An Empire
surrounded by enemies cannot defend itself by military might alone. It
is for this reason that the Byzantines have been unjustly labeled as diplomatic
charlatans and schemers intent on the destruction of her enemies. In his
book The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, Edward Luttwak
seeks to restore the luster of Byzantium’s tarnished image by discarding
myths and shedding light on Byzantium’s true legacy, a legacy even
more spectacular than the legends that have ingrained
themselves into our modern imagination. Unable to defend herself in the
traditional Roman way, the Byzantines adopted a new grand strategy that
would successfully neutralize enemies and attract allies for centuries.
Necessity
demanded wars of attrition to be avoided in favor of influencing and/or
pressuring potential enemies and allies alike through a variety of diplomatic
devices, including Imperial ambassadorial missions, gifts of friendship,
dynastic marriages, alliances against common enemies, and conversion to
Christianity. Divided into three sections, Luttwak’s book
covers the Invention of Byzantine Strategy, their Diplomacy-Myth and Methods,
and the Byzantine Art of War. Luttwak challenges
conventional understandings, deconstructs myths and dubious sources, revealing
a rich and militarily sophisticated state that continued to prosper in
spite of being pressed and squeezed by multiple enemies at any given time.
When Attila
and his Huns terrorized the peoples of Europe in the fifth century, they
possessed the most advanced war-making capabilities ever seen. The Roman
mentality of annihilation was untenable and the
Byzantine state did not possess the manpower or the financial resources
to maintain a large standing army that could protect her frontiers. A
new strategy would have to be adopted in order to confront the changing
dynamics and a fluctuating balance-of-power in the region. Soldiers would
be trained in the use of the composite reflex bow and heavy infantry would
be phased out in favor of mounted archers and heavy cavalry.
The Byzantines
understood that in order to protect their Empire, they would have to adapt
to a new method of war and adopt comparable or new technologies. By revolutionizing
the way war was conducted and adopting foreign weaponry and tactics, the
Byzantines stressed the importance of constant drill and training to master
mounted archery, cavalry organization and maneuvers. Unlike modern armies
that rely upon a basic training program of eight weeks, Byzantine soldiers
were expensive investments that could not be easily replaced. A soldier
was not considered proficient or battle-ready for a minimum of a year—this
training regimen, however, made Byzantine soldiers a formidable force.
A critical factor was to avoid large engagements that could severely cripple
the Byzantine army. One poor decision could threaten the safety of army
and, possibly, the stability of the Empire. Keeping this in mind, a grand
strategy that emphasized maneuver, ambush, raiding, outflanking, encirclement,
containment, and unpredictability became part and parcel of the Byzantine
way of war. By avoiding wars of attrition and engaging the enemy on their
own terms, the Byzantines were able to dictate the course and pace of
a battle or war. All the while, commanders and emperors, shrewd practitioners
of war, made calculated risks with great success.
Battlefield
success came with heavy costs and high casualties. There were other alternatives,
however, which were highly effective and required no cash expenditures
or loss of life. These options were highly desirable because, as Luttwak observed,
“peace was a temporary interruption of war, that as soon as one enemy
is defeated, another would take up his place.” (p. 58) Byzantine
creativity and ingenuity knew no bounds. Envoys were specially selected
and trained to conduct missions of great urgency to remote lands to create
bonds of friendship. Zemarchos ’ journey to Central Asia to offer terms of
friendship with the Turk qaganate is evidence
that great hopes were placed upon envoys to cement alliances against common
foes. In this case, it was Sasanian Persia who
was tamed, knowing that any overt aggression would involve the feared horse
archers of Sizabul . War on two fronts was impractical and most medieval
states avoided them.
Belligerent
neighbors, such as the Bulgars and Rus , required a different tack. Rather than offering cash
payments or treaties of alliance, they were assuaged with conversion to
Christianity. However, conversion proved problematic to Byzantium because
the Bulgars and the Rus could now lay
legitimate claim to the throne of Byzantium. Competing claims as the true
and right rulers of Byzantium was one outcome the Byzantines failed to
anticipate. This turn of events surely surprised the Byzantines but they
made strategic moves through arranged marriages with their daughters,
showcased the splendor and opulence of Constantinople and its royal trappings
of power, and when all else failed, mounted guerilla-style raids into
the Balkans under Basil II to sate their quest for blood. Peter Brown’s The
Rise of Western Christendom and Richard Fletcher’s The Barbarian
Conversion from Paganism to Christianity are excellent studies that
detail Byzantium’s push to Christianize the Barbarians in Southeastern
Europe. An especially interesting chapter in Fletcher’s work pays
tribute to the missionary brothers Cyril and Methodius in converting the
Slavs to the Orthodox faith.
