Late Roman infantry in transition

[Duncan Head]

Aha!

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

The Epideteuma does indeed utilise the dekania, or ten-man file.

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.

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.

[aligern]

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

[Duncan Head]

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:

There 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..

[aligern]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

Are weighted darts used this late?

[Erpingham]

Are weighted darts used this late?

They are in Vegetius but I don't know about after that.

[aligern]

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

[Duncan Head]

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?

I suppose it couldn't do any harm.

[Duncan Head]

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.

[aligern]

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

[valentinianvictor]

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?

[Mick Hession]

Was that not on the Lower Danube, i.e. Bulgaria rather than Serbia?

Cheers
Mick

[valentinianvictor]

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.