Here's a question that came up on Ancmed which I think deserves a more detailed exploration. Early Byzantine manuals describe an infantry organisation which seems file based and quite classical in inspiration. Infantry seem to be armed with long spears, bows or menalatoi (which have been reconstructed in different ways). If we turn to our last Roman manual, Vegetius' De Re Militari, he gives no intimation of a revolutionary change in infantry organisation from the Roman tradition. His infantry are basically throwers, though there are clearly now light infantry, including archers, in the ranks. The two traditions seem no more than 150 years apart, perhaps less.
My question on Ancmed was simple - How, when and where did this shift take place? We can have a side-order of what exactly was the shift (Rance, for example, in his paper on the Byzantine Foulkon formation spends a lot of time relating it to earlier Roman infantry tactics, suggesting the the organisational changes are part of an evolutionary rather than revolutionary change)?
Menaulatoi are IIRC a tenth century innovation designed to counter the charge of opposing cataphracts. The early Byzantine organisation is in Maurice and one other quite tin manual. My reading of Maurice in the Dennis translation is that the spears. are not that long, more like 6-7ft and dual purpose, thrusting/throwing. So n a way I don't think that they are too far different from the infantry in Vegetius.
The formation that Maurice describes as Foulkon appears very like that described by Arrian in his Battle Order Against the Alans. The enemy that Maurice envisages is a mounted force so it makes sense that the spear armed infantry form to the front with javelinmen, archers and slingers to the rear shooting overhead. Mind you this is very like the formation Narses commands against charging Allamannic infantry at Casilinum. Presumably this is how Julian's troops firmed against the charging Allamans at Argentoratum in the fourth century.
So I would say the VIth century formations are not that different from Vegetius.
Quote from: aligern on February 01, 2014, 01:21:44 PM
So I would say the VIth century formations are not that different from Vegetius.
So would you say that the apparent switch to a more classical file based organisation represents a real shift or is simply anew way of describing?
Is there a discernible difference in how they fight. In the 4th century the Romans are operating with rear ranks that contribute missiles and archery in an essentially defensive infantry formation and they are doing the same in the 6th century. Foulkon, which Philip Rance (who pretty well walks on water for me) shows to be an earlier Roman formation has each rank of the infantry adopting a particular posture.
Of corse we do not hear of Late Roman or Byzantine infantry doing line replacement, but then I imagine that that went out relatively early in the imperial period because its not so appropriate against opponents who are not dense infantry formations.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on February 01, 2014, 04:31:13 PM
Foulkon, which Philip Rance (who pretty well walks on water for me) shows to be an earlier Roman formation has each rank of the infantry adopting a particular posture.
Roy
Agreed - the Foulkon article is certainly one I'd point to if anyone asked how to write an article analysing ancient or medieval tactics. But, although the tactical development can be seen to evolve, is the internal organisation of an infantry unit the same? Byzantine forces seem to have file leaders and file closers like earlier Greek practice but unlike earlier Roman organisation, for example.
I just wonder if the Romans of say Trajan's period had different grades of men for leading each file and closing it. In the Byzantine manual, 'Strategy' he describes the grade A man as the front ranker, then the grade B man is the closer , C grade men alternate through the file with grade D men.
Its all a bit heavy on the theoretical . However, I recall that earlier Romans had their centurions fight in the front rank so I suspect that file organisation was always attended to .
As to what difference a file versus a rank organisation would make in practice i just don't know.
There is sometimes a thread of debate on ancmed about What appears to be numerology and rank versus file organisation looks to be of that ilk, unless there is some practical difference in operation. I can see that Roman Republicans operate in groups of ranks, lines, that move up to support and replace, but I cannot see that in Late Imperial or Early Byzantine operations. As the question was about the variance with the age of Vegetius I await someone telling us what the practical difference was.
Roy
I confess I've never really understood the way a 'rank' based system worked. If the rank is the subunit, then the usual way of mixing men so that the more experienced can get the less experienced knocked into shape, doesn't work too well.
Also it means that unless you're constantly moving men between subunits (which is universally regarded by the military as a bad thing because bonding at that level is what keeps the army willing to fight) you'll end up with totally inexperienced men in the front rank
Jim
The problem is the lack of any clear group of file leaders or closers. My understanding is you have a centurion and an optio, a standard and a musician. There are 1 1/2 pays but they all seem to be technical specialists, not part of the tactical set up. However, I'm not particularly well versed on legionary organisation so perhaps someone more expert can shed some light?
