Late Roman infantry in transition

[Erpingham]

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)?

[aligern]

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.

[Erpingham]

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?

[aligern]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

[aligern]

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[Erpingham]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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 ...

[Erpingham]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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).  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.

[Erpingham]

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?

[Erpingham]

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.

[Duncan Head]

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 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).

[Patrick Waterson]

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.