For many centuries, it was Byzantium that was the custodian of ancient Roman culture and military art. And what did this result in in the Middle Ages, and somewhere around from the collapse of the Western Roman Empire to the 10th century inclusive, today our story will go, moreover, prepared on the basis of the works of English-speaking authors. We will get acquainted with both the infantry and the cavalry of Byzantium.
Miniature # 55 from the chronicle of Constantine Manassas, XIV century. "Emperor Michael II defeats the army of Thomas the Slav." "Konstantin Manasiy". Ivan Duychev, Publishing House "Balgarski Artist", Sofia, 1962
What could be better than an academic manner of presentation?
To begin with, I, probably, very soon, like the immortal Miss Marple in Agatha Christie's, will advocate for the "good old traditions" (and this despite the fact that she did not reject progress at all and treated it with understanding). It's just that there are things that must change over time, and there are those that would be better not to change. That's all. For example, there is such a "thing" as books and articles on historical topics. There is a good academic tradition to give them links to sources and correctly, that is, in an exhaustive way, draw up captions under the illustrations. But is it always observed? Let's put it this way: in the same monographs by the English historian D. Nicolas, it is observed very strictly, and he even divides the sources into primary and secondary. But in some of them, including those translated into Russian, unfortunately, it is not indicated where these or those illustrations are located, as well as the name of the books from which they are taken. The signatures "medieval manuscript" or, say, "medieval miniature", which our Russian authors often sin with, is nonsense, since they do not say anything to anyone. Meanwhile, we already have books on historical topics, where under the illustrations it is simply written: "Flicr Source". Just like that and … nothing else. That is why it is so valuable that many new authors who have appeared on the Voennoye Obozreniye website and, in particular, E. Vashchenko, correctly sign the placed illustrations in the text, and accompany their works with lists of used literature. Experience has shown that specific references to it are … "not for a horse," so that in popular science materials it is quite possible to do without them.
One of the many books by D. Nicolas, dedicated to the army of Byzantium.
How to compare and see …
Not so long ago, the attention of readers of "VO" was attracted by a series of articles by the above-named author, dedicated to the soldiers of Byzantium. Moreover, it is especially valuable that he accompanies them with his own photographs taken in famous museums of the world, as well as graphic reconstructions of the appearance of these soldiers, and made at a sufficiently high professional level.
The British publishing house "Osprey" publishes books of different series, different thematic focus. Some are dedicated to the main uniform, others, for example, like this one - to the description of the battles.
And it is very good that the level of these publications allows … to compare them with materials on the same topic, taken from the books of British historians, for example, David Nicolas, published in England by Osprey, and Ian Heath, whose works were published in Montvert, as well as a number of others. And today we will try to briefly retell what these historians told about the soldiers of Byzantium in their books. In 1998, their books were used by the author of this material in the book "Knights of the Middle Ages", and in 2002 - "Knights of the East" and in a number of other books. A historiographic review on the same topic in 2011 was published in the journal VAK "Bulletin of Saratov University". And now there is a rare opportunity to compare the materials of British historians with the materials of one of our contemporary Russian researchers published on the VO website, which, of course, cannot but interest all those who are close to this military-historical topic. So…
In addition to D. Nicolas, historian Ian Heath and many other researchers published works about the Byzantine armies on Osprey.
Well, we will have to start our story with … the invasion of the barbarians, which began already in 250, and began to pose a serious threat to the Roman Empire. After all, the main striking force of her army was precisely the infantry. But she often simply did not have time to go where the enemy broke through the border of the empire, so the role of cavalry in the Roman army began to gradually increase.
Your challenge is our answer
Emperor Gallienus (253-268), rightly judging that the new enemy also requires new tactics, already in 258 created cavalry units from Dalmatians, Arabs and Asia Minor horse archers. They were supposed to act as a mobile barrier on the borders of the empire. At the same time, the legions themselves were withdrawn from the borders into the depths of the territory, in order to build up a blow on the enemy that had broken through from there.
The Byzantine eunuch (!) Persecutes the Arabs. I wonder what this means … A miniature from the Madrid list of the Chronicle of John Skilitsa. XIII century (National Library of Spain, Madrid)
Under the Emperor Diocletian, there were even more cavalry units in the Roman army. However, the third emperor, Constantine the Great (306-337), went farthest in the reorganization of the army of Rome, who further increased its number and reduced the number of soldiers in the infantry units to 1,500 people. In reality, there were even fewer of them, and in most units there were no more than 500! Still called legions, they were essentially completely different troops. To replenish them, they now used a system of recruits, and in the army the Romans found themselves on the same position with the barbarians, especially since many units were now recruited precisely on the basis of nationality.
All this further reduced the fighting efficiency of the Roman army, although many talented generals and even emperors emerged from this new social environment in the IV-V centuries AD.
These are the infantrymen who could fight for both the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern. The drawing was made by V. Korolkov based on the illustration by Garry