used mercenaries and auxiliary troops supporting their core army. It was a profession, conscription and service for the motherland is a concept that came to be in 18th and 19th century in Europe.

>implying that Roman legionaries weren't always mercenaries
>implying that nationalist ideas were responsible for Roman troops signing up
>implying that Romans really gave a fuck about the Roman state
>implying that pre-modern civilizations had any notion of "serve your country"

If these were true, then I would find it very hard to believe Rome could have withstood all of its misfortunes during their Republic years. There is no way most soldiers, or any mercenaries would stick around after getting schlonged as hard as Rome did by Carthage, and other bordering nations.

>Legionaries were often loyal to their general
The loyalty to the Imperator came around the time of Marius, when soldiering became a full time job opportunity, versus the prior 250+ years where the legions were citizen-soldiers who often had farms to work when they got back.

>Bringing your own equipment is an argument for them being psuedo-mercenaries
Little to few states could actually afford to pay for a standardized equipment set for soldiers. That doesn't make them mercenaries any more than Athenian Hoplites who had to bring their own armor and spear during campaigns.

>Romans used mercenaries and Auxiliary troops to support
Precisely my point. They had a strong national funded army, and had paid (or extorted) troops to support them in areas where they weren't as strong. That doesn't make the Roman army pseudo-mercenaries you fucking dickhead. If anything, it solidified the distinction, since auxiliary troops were non-citizens of the empire.

Jesus Christ

I was primarily talking about post-Marian Reform Roman soldiers, i.e. those who signed up for 20 years of payments, benefits and were provided with equipment by the state.

Roman soldiers fought for themselves first and foremost, their officers second, their state 50,000th. Why do you think they were so willing to tear the state apart and destroy the Republic?

>Paying soldiers = Mercenaries
>You're fucking retarded

If their primary motivation is money, then that is exactly what they are.

By this token the late Roman Empire in the West can barely be called Roman.

They practiced a different religion, they had a different capital, they spoke a different language, they had different customs.

The Roman empire circa 400 is almost completely different from the Roman empire circa 100.

>Why do you think they were so willing to tear the state apart and destroy the Republic?

I'd say the largest issue would be the difficulty of getting information. They didn't have unlimited information like we do with the internet, which means you're more likely to rely on what your commander says.

Not to mention the Romans took troops who were say ethnically Gaul, and placed them on the Eastern front to deter them from abandoning post, or siding with potential rebels or Gaul/Germanic tribes. Which would leave soldiers with less sympathy for villages around them. I'd also point out that soldiers of Rome rarely messed with Italy, and Generals more or less just destroyed each others armies after convicting each other of treason.

>Roman soldiers fought for themselves first and foremost, their officers second, their state 50,000th.
Well of course the first thing anyone is going to care about it themselves, except for maybe their family. Also, Rome was set up in a Nationalist way, and it did increase its numbers for their military. If you served for 20 years in the army, or 25 (or 30; can't remember) for the Navy (who accepted anyone) You got to become an official Roman citizen. People also gave a fuck load of care about the state of their country. Those times were way tougher. If your state failed then you were most likely going to die.

Rome had a "serve your country" and it was by going out and stealing other tribes supplies, money and people to help secure their own, and to help it grow.

>>Also the adoption of Christianity was an empire wide decision.
In what sense? The religion in question was forced on those who didn't want to practice under penalty of execution.

>was primarily talking about post-Marian Reform Roman soldiers
Why didn't you specify that then? There's 400 years of military history prior to Marius.

>If their primary motivation is money
Mercenary [mur-suh-ner-ee]:
a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.

A Roman legionary obviously is gonna be interested in being payed. His job is service to the state, specifically the Roman state. A mercenary is someone who goes to whoever offers the highest bounty. How many times has a Legion defected to a non Roman state on the offer of money or booty?

You are the one who is illiterate. Legionaries were loyal to state until time of sula,ceaser. The shift was caused by longer time of conquest as they get further away, small farms getting bought up and government not taking care of their veterans. There were mercenaries but legionaries were not mercenary themselves.
Romans loved their state during punic wars they even gave their money to state without any profit. Women sold their jewelery to fuel war machine. Take your shitty ideals about people not loving their state before nationalism to shitty /pol/

They were both Roman and Greek

It was Roman. This is a concrete fact. It's not some sort of position that can be argued for and against. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

I'm sometimes appalled but never surprised at how out of step Veeky Forums is with professional historical consensus.

To expand

This post
Is complete fiction, and the person who wrote it has obviously never read a book about Late Roman military history

This is the only true answer

>It was Roman. This is a concrete fact. It's not some sort of position that can be argued for and against. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

Here's a fact: It can be argued for or against. How do I know? People argue for or against it. Regularly. The fact that they referred to themselves as Romans, or that there is an academic consensus, does not magically make it indisputable that they are Roman (which itself is abstract enough that people seem incapable of agreeing what constitutes it). The Holy Roman Empire called itself Roman too, and you could argue a positition that they're the heirs to Rome, or that the Russians are, or that the Turks are. And any fuckwit from any of those positions could pontificate that it's indisputable fact.