There are also men with extra (1 1/2 or double) pay - sesquiplicarii and duplicarii - and one might hazard a guess at how they earn it ...
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 02, 2014, 11:21:33 AM
There are also men with extra (1 1/2 or double) pay - sesquiplicarii and duplicarii - and one might hazard a guess at how they earn it ...
Yes, but the 1 1/2 pays, as I said, seem to be technical specialists - clerks, engineers, medical orderlies - not men with a place in the ranks. According to Connolly - sorry I don't have more modern books - the double pays are the staff - the optio and the standard bearer.
True, plus the cornicularis (administrator). I just wondered - really an idle thought with nothing to back it up - whether file leaders/closers would also qualify for extra pay. The term 'optio' seems to have been used both for a century's second-in-command and for privates with some sort of special duty status (source: van Dorst's Tripod site (http://s_van_dorst.tripod.com/Ancient_Warfare/Rome/hierarchy.html)). Might the pay grades have had similar application beyond the generally understood?
This is conjecture, largely because we do seem to lack clear designations for file leaders and closers in the Roman army, although Polybius apparently equates the Roman optio with the Greek ouragos, file-closer, making me wonder if the term optio (a rank with a sesquiplicarian pay grade) was used both for file-closers and for the century's second-in-command. If so, then each contubernia should have one duplicarius and one sesquiplicarius on its strength, but I have not found any clear indication of this.
I went back to my old copy of Webster's The Imperial Roman Army. He is certainly of the opinion that a century had only one optio who he reckons was a duplicarius. Maybe Polybius equated the optio with a file-closer because he stood at the back of the unit? Things are made more complicated of course by the fact that units of the Late Empire had different ranks to the early Empire - the double pays appear now to be called circitor and biarchus. So something is stirring but is it a tactical reorganisation or simply an administrative one?
Further googling found this
http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/ranks.htm
The biarchus is indeed the contubernium leader Patrick speculated might exist. He may be the file-leader, therefore, if the contubernium consisted of the file.
We also have another senior ranker , the semissalis, who appears to be a 1 1/2 pay post, but it isn't apparently clear what his job is.
Somewhere in the archives of one or more of the Yahoo groups, either dbmlist, early dbmmlist, or TNE, will be several contributions by Michael Anastasiadis discussing this issue. His posting at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dbmlist/conversations/messages/7646 (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dbmlist/conversations/messages/7646) mentions the Epitedeuma of Urbicius/Ourbikios, written under Anastasios I (491-518), which I seem to recall he reckoned was the first manual that reverts to the Hellenistic file-based organization. It may possibly also be the first work to imply that the infantry spear was now a primarily thrusting weapon, but don't hold me to that one (and even Maurikios describes the infantry doru being thrown in some circumstances).
Interesting, because yours truly suspected that if there was a change to spear-armed infantry it may have originated with Zeno (474-491). If the change originated with Zeno then the first manual being written in the reign of Anastasius would probably be about right. This is speculation based on a) timing and b) the Empire's principal opponents, or at least threats, being Goths and Persians, both nations with numerous formidable cavalry and less distinguished infantry.
Aha!
https://www.academia.edu/3432090/Urbicius_Epitedeuma_An_Edition_Translation_and_Commentary._Byzantinische_Zeitschrift_98_2005_37-76 (https://www.academia.edu/3432090/Urbicius_Epitedeuma_An_Edition_Translation_and_Commentary._Byzantinische_Zeitschrift_98_2005_37-76)
I didn't realise it was available online!
However, a quick scan suggests that the 16-man Hellenistic file comes not from the Epitedeuma, but from Urbicius' other work, a Tactica: "dekania is not used in U's Tacticon; instead the lochos of sixteen men is the base unit (as in Arrian)". I don't know of any translation of this work.
The Epideteuma does indeed utilise the dekania, or ten-man file.
Quote
4. Animals carrying poles fitted with nails should follow those who march on the flanks, and each decuria of soldiers should have charge of three such poles, which thus allows one animal to assist ten decuriae, each of the animals travelling next to its own group of decuriae.
'Decuria' is the translators' Latinisation of the Greek 'dekania'. The 'poles' are an anti-cavalry device. What does seem evident from this work is that cavalry was the bugbear of Roman infantry c.AD 500, so Zeno may be a bit early for spear-armed Late Roman infantry.
