The WRE is full of its share of veritable lunatics which are well known. Nero, Caligula, Commodus, Elagabulus, and Tiberius are among some of the most notorious. Who were the ERE equivalents to hold the crown?

Bonus points for naming queens, aristocrats, and generals.

Edited for a Byzantine audience

One thing I love in history is the Great Power alignments, the balance of power, and analyzing nation-states or other more archaic polities based on multiple factors, including military and economic dominance, cultural contributions, and more analytical aspects such as population size, contributions to science, innovations, etc—

If you’re familiar with the classic 18th & 19th Century model—Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, Russia—then you probably know, it’s a pretty high standard for “great power” but there is some nuance. Britain’s great power-ness” is not the same as Russia’s and so on.

So I thought it would be fun (for me, maybe you lol) to do a century by century list from the Fall of Rome (superpower?) to the 17th Century, an era I myself believe is the end of the “Long Middle Age.”

I was going to leave out China, because—whether it’s the Han, Tang, Song, Jin, Yuan, Ming, or Qing—China when unified is by its very nature, a perennial great power, even a superpower, but it’s relatively removed and distant. I’ll just include the dynasty during centuries where they were truly preeminent. I’ll be including many Asian states, however, a fair amount of Islamic and Steppe societies, because more often than not these states were interacting with the European great powers of the day.

I’ll arrange them in order of how I view them on the power scale in their respective time frames.

—————

5th Century

Hunnic Empire

Roman Empire

Gupta Empire

Persia

6th Century

Byzantine Empire

Persia

Gokturk Empire

Ostrogothic Kingdom

7th Century

Rashidun Caliphate

Tang

Byzantine Empire

Avar Khaganate

Visigothic Kingdom

8th Century

Tang

Umayyad Caliphate

Carolingian Empire

Byzantine Empire

Khazar Khaganate

9th Century

Abbasid Caliphate

Byzantine Empire

Carolingian Empire

Khazar Khaganate

Vikings*

10th Century

Byzantine Empire

Abbasid Caliphate

Holy Roman Empire

Kievan Rus

First Bulgarian Empire

11th Century

Great Seljuk Empire

Song

Holy Roman Empire

Byzantine Empire

The Normans*

12th Century

Jin

Holy Roman Empire

Song

Mongols*

Byzantine Empire

England

Ayyubids

Cuman-Kipchak Confederacy*

13th Century

Mongol Empire / Yuan

Holy Roman Empire

Delhi Sultanate

Mamluk Sultanate

France

Hungary

England

14th Century

Yuan

Timurid Empire

Delhi Sultanate

England

France

Hungary

15th Century

Ming

Ottoman Empire

Golden Horde

Spain

France

Hungary

Poland-Lithuania

England & Burgundy*

16th Century

Ottoman Empire

Ming

Spain

France

Poland-Lithuania

Russia

Persia

17th Century

France

Ottoman Empire

Mughal Empire

Qing

Sweden

Poland-Lithuania

England & Dutch Republic*

—————

—————

The asterisks can mean a couple of things.

In the case of nomadic, or disjointed, but conquering peoples, I have to include them even if in some cases a proper state was not yet, or ever, formalized. Also in the case of England I think when paired with a small but feisty continental ally England could count as a great power at certain points, even if until 1707 and the Writ of Union, they really weren’t on paper.

If you disagree or have any reflections on my rankings please feel free to chime in

I've learned that Rome (city) suffered a lot, during the Gothic War. Even more than by the Visigoths. And I always thought that the xenophobia started in the 11th century, but it appears that it started even earlier.

The Republic would have been long dead, but is there any surviving account on how people thought about it?

all of his advisors wanted him to not chose koshrow for hsi life time he was right but longterm for the empire it was the worst desision khosrow so full of greed and granduer cost him his life his enemies empire and thus own empire all for nothing we he could have won the world

Relatively speaking,the eastern Roman empire didn't really have a violent transfer of power until the murder of Maurice and his family in 602. And there were also only two successful political usurpations from 330-602 (Procopius and Basiliscus) but those were extremely short lived.

Meanwhile, it was a different story in the west. You had violent usurpations by army officers like Magnentius, Maximus, and Constantine III. There was the highly suspect 'suicide' of Valentinan II that brought Eugenius to power, and later on the murder of another Valentinan by Petronius Maximus.

The west during this similar timeframe seems to have suffered a greater deal of political instability than the east, but why do you think that was? I'm curious to hear opinions on this.

My only two possible explanations for this are that Constantinople made it harder for usurpations to succeed (though a later event like the Twenty Years Anarchy might cast doubt on that idea) and that because the east was initially under less external pressure until the mid to late 6th century, the social contract with provincial leaders wasn't broken (as happened in the west many a time with the Brittanic legions)

TL;DR: There was no Lombard migration to Italy, but rather a soldiers’ revolt of Lombard troops in the Byzantine army and others eventually flocked around their banner.

