Social consequences of reconquest

[Aldarion]

OK, I am doing background on history of my setting, and now am writing background on Fomorian invasions - which, in my world, replace barbarian invasions. Now, important parts are these (based on combination of Irish legends about Fomorians and history of Western Roman Empire and barbarian invasions):

Invasions continued, and territory was gradually lost as Fomorians established control over increasing areas. Situation was made more desperate by threat of formerly-nomadic Altziagiri (note: Huns) at eastern borders. In 1204 AUC Altziagiri penetrated as far west as Ilaeth. They were defeated at Marchylwinion, but continued their depredations. Fomorian leader Brus (Atilla) was defeated at plains near Dinalys in 1 206 AUC, but invasions still continued. Vetronia itself was sacked by Fomorians in 1 208 AUC. In 1210 AUC, Portum Veteris was captured by Fomorians. Both Portum Veteris and Tutuporta were recaptured by Imperial army in 1211 AUC, but Dinalys was lost to Fomorians in 1215 AUC. In 1241 AUC eastern Empire it managed to buy off a Fomorian warchief to attack some of his peers. This chief was defeated in 1246 AUC in battle near Calidum, but the invasion managed to reduce pressure on eastern Vetronia, allowing it to focus on Altziagiri.

Altziagiri threat finally ended after they were defeated by Fomorians at Battle of River Afanastra in 1 260 AUC (note: Franks defeating Visigoths). By 1 292 AUC, entire western portion of Vetronia was a patchwork of Fomorian kingdoms which struggled for control among themselves. Among those, most significant were kingdoms ruled by Dele and Febar. Overall hedquarters of Fomorians were on the island of Eriu, where Elatha ruled.

Part of the Empire survived thanks to assistance by Eastern Vetronia, but since eastern Empire was also under attack – by Fomorians along its coast and western border, and by barbarians along its northern border – it was not able to do anything more. In areas under their control, Fomorians demanded toll of children and livestock from people, and their kings abandoned all laws of sacred hospitality. Resistance still continued in mountains and outlying areas controlled by warlords, who were mostly independent of, but still beholden to, the central government.

In remains of the Empire, as well as territories which still resisted despite being formally under Fomorian control, military was transformed. As there was no cash to pay the army, and eastern Empire too was being ravaged, soldiers were supported from the land. Payments were made from these in nature (payment in kind); only commanders still received cash payments from the central government as they had not lands of their own. Land became owned by individual soldiers, with their families – or, in case of cavalry troops, groups of families – being responsible for supplying and equipping soldiers, under old law of hospitalitas which required a civillian to turn over a third of his home for soldier's use. All these troops were of former field armies; limitanei had ceased to exist.

War turned around after Eremon (Tigermais; note: Balar), Fomorian leader, was slain at annual payment of tribute (note: Battle of Mag Tuared). Resistance members had infiltrated the cultists worshipping him and thus assassinated him in 1 333 AUC, but their leader Neifion (note: Nuadu) lost his hand; thus he was afterwards known as Silver-Handed (Arian or Argetlam). This was followed 27 years later (1 360 AUC) by a battle at Febeg (note: Second Battle of Mag Tuared), where resistance was initially successful but Fomorian reinforcements turned the battle around – sixty thousand Vetronian troops were lost, including Neifion himself.

Still, Fomorians were slowly losing grip. A freak storm caused the shades of the dead – the silentes – to appear, and these acted as advisors and spies for the resistance. Activity was centered around Tower of the Dead, also called the Tower of Glass or Crystal Tower. Fomorians had captured it early during invasions, but it was retaken at great cost. The expenditure of the lives to take it led to its activation, thus providing Vetronians with significant advantage.

In northern Vetronia, rebellion organized under Cian (note;?) managed to spread and liberate additional territories. Cian used to be a hostage at a court of Fomorian chief, and there learned their knowledge and customs. He negotiated an alliance with Tara, one of kings of Eriu. Resistance carefully prepared, taught by the experience of Battle at Febeg, and secretly collected the smiths, physicians, sorcerers and even druids.

On 1st November 1 380 AUC Second Battle of Febeg was fought (note: Second Battle of Mag Tuared; Battle of Nineveh). Vetronian weapons in this battle were silvered and enchanted, thus countering enchantments used by Fomorians on their own weapons and armour. Vetronian leader Gruffud (note: Nuadu) was killed in this battle, but Fomorian leader Gabor (note: Balar) was also killed by a sling stone through his eye. Fomorians were thus routed. Two years later (in 1 382 AUC), many of Fomorian leaders were killed at a dinner.