Quote from: Erpingham on February 02, 2014, 04:50:01 PM
Further googling found this
http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/ranks.htm
The biarchus is indeed the contubernium leader Patrick speculated might exist. He may be the file-leader, therefore, if the contubernium consisted of the file.
We also have another senior ranker , the semissalis, who appears to be a 1 1/2 pay post, but it isn't apparently clear what his job is.
Well hunted: we might be able to conjecture that the
semissalis could have been a file-closer if somewhere there exists a note of how many were found in a particular unit and it comes to 1/8 to 1/10 of the total.
The manual 'Strategy' has a file based organisation of the phalanx. it also has Byzantine troops using combined bow and spear. they advance against the enemy, ground their spears, shoot their bows and then pick the spears up and advance again. It is possible that this is the armament of regular Byzantine troops in this period and it would make sense of Procopius words about Taginae where the army of Narses has two wings of archers. It would also make sense that the infantry of this period are less solid than earlier because they are managing both bow and spear and, according to 'Strategy ' an oval shield of 1.3 metres height. However, this does not really chime with the description in the Strategikon where bowmen and spearmen are separate. Other passages in the 'Strategy' manual are very clumsy and give the impression that the author has combined ancient manuals , some contemporary experience and a lot of rather impractical bright ideas. For example he describes the phalanx as having several rows of spearheads projecting beyond the front which looks just like a lift from an ancient manual .
I am against seeing the manuals as too closely linked to contemporary tactics. If you want to see a good case that relates Byzantine manuals to literary reports see Ilkke Syvanne's Age of the Hippotoxatoi. I would see the literary descriptions as more about practical and pragmatic decisions by commanders whereas the manuals have a purpose such as proposing how to deal with an enemy such as the Avars or as a sort of mirror to princes (advice for a ruler) with more than a nod to the Byzantine literary movement that looked beyond Roman traditions to Greek andHellenistic roots.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on February 02, 2014, 11:12:59 PM
The manual 'Strategy' has a file based organisation of the phalanx. it also has Byzantine troops using combined bow and spear. they advance against the enemy, ground their spears, shoot their bows and then pick the spears up and advance again. It is possible that this is the armament of regular Byzantine troops in this period ...
If this is the one also referred to as
Peri Strategias, then Greatrex et al., in the Urbicius article I linked to, say:
QuoteThere is no obvious dating evidence for the Peri Strategias (the beginning sections are also lost), but it has often been dated to Justinian's reign, following its first editors, Köchly and Rüstow. However, doubts as to the Justinianic date were raised separately by Baldwin and by Lee and Shepard, and more recently by Zuckerman and Cosentino. Lee and Shepard note that the internal evidence for a sixth century dating is weak and could easily apply to the tenth century. Some of the vocabulary fits a tenth century context better (e.g. the use of kataphractos, not used in sixth century contexts) as does the mention of Arabs as enemies. Although raising real questions, Lee and Shepard are themselves uncertain as to the strength of their arguments. Recently, Zuckerman has argued that Syrianus' naval work, the Anonymous Peri Strategias and the Rhetorica Militaris are all part of the same sixth-century work, while Cosentino argues in detail for a mid-ninth century date. Clearly there is a lack of consensus, although the tendency seems to be to move the work later, and thus further from the period of Urbicius.
So it
may be much too late to be relevant, and it looks as if no conclusions drawn from the
Strategy can be very safe..
Well, I went with dating given by Dennis, the translator.
I happily bought in to his conclusion of it being early, because it is so mixed up whereas by the tenth century the Byzantines are using Hellenistic manuals in a much more thought through way. Also Dennis deals with the Arab point (which gave me pause) by suggesting that these Arabs who rely upon ambush are not the Arab states and caliphate of later centuries. but the Arabs that are placed on the frontier with the Persians and that sort of reassured me because later Arabs are described as forming a long deep phalanx with their cavalry.
Duncan, it would help fix a date if we knew of a Byzantine army where the infantry carried combined spear and bow and a 4ft shield?
A point that I forgot to make earlier was that even a relatively consistent manual such as Maurice is really pretty unsatisfactory when describing opponents and goes into detail about formations that are not expected to be used. It is evident that some of the information is clearly not a practical guide and the whole work may never have been intended to be in some strategos' kit bag.