Eduardo Fabbro, Warfare and the Making of Early Medieval Italy (568-652) (Abingdon: Routledge, 2020).

The standard narrative of the arrival of the Lombards to Italy is that they were invited in AD 568 by the Roman general Narses, vengeful from having been removed from his post following his victories over the Franks. The Lombards, having just defeated the Gepids in Pannonia at the behest of Constantinople and then facing pressure from the Avar Khaganate, took up the invitation. While scholars have long raised doubts about this story, not least because the final Lombard victory over the Gepids in the Balkans took place several years after the supposed migration to Italy, here Fabbro finally presents a convincing alternative. No migration took place. Rather, Narses had been in Italy since 552 and sought to bring his army back up to strength after a decade and a half of hard fighting. Narses had recruited this original army in the Balkans and along the Danube and it included a significant detachment (5500) of Lombards. These had served Rome as symmachoi, allies who provided soldiers. In 568 Narses went out on another recruiting drive, but this time for phoideratoi, men who would serve as Roman regulars in Roman units that may have once been recruited largely from non-Romans but which now served in mixed units. Men signed up, and they brought their families because they were expecting to serve in Italy for decades. When Narses was dismissed a soldiers’ revolt broke out. These were not uncommon in the sixth century given poor conditions of service. The revolts did not usually accomplish much because of the lack of a political programme to provide staying power. In this case, the mutiny was centered on Alboin, the first Lombard king. “Lombard” here provided a banner to rally around whether soldiers saw themselves as Lombard or not, providing a type of political affiliation that had precedent during an earlier soldiers’ revolt in North Africa.

In this Fabbro presents a creative and convincing new narrative to the settlement of the Lombards. It is a story that accounts for the actions of one individual (the invitation by Narses) but sets the arrival of the Lombards in the long history of barbarian settlement on Roman land and military unrest. The movement of the soldiers’ families is explained, as is the complete lack of Roman resistance to their arrival. No army was present in Italy to stop them because they were the army. Alboin operated on his own, probably attempting to keep his soldiers supplied out of the creaky late Roman tax system in northern Italy. The colourful account of his death, in which he was murdered by his Gepid wife after he forced her to drink from a cup fashioned from the skull of her father is here dismissed as a fabrication of Frankish writers eager to demonize powerful women. Fabbro posits instead that further military unrest was the cause of Alboin’s murder, probably due to his failure to keep the soldiers supplied. At this point a number of units defected back to the Roman army, showing that this was still a case of soldiers in revolt and that the Lombard political project was far from secure.

After the death of Alboin’s short-lived successor Cleph northern Italy was effectively run by bands of soldiers under their dukes, a term that in this case should be taken at its most general Latin definition of “military leader.” The standard historical narrative is that at this point Constantinople and the Franks allied to be rid of the Lombards. Fabbro argues convincingly that the situation is much more complicated and that this picture does not account for independent Frankish actions or the internal politics of the Merovingian kingdom. Money certainly went from the east to Frankia but as Fabbro points out there is little evidence of concerted, coordinated efforts. Rather, the money seems to have been used to hire both groups of Franks and Lombards to establish order. When Frankish and Roman troops finally met on campaign against the Lombards at Verona in 590 neither side appears to have been expecting to meet. The Franks campaigned in northern Italy for their own reasons, at least one of which was to maintain Austrasian authority and prevent Constantinople from retaking the entire peninsula. Constantinople had a different strategy: northern Italy was only relevant because it provided a means to open a second front against the Avars in the Balkans, which was the main priority in the 590s.

The book ends with a chapter on Rothari. Rothari is typically seen as a major turning point in Lombard history but Fabbro argues that this is overblown. His freedom to act was largely due to Constantinople and the Franks being busy elsewhere. His new theory of Lombard kingship set forth in his famous Edict does not go much beyond Agilulf’s ideas. Fabbro posits Rothari’s military successes are overblown. He is credited with a significant victory at Arezzo but does not seem to have been able to capitalize on it. The lack of archaeological evidence pointing to destruction in Liguria is taken to mean that Rothari conquered a land that Constantinople had withdrawn from. But texts can exaggerate devastation for rhetorical effect, and people sweep out the ashes and rebuild. Moreover, recent work by Giorgio Petracco has suggested that Byzantine Lunigiana may have still been Byzantine a decade after its supposed conquest. In any case, Fabbro’s point is well taken that Rothari pulled down walls because he could not be sure that Constantinople’s ships would not appear on the horizon, as they did during (short-lived) efforts to retake Carthage and Alexandria from the Arabs.