The last
section of the book is devoted to military thinkers and commentators who
directly influenced the writings of Maurice and Leo VI. Luttwak deeply
admires and respects the Strategikon of
Maurice for its simple yet sophisticated analysis and presentation. Maurice
emphasized stratagems and relational maneuvers “made of tactics
and operational schemes specifically designed to circumvent the peculiar
strengths of a given enemy and to exploit his peculiar weaknesses.” (p.
288) The Strategikon was an all-purpose
manual that emphasized training, meticulous preparation and a thorough
understanding of your opponent. This was not a manual grounded in theoretical
and abstract terms but was chiefly concerned with concrete facts and insights.
A brief section is devoted to Leo VI and Naval warfare. Like Maurice’s Strategikon ,
Leo’s Tactica stresses the virtues of training and combat
simulation in order to minimize the chance that something may go awry.
Luttwak gives an excellent narrative case study of Heraclius’
magnificent victory over Persia. Luttwak’s reasoning
for choosing this specific example is easy to discern: this particular
case study serves as a perfect exemplar of all the devices that Byzantines
used to fight opponents, especially opponents who possess greater numbers
or resources. Flawless Byzantine execution in logistics, strategic surprise,
maneuver, boldness, and unpredictability led to a crushing Persian defeat.
Heraclius proved that war was not decided by superiority in either manpower
or gold, but in a scientific understanding of your opponent and using that
knowledge to guide your every decision. That is how Byzantium was able
to protect her Empire and to continue prospering for centuries.
One of Luttwak’s strengths
is to show how the grand strategy of the Byzantine Empire differed from
that of the Roman Empire. Luttwak is eminently qualified to do so because he has spent
the greater part of his career researching and writing the present book
under review while building upon his doctoral dissertation that analyzed
the grand strategy of the Roman Empire. It is also worth considering the
value Luttwak brings to such a study because of his keen insights
derived from a career as a military strategist. Like the many Byzantine
authors he discusses, Luttwak sees the world
and especially military matters through the lens of the strategist. This
is one of the book’s great strengths and benefits the reader in
untold ways. If this book had been written by a Byzantine scholar or a
military historian, it would have been of much depreciated value in comparison
to the present volume because of its rich insights and its heavy emphasis
upon the development of Byzantine strategy through the centuries. Strategy
came in many guises and was indispensable to the survival of Byzantium.
While other historians may have made the occasional reference to strategy, Luttwak relentlessly
places strategy in front of the reader to emphasize its evolving importance
as time progressed, resources diminished, and enemies proliferated.
The Grand Strategy of
the Byzantine Empire took
the author nearly 20 years to research and write and he considers it
to be his crowning achievement and worth more than the sum of all his
previous work. Throughout his book, Luttwak contrasts
the Roman model of strategy against the Byzantine model and argues that
the Byzantine model was more sophisticated than its predecessor. It is
for this very reason that the Byzantine Empire was able to endure for
many centuries and to experience periods of prosperity in spite of being
surrounded by jealous neighbors and volatile enemies. What made Byzantium
different from Rome was its ability to adapt and evolve to a changing
environment without exhausting the treasury, non-renewable resources
such as manpower, or the morale of the people. A threat from within was
more dangerous than an enemy at the gates and the Byzantines understood
that fact all too well. Keeping the people fed, clothed, and protected
was expensive but necessary in order to prevent civil unrest. This Byzantine
specialty would see them safely through countless crises.
For
Rome, a large professional army could influence not only Rome’s
actions but also the way Rome was perceived by neighbors and those who
encountered them on a regular basis. The Roman legion was an intimidating
force that could persuade a belligerent power to redirect its warlike
intentions in another direction or extinguish them completely. This method
of war served the Romans well but was impractical for the Byzantines for
a variety of reasons. Byzantium preferred to recruit allies rather than
annihilate potential threats. Of all the differences between Rome and
Byzantium, this may very well be the crucial difference that separated
Roman grand strategy from Byzantine grand strategy. Other divergences
between Rome and Byzantium included the Byzantine fascination with neighboring
cultures and a profound interest in learning about them in a way reminiscent
of Herodotus (p. 145). Another key distinction was the fundamental structure
of the Byzantine army, which relegated the infantrymen to a supporting
role while placing greater emphasis upon cavalry (p. 267).
Charles
Oman held the Byzantine army in the highest regard and was convinced that
they cultivated martial superiority by integrating theory and practice
and training into an organic military science that could be applied with
devastating effect. Byzantine military science was largely due to the
original thinking of men like Maurice, Leo VI and countless others who
methodically cataloged their strategies, tactics, precepts, and the like
into didactic manuals that could be studied and practiced through simulation
until mastered (p. 239). A feature ignored by Oman and other writers is
the success of a style of war trademarked by the Byzantines termed “relational
maneuver” by Luttwak . In the author’s
opinion, it “is one of the characterizing differences between Roman
and Byzantine warfare,” and when used flawlessly, “changes
the effective military balance by circumventing the enemy’s strengths
and exploiting his weaknesses.” (p. 287)
Because
Byzantine history spanned many centuries and came into contact with dozens
of different ethnic groups, many of the sources used in constructing Luttwak’s study are obscure, redacted, or written in
a language other than Latin or Greek. For these reasons, Luttwak is
to be commended for exhaustively sifting through the historical record
to find a myriad of colorful accounts to help tell his story. Luttwak painstakingly
evaluates the credibility, reliability and potential difficulties every
source poses and renders a critique that helps the reader to make value
judgments about the evidence. This is a great benefit for the reader who
is able to move easily from one piece of evidence to another without getting
confused by the many pieces of information the author lays out. It is
apparent Luttwak assumes an intelligent audience but, perhaps, one
not intimately familiar with the subject matter, which explains why he
provides many helpful historiographical discussions that give the reader
an excellent grasp of historical debates and current trends.