Roy
So, summarising where I think we have got to (point out the mistakes)
Early 5th century - Units of infantry, some with throwable spears, shields, weighted darts, others light troops inc archers
Early 6th century (maybe) - Units of infantry, throwable spears, shields, bows
Later 6th century - Units of infantry, some with throwable spears, shields, some with bows
In the first two periods, we aren't clear on the tactical command structure except that newer types of organisation have come in in the 4th century and apparently exist alongside older forms esp in the limitanei. By the later 6th century, we have a file based system with file leaders and file closers which shows clear Hellenistic influence.
Are weighted darts used this late?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 03, 2014, 05:51:56 PM
Are weighted darts used this late?
They are in Vegetius but I don't know about after that.
Weighted darts are found, I recall, in a quite restricted context and may represent specfic units such as the Mattiaci or the Joviani and Herculani. A lot of the finds are near the internal fortifications of the Julian Alps.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on February 03, 2014, 04:12:52 PMDuncan, it would help fix a date if we knew of a Byzantine army where the infantry carried combined spear and bow and a 4ft shield?
I suppose it couldn't do any harm.
Quote from: aligern on February 03, 2014, 09:26:19 PM
Weighted darts are found, I recall, in a quite restricted context and may represent specfic units such as the Mattiaci or the Joviani and Herculani. A lot of the finds are near the internal fortifications of the Julian Alps.
In what way restricted? "The finds of plumbatae are distributed over a vast area that coincides with the sites of Roman military units in late antiquity. They have been found in Britain, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Greece, and as far as Georgia. Of the finds from the Balkan Peninsula worthy of mention are a few plumbatae recovered from the Kupa river near Sisak in Croatia as early as the beginning of the twentieth century" - from Vujović's article "The plumbatae from Serbia" (2009). Certainly some of the Balkan finds may represent the Ioviani and Herculiani whom Vegetius mentions, but it looks as if they have been found rather too widely for that to account for all of them.
OK , rather than restricted let us say that they are widespread but that there is a very particular concentration around the upper Danube.
https://www.academia.edu/1183564/THE_PLUMBATAE_FROM_SERBIA
Roy
Quote from: aligern on February 03, 2014, 10:55:12 PM
OK , rather than restricted let us say that they are widespread but that there is a very particular concentration around the upper Danube.
https://www.academia.edu/1183564/THE_PLUMBATAE_FROM_SERBIA
Roy
But is that not indicative of the heavy fighting between the Romans and Goths after the crossing of the Danube in 376AD?
Was that not on the Lower Danube, i.e. Bulgaria rather than Serbia?
Cheers
Mick
Valens crossed the Danube three times between 367-369AD to engage the Goths under Athanaricus. They were quite major expeditions with full field armies. That may account for some of the darts. As would Valens sending the Army of Thrace over the Danube to support Fritigern against Athanaricus sometime between 369 and 376AD.
There were lots of battles between the Goths and Valens forces in the region and quite possible some of them would account for the large number of darts found in Serbia and the area around.
Aren't these campaigns further down the Danubein the region of present day Romania?
Roy
Hi Roy, I dont know if you remember this thread on RAT-
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/16736-plumbata.html?start=585
After the victory at Dibaltum the Goths learnt that Gratian had despatched Frigeridus with troops to aid his uncle Valens. Frigeridus was at a fortress he had constructed in Thrace, at a place called Beroea. The Goths, recognising the threat that Frigeridus and his men posed, rushed as quickly as they could with the Hun and Alan mercenaries to Beroea where they hoped to catch Frigeridus off guard. Fortunately for the Romans, the scouts Frigeridus had sent out for the very purpose of detecting such an action by the Goths, spotted the on-rushing barbarians. This timely warning allowed Frigeridus and his army to march out of the fortress and retire to Illyricum unscathed. After successfully escaping from the Goths in Thrace Frigeridus then chanced upon the Gothic chieftain Farnobius and his band of Goths, who were now joined by another Gothic tribe, the Taifali, who had been lately been allies of the Romans during the reign of Constantius II. Frigeridus drew up his army in battle formation and launched a devastating attack on Farnobius and his men, killing that chieftain and most of the Goths he had led. The survivors were sent to Italy to work the fields around Parma, Mutina and Regium. So, there was at least one major battle in the region now covered by Serbia between the Goths and Romans, which might have led to at least some of the plumbata finds.