[This text is excerpted from a review I wrote for International Journal of Military History and Historiography]

Armor has always been a key part of warfare, evolving over centuries to balance protection, mobility, and practicality. Among the notable types, splint armor, specifically its two main forms-scale and lamellar-saw widespread use in the Near East, Byzantium, Armenia and Georgia. Here's a breakdown of their evolution, strengths, and weaknesses.

Scale Armor: The Flexible Pioneer

Norman scale Armor

Warriors in scale armor, Medieval Georgian manuscript

Scale armor emerged in the Near East as early as the 2nd millennium BCE. It consisted of metal plates sewn onto leather or fabric in an overlapping pattern, resembling fish scales. This design provided a mix of protection and flexibility.

• Advantages:
  • Highly flexible, making it suitable for long-sleeved designs and limb coverage.
  • Relatively simple to construct, using high-quality leather to ensure mobility.
• Disadvantages:
  • Vulnerable to upward piercing strikes, a significant drawback for mounted warriors.
  • Movement sometimes caused the scales to lift, exposing weak points.

Despite its flaws, scale armor remained in use for centuries, often combined with other types to cover its shortcomings, only being phased out by its Lamellar counterpart from the 9th century.

Lamellar Armor: The Durable Successor

Painting depicting Byzantine forms of lamellar armor

Recreation of a soldier dressed in Georgian double riveted type lamellar(Pavel Burlakov)

Lamellar armor gained prominence by the 10th century, particularly in Byzantium under the influence of steppe nomads and local craftsmen. Unlike scale armor, its plates were laced together without a backing layer, creating a sturdier and more layered defense.

• Advantages:
  • Superior resistance to arrows and thrusting weapons due to overlapping plates.
  • Modular design allowed for damaged plates to be replaced in the field.
  • Multi-layer construction dispersed the impact of blunt weapons, protecting the wearer.
• Disadvantages:
  • Less flexible than scale armor, restricting movement slightly.
  • Heavier, with full sets weighing up to 16 kg(Almost as much as early 15th century plate Armor,) making prolonged use more taxing.

Byzantium and Georgia innovated further, introducing riveted plates for durability and "inverted lamellar" to protect limbs from overhead strikes. These advancements enhanced both protection and usability.

Evolution of splint Armor

a) This early stage involved adding a leather backing behind lamellar plates, eliminating horizontal overlaps. The plates were closely packed and attached to the leather, economizing material use while enhancing flexibility.

St George of Chukuli in the lamellar backed with leather

b) This design refined the previous stage by introducing double rivets at the top and bottom of the plates. These rows of plates were closely arranged without overlapping.

St George clad in the linear lamellar with double riveting

c) This stage introduced leather bands between the rows of lamellar plates, creating distinct horizontal separations. Each row was riveted to the backing, and the bands helped prevent the rows from cutting into each other.

Warrior Saint (St Theodore?) of Adishi in the typical banded lamellar with riveting.

Another interesting development arose from the craftsmen trying to solve a major problem with the conventional lamellar design, that is, the exposed throngs that connected the plates. While the plates were invulnerable to most melee attacked, the thongs could be damaged and compromise the integrity of the construction, which is why the smiths came up with lamellar with concealed thongs

plate discovered in Gomel

.St George of Jakhunderi in the lamellar with concealed thongs,

Last major innovation was the introduction of Protuberances. Protuberances in lamellar armor deflect blows by creating angled surfaces that cause strikes to slide off, reducing direct impact. They reinforce structure by adding thickness and rigidity, preventing deformation under force. Additionally, they enhance durability by distributing stress evenly across the plate and protecting vulnerable areas like laces or backing from direct hits. They seem to be especially common in Georgian depictions.

Warrior of Timotesubani with the protuberances (Unrelated, but I really like the Chi rho socks!)

St George of Khidistavi in the lamellar with protuberances

Byzantine and Georgian Contributions

The evolution of splint armor is deeply tied to the Byzantine Empire and its Caucasian neighbors, particularly Georgia. Byzantine innovations, like banded lamellar for greater flexibility and stability, were paralleled by Georgian designs emphasizing riveted and leather-backed plates.

While Byzantine armor benefited from state-standardized production, Georgia's feudal system encouraged individual experimentation, resulting in diverse designs. This interplay of influences led to improvements in materials, construction techniques, and overall effectiveness.

Legacy and Impact

By the 12th century, splint armor had reached its peak, blending elements of scale, lamellar, and mail into combined designs. Although lamellar gradually fell out of favor, replaced by the more advanced Plate armor in the late 14th century, its legacy remains as a testament to the ingenuity of medieval armorers.