Get your head out of your ass and learn what the fuck facts are before you go declaring what is or isn't one.

I agree that they're Romans, by the way, you're just a smug cunt who can't seem to tolerate that people don't all agree with your OPINION.

This. Roman meant nothing. Septimius Severus spoke with a Punic (Carthaginian) accent for crying out loud.

>That's wrong!
>No evidence to support it demonstrated

>Latin with an accent
>The same thing as changing into another language entirely I.E. Greek
That's retarded

They were Greco-Roman. Syric and near eastern as well. Roman from a spiritual point of view.

Don't understand how u cda argue for Russia being roman. I think it's fair to say just east romantic empire and then they call themselves romantic from that. How long would you say England has been a continuous state or people?

meme response

To be fair, the other guy (while, I think, correct) also did not back up his assertions.

But he tryed to show facts, the other just said "You're wrong"

What are you talking about? Severus' main tongue was Punic, and he knew Latin. How is that different from much of the eastern empire having Greek as their first tongue, and knowing Latin and potentially other regional languages like Aramaic.

It is literally the predecessor state to the modern day Hellenic Republic. Every aspect of modern Greek culture is dominated by the shadow of Byzantium. Greeks were calling themselves "Romiois" right up until the early 20th century. To them the term encapsulated Byzantium and Ancient Greek identity.

It's a fact you dunce. It's like trying to argue about the colour of the sky or grass. There is no such thing as a "successor" or "heir" of Rome. That's presentist garbage. The Eastern Roman Empire was the same state that Augustus founded during the principate. The people who lived there called themselves Romans, their state was called the Roman Empire, their neighbours, allies and enemies called them Romans. There isn't a position to be hand for arguing that they weren't Romans.

>The Holy Roman Empire called itself Roman too
The people who lived there didn't call themselves Romans, and actually often didn't call their state Roman either. They had nothing to do with the Roman state as it previously existed. There was no continuity or inheritance or identity. The name "Holy Roman Empire" was purely a mark of prestige. Nobody who lived there called themselves Romans or thought they were the same Roman Empire of antiquity.
>and you could argue a positition that they're the heirs to Rome, or that the Russians are, or that the Turks are
You absolutely could not argue any of those things. Especially the Turks. What a fucking retarded idea. What an imbecile you are. Is Spain an "heir" to the Aztec Triple Alliance? Is the United Kingdom an "heir" to the Zulu Empire or the Irish High Kingship?

Read literally any historian who specialises in Late Roman military history, Heather, Elton, etc., and you'll find.the consensus is that Late Roman soldiers were as highly regarded and in some ways superior to early imperial and late Republican Roman soldiers

There's a fair legal case for Russians being the heirs of Imperial Rome in some autistic translatio imperii sense ("two romes have fallen, the third stands"), but yeah, suggesting the Turks are is just laughable libtard history based on Mehmet's ego-boosting claim of any title he could find.

Where were the Ancient Greek descendants at this time? Was the empire not mostly filled with Greeks? I thought that this is how Greeks became Orthodox

The late Roman army was extremely effective. It was based upon tried and tested methods of warfare, and was, overall, better suited to the defense of the empire than the classical legions. The legions of Caesar, Augustus, and so forth were 95% heavy infantry, which rendered them very vulnerable. Only when the Roman army began to focus more on mobile infantry and heavy cavalry did it truly come into its element. The division of the army into limitanei, comitatenses, and palatina made perfect sense from a strategic point of view. Unlike what many of Constantine's detractors thought, the limitanei were quite effective. It was only much later, in the time of Justinian, that they became a militia. This was a direct result of Justinian's decision to stop the payment of 210,000 limitanei in order to rebuild the field army, raising it from 104,000 comitatensal soldiers to approximately 140,000. Around 20,000 to 40,000 additional feoderati soldiers were recruited to support the field army, and the scholae palatinae was nearly doubled in size. Denuding the frontiers of professional soldiers in such a manner had the effect of leaving the empire without a strategic reserve, one of the reasons why the campaigns of the Lombards, Sassanidsm, Avars, Slavs, and by extension, the Muslims, were so effective. The limitanei were professional soldiers, equipped with long spathae, metal helmets, fullbody shields, spears/javelins (Or plumbata darts), and in veteran or otherwise key units, chainmail or scaled armour.

Well, the Palaiologos family did marry into the Russian imperial army.

This so so much. I hate this weird meme where people seem to "muh movie lejuns" were ten times more effective than the later ones. The 4th century legions had a shit ton of artillery, fuck loads of heavy cavalry, state owned factories pumping out high quality armour and weaponry and innovations in weapon design.

why not Latin Empire?