For example,
when discussing Justinian’s rapid collapse after successful campaigns
of expansion and reconquista , Luttwak draws
the reader’s attention to a long held belief that Procopius’ accounts
were not accurate but exaggerated. New evidence, however, corroborates
Procopius’ statistics which shed light
on the seriousness of the calamity that the plague inflicted upon the
Byzantine Empire. Climatological studies and DNA analysis vindicated Procopius’ veracity
and should serve as a warning to historians that they should not be too
quick to pass judgment upon a source because the evidence provided seems,
at first blush, to be a fabrication or misinformation (p. 86). Historians
are only able to reconstruct a past with the available evidence and if
a particular source is suspect for whatever reason, it should still be
taken under consideration as a worthy source until confirmed otherwise.
This reader
was particularly impressed by the broad variety of sources used to construct
the narrative of this book. Snorri Sturluson’s Saga of Harald Hardrade was used to
show that the wealth of Byzantium flowed in many directions and reached
the Baltic lands in vast quantities, thus verifying the vast amount of
wealth that Byzantium held in gold (p. 130). Many sources that would not
be recognized by the non-specialist give Luttwak’s story
more richness due to their stories and their locales. These include the Chronicle
of 1234, the Nedarim of the Babylonian
Talmud, the Chronicle of AD 819, various Arab sources, and
the Armenian author Sebeos (pp. 207, 203, 176,
153, and 336, respectively). Luttwak has provided
a thoughtful and vigorous exposition of two special sources in their own
chapters: Maurice’s Strategikon and
Leo VI’s Tactica . The historiographical
treatment contained within these two chapters is extraordinary and will
certainly promote and/or provoke debate causing others to reconsider the
revolutionary impact these writings had at the time and how much they
had to do with Byzantine military success.
There is
a great deal to be gained from this invaluable book and Luttwak generously
acknowledges the assistance that other notable scholars gave in the production
of this book. They include John Haldon , Walter Kaegi ,
Eric McGeer , and George Dennis to name a few.
His modesty and humility are noteworthy because they exhibit what is best
about the camaraderie that can be shared and experienced by those who
are eager to share what they have learned and those who are willing to
listen. Luttwak’s book would have been
less persuasive without their valuable contributions. His willingness
to seek out, and document in his text, their expertise in areas where
he was less familiar is an excellent example more historians should emulate.
That alone is the mark of a historian who seeks to further the boundaries
of knowledge of a subject rather than the aggrandizement of his own name
or reputation.
It is customary
to balance praise with criticism. To put it another way, a good book review
highlights both strengths and weaknesses inherent in the argument presented.
Because this book was written gradually over many years and thoughtfully
and critically conceived is testament to this overwhelmingly positive
review. For this very reason, this reader is convinced that there is no
point of contention of any great significance that is worth mentioning.
Great care was taken in preparing this book and would be a lofty standard
for others to consider when preparing a manuscript. To give credence to
mere trifles would cast a shadow over a work that deserves acclamation
and enliven new debates on old subjects. In this respect, this work provides
unlimited avenues for future discussion.
Byzantine
grand strategy revolutionized the way the Empire interacted with friends
and foes and balanced those relationships to favorable advantage. A variety
of factors make such innovative and creative strategies necessary in order
to survive in a volatile age. The grand strategy of the Byzantines had
little in common with the grand strategy of Rome. The former preferred
to avoid war while the latter believed that any enemy should be annihilated.
But Byzantium was geographically centered, surrounded by potential threats
in every direction. Military campaigning was impractical and could easily
bankrupt the Empire. Rather than fight, Byzantium preferred friendship
and alliance and the strategy proved highly effective. Some of Byzantium’s
most loyal allies were the Turkic Pechenegs and other warriors of the steppe. With powerful
allies by their side, potential threats from Sasanian Persia,
the Bulgars , and others were neutralized. These
diplomatic “weapons” were, perhaps, more powerful than any
other human weapon because they neither exhausted the treasury, manpower,
or the people who lived within the Empire. Byzantine grand strategy showed
that the way wars were traditionally fought had evolved in directions
that required creative thinking, a trait the Romans did not possess.