Some of Fomorian leaders escaped, but there was no one leader who could claim uncontested authority over all the others. Consequently, Fomorian warbands as well as Vetronian aristocrats with their retinues started fighting among themselves for territories. This enabled gradual reconquest by what remained of the Western Vetronian Empire.

So what occured to me is that above is rather similar to Muslim conquest of Iberia and later Spanish Reconquista. But there are some questions:
1) Military organization. I was originally going for Byzantine thematic system, since we do not have foreign elites taking over domestic population. But is that realistic? Seeing how there would have been local warlords which either cooperated with Fomorians or else managed to resist them (e.g. mountains), would this lead to development of feudalism or would the Empire be able to coopt them from the start? Or maybe there would be some mixture of thematic system and proper feudalism, seeing how central government never really disappeared though it was reduced in size? So maybe central army + thematic provincial armies + magnates retinues? What about possible religious military orders (I imagine "demonic-looking beings from under water would rather help their appearance)?
2) Social and cultural impact. Would Fomorian invasions lead to development of kinda-sorta chivalric ideals or warrior ethos? I do not imagine these would be concerned with honour as such, considering the context, but there might be some code developing anyway. Or maybe - considering how dangerous they were - invasions would lead to emphasis on avoidance of direct military confrontation, and focus on diplomacy? Or maybe even both?
3) Political impact. What is the likelyhood of the Empire splitting into two or three different states and having to be forcibly reunited later? And when would that happen?
4) Anything I am missing here?

 

[Gurkhal]

So what occured to me is that above is rather similar to Muslim conquest of Iberia and later Spanish Reconquista. But there are some questions:
1) Military organization. I was originally going for Byzantine thematic system, since we do not have foreign elites taking over domestic population. But is that realistic? Seeing how there would have been local warlords which either cooperated with Fomorians or else managed to resist them (e.g. mountains), would this lead to development of feudalism or would the Empire be able to coopt them from the start? Or maybe there would be some mixture of thematic system and proper feudalism, seeing how central government never really disappeared though it was reduced in size? So maybe central army + thematic provincial armies + magnates retinues? What about possible religious military orders (I imagine "demonic-looking beings from under water would rather help their appearance)?
2) Social and cultural impact. Would Fomorian invasions lead to development of kinda-sorta chivalric ideals or warrior ethos? I do not imagine these would be concerned with honour as such, considering the context, but there might be some code developing anyway. Or maybe - considering how dangerous they were - invasions would lead to emphasis on avoidance of direct military confrontation, and focus on diplomacy? Or maybe even both?
3) Political impact. What is the likelyhood of the Empire splitting into two or three different states and having to be forcibly reunited later? And when would that happen?
4) Anything I am missing here?

I'll try to give some input.

1. I don't think that you can have feudalism and a powerful central government at the same time. The basis of feudalism is to my knowledge the collapse of central authority and so feudalism and a centrally controlled military force like the Byzantine military systems are in my opinion incompatible. Therefor I think that you need to essentially pick one as the main type and let the other be, at best, a supplement to that main system.

Like you can have a royal army in a feudal system, but its just a regional army with a fancy name. And you can have private forces in a thematic system, but the private forces are essentially extras.

2. Chivalry, to my knowledge, was partially based on the fact that you suddenly didn't just have fighting between nations/tribes but suddenly also within these groupings but also that castles prevents final resolution to the feuds. Hence chivalry partially developed as a way to mitigate the effects of internal feuds that could not easily be resolved by bloodshed by giving some common rules of conduct for the participants. Add to that also the "Peace of God" movement and you've got a basis for a semi-independent warrior elite that forms a code of conduct of its own to prevent itself from tearing itself apart by internal fighting.

3. Very, very small and the chance of a later reunification is even smaller.

 

[Aldarion]

1. I don't think that you can have feudalism and a powerful central government at the same time. The basis of feudalism is to my knowledge the collapse of central authority and so feudalism and a centrally controlled military force like the Byzantine military systems are in my opinion incompatible. Therefor I think that you need to essentially pick one as the main type and let the other be, at best, a supplement to that main system.

Like you can have a royal army in a feudal system, but its just a regional army with a fancy name. And you can have private forces in a thematic system, but the private forces are essentially extras.

So since central authority never really collapsed - similar to Asturias - Barcelona - Vasconia in Spain after Muslim conquest - thematic or maybe pronoia system would make more sense than feudalism.

BTW, there can be royal army in feudal system - look at Hungarian Black Army. As for private forces in thematic system, what would be their role and would they mean danger of too much decentralization?

The Development of the Komnenian Army
The power of the Dynatoi of the Byzantine Empire : AskHistorians