varangian guard
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:53 am
I posted it in another discussion, but should have oppened a new topic for clarity sakes , so here it is :
There is one thing I do not understand in the army list . Varangians were already used as a "guard" unit in 980's . Ok at that time, they are cassified as varangian mercenaries . But why wait till the mythic date "1042" to give the option for a thrue varangian guard ? , drilled, armoured or heavily armoured ...
Why not earlier while Basil II was still alive ( he died 1025) as it was mainly his guard unit . It would seem to me that after some 20 years of service, the varangians would have reached the status of a regular drilled unit . They had a uniform and so on ( a nice uniform does not make a good soldier , but here they received the nice uniform after some years of service )
There are records of norsemen coming back home fully equiped before that date . It is also mentionned in the osprey army book concerning the byzantine army of that area . ( men at arms 89 ). I know historians discovered some new info since the publication of that book, but it is disturbing .
Can someone explain that decision ? Why wait "1042" for a thue , drilled varangian guard, why not the year "1000"
There is one thing I do not understand in the army list . Varangians were already used as a "guard" unit in 980's . Ok at that time, they are cassified as varangian mercenaries . But why wait till the mythic date "1042" to give the option for a thrue varangian guard ? , drilled, armoured or heavily armoured ...
Why not earlier while Basil II was still alive ( he died 1025) as it was mainly his guard unit . It would seem to me that after some 20 years of service, the varangians would have reached the status of a regular drilled unit . They had a uniform and so on ( a nice uniform does not make a good soldier , but here they received the nice uniform after some years of service )
There are records of norsemen coming back home fully equiped before that date . It is also mentionned in the osprey army book concerning the byzantine army of that area . ( men at arms 89 ). I know historians discovered some new info since the publication of that book, but it is disturbing .
Can someone explain that decision ? Why wait "1042" for a thue , drilled varangian guard, why not the year "1000"