I'm family of Basileios I Makedonios of Byzantium. What was he for man?

Basil the Bulgar Slayer?

How did you manage to trace your lineage back?

This is one of the main reasons the Byzantine army declined. The theme system was based on a system of hereditary land ownership. In return for a plot of land for themselves and their children, men pledged themselves and their children to the state. They were tied to the land in that the would serve in the army for part of the year, then returned home to farm until they were called up again. This allowed the state to support the army without resorting to unpopular conscription or disrupting the production of food. It was only after the landholding dynatoi, the Byzantine equivalent of the Roman latifundia-holding patricians, forced the small-time soldier-farmers off their lands, a process which was ignored by the emperors, and basically endorsed by Emperor Alexius' pronoia policy (A licence which granted individuals, usually landing holding nobles, the power to take money and other resources from those under them as tax, a portion of which they'd be permitted to keep for themselves), that the army began to decline. With manpower in short supply, the emperors began to hire large amounts of mercenaries, many of which had questionable loyalties and little battle experience.

My grandfather's mother was member of the (higher) Dutch nobility. I traced it back to the counts of Flanders and I ended up at him via Adele of France.

Basil I, not Basil II. Basil I was Armenian. He killed Michael III and assumed his throne. He was already co-emperor of Michael, and Michael was hated by the church and the people, so nobody cared. Basil's dynasty ruled for nearly two hundred years. Basil II was one of his descendants. They weren't actually Macedonian, Makedonios was just a nickname. Byzantine Macedonia (Adrianople) is where Basil I first appears. He may have been appointed governor of the theme of Macedonia (Which actually covered western Thrace, not Macedonia) by Michael III at one point.

Yes, it must be Basil II then. He had a son which was emperor as well, Leo VI, and his daughter Anna is the one I should thank for my existance. Thank you for your explaination.

Roman culture was greek to begin with

Leo VI was Basil I's son, Basil II lived from 958 to 1025. He is well known for his brutal conquest of Bulgaria (Byzantine Thracia), Basil I became emperor in 867, and lived until 886. There's a lot of evidence that Leo VI may have actually been the son of Michael III. Basil's wife, Eudokia Ingerina (Who is notable for being the daughter of a Varangian guardsman) was Michael's lover before he forced her to marry Basil, who was his ally at the time. After Basil's death, Leo had Michael, who had been buried without any of the usual pomp and ceremony, reburied at great expense. This was exactly twenty years after his death.

Germans and their Holy Roman Empire are the true we wuz Romans.

>be barbarian scum and go into Roman lands

>refuse to assimilate and do nothing but start shit with Rome

>Bring about Rome's demise by acting like a pack of wild, uncultured niggers

>later claim to be the true heir to the Roman Empire

Germans were wewuzin before Africans were.

>Graeco-Roman culture
the thing is that there was a clear separation of culture in east and west
different language, food, economic base, architecture, the only thing to really glue the two together was roman law and their government

but also voltaire was definitely right i agree
>muh "H" "R" "E"

Something like 50% of Byzantine emperors weren't even Greek.

They were as multiethnic as the Roman Empire, until of course the Komnenian/Palaiologan dynasties.

>memeing this hard

Why? Half of this is plainly bullshit and its not even humorous.

You are correct in that the HRE were the wewuz

>bullshit

>the goths and visigoths dindu nuffin

Try harder. Yes, there were other factors as well, but this is Veeky Forums. The only way it is false is that it does not mention the other factors at play, but the Germanic people fucked Rome hard by acting like African tribal warlords always starting shit at Rome's borders.

Culturally the ERE remained similar to Rome until around Justinian, who began a more feudal system that referred to his people as "subjects" and not "citizens" and Proselytism of pagan institutions. such as that in Athens.

Economically and militarily it remained similar until the war with Persia, Justinian plague and Arabic conquests where without a big population the tax base was crushed and resulted in a more disparate feudal system of government.

>goths
>not wanting to assimilate

Alaric practically fucking begged to be assimilated to Honorius and was denied. He was an utter Romaboo.

The Goths were treated like shit by the Romans looking to make a buck and they revolted. Once that was calmed down, again, the romans fucked up by not paying them for their contributions to the legions. Again, uprising. And the final straw was the killing of the Gothic legionaires families in Illyria in a retarded move by Honorius and the Senate.

Even still Alaric tried to negotiate with Honorius for an official rank in the army and land in Dacia to settle his troops down on. Again, he was spurned.

Regardless, Goths have very little to with the HRE. The Ostrogoths were ostensibly subjects of the Eastern Roman Empire but Theoderic became increasingly independent until Justinian declared war and the the result was the removal of the Ostrogoths from Italy. Again, long before the HRE.

If China can still be considered Chinese over the three thousand years across which different parts of the empire were dominant, the capital moved, and the culture changed, then Constantinople was Roman.

Hello, Adrian Goldsworthy! Here to spew bullshit like the good old days?

His success is interesting. Considering what Rome did to Carthage I thought Punics were seen as the lowest of the low, born to be slaves if not killed outright.

Yep. Another retard who thinks rome is proto america.

Protip:
It was FUCKIGN IMPOSSIBLE to not know what a marching across the Rubicon meant.
If they were somehow fucking confused, going east to smash the loyalist armies would have made it very goddamn clear what was happening.


It was, again, FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE for sullas men to fail to understand what MARCHING ON ROME ITSELF fucking meant. They still did it, because they didn't give a single shit.
>Rome had a "serve your country"
No it fucking didn't.
>and it was by going out and stealing other tribes supplies, money and people to help secure their own, and to help it grow.
they secured loot for themselves and the general, and land he would then settle them on. Nothing else.
>I'd also point out that soldiers of Rome rarely messed with Italy,
Rome itself war marched on multiple fucking times.
>MUH CITIZENSHIP
COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO THE LEGIONARIES, AS ALL OF THEM WERE CITIZENS YOU IGNORANT FUCK.


That the professional legions were loyal to the generals first and rome a distant second isn't even slightly fucking debated. It's well understood to be directly responsible for the constant civil wars that would come to rock the republic and kill it, and the empire in turn. This isn't debated AT ALL by anyone who's done even a little bit of reading.

>hereditary
It wasn't though.
>it was only after the landholding dynatoi, the Byzantine equivalent of the Roman latifundia-holding patricians, forced the small-time soldier-farmers off their lands, a process which was ignored by the emperors
Except that isn't what happened at all. The theme system was disbanded because it was a massive expense and wasn't seen as useful at the time. It was also a serious risk to stability AND suffering horrible manpower issues in the frontier zones, because soldier-farmers tend to get fucking killed when the Turks come over to raid your farms constantly.

You are literally the only person i've ever seen make these claims.

You sound like a humongous faggot

>Lorica Segmentata was a million times more appealing then any byzantine armor you care to name
definitely true, but it was only in service for a very short time and in a very limited way. Its a million times cooler than a chain shirt but a million times less practical from a logistics stand point. It very quickly became limited to honor guards and elite units.

No one is legitimately claiming that Charlemagne was Roman or that the Frank's/HRE was a continuation of the WRE though.

>tfw you will never know your family's ancestry pre-1900

Not him but you are wrong. After Augustus EVERYONE (even with the marian reform socii and roman citiziens that didn't reach a certain amount of money could serve) could get into the army, serve 25 years since you weren't a legionare, just an auxiliary, and get roman citizienship with the right to marry legally

Well, I can go 54 generations back, but that's the max. There are a lot of lines in my ancestry I don't know anything about. I only know the line where my surname comes from after the 15th-century, my mothers family and the line of my grandfather's mother. There are still a lot of gaps to fill. I advise you to begin at the start and visit the archives of the town hall of the place your (grand)parents come from. With those you can come really far.

Yeah, the reason they failed in the end was because the rest learned to copy the romans

You clearly know nothing about the themes, because the basis of the system was the hereditary ownership of land by the soldier-farmers. The system wouldn't have functioned beyond the first generation without it. By ensuring the offspring of soldiers will serve, you create a dedicated source of manpower. I can't believe you would dispute this, it's integral to the system.

The theme system wasn't expensive, that was the main reason why it was introduced. Strategoi collected taxes within their provinces, used a portion of it to train and equip their troops, then sent the rest to Constantinople. By disbanding the standing army (Aside from the imperial guard) and putting the responsibility for defense into the hands of the provincial governors, expenditure could be reduced. After the loss of Syria and Egypt, the empire could no longer support large standing armies. It was after the thematic governors became too powerful, and the state began to expand, that the themes were broken up (See the history of the Opsikion theme), and the tagmata were created. The theme system would have been immensely useful in stopping the Turkish invasion if it had been maintained. Breaking it up weakened it greatly, and the decline of the class of soldier-farmers created a shortage of manpower, forcing the empire to hire large numbers of mercenaries.

Emperor Romanos IV was actually advised, before he left for Manzikert, to abandon the Armenian provinces, reform the thematic armies, and reoccupy the forts along the Tarsus mountains. The forts along the Tarsus frontier were key to the success of the theme system. They were easily defended and easily supplied. They were largely responsible, alongside the thematic armies, for holding back the Arabs. The themes didn't create instability after the Opsikion, Thrakesian, Anatolic, and Armeniac themes were broken up in the 700s/800s.

Theodosius fucked everything. Hereditary monarchy basically ruined the Empire, with incompetent children having the biggest responsibility in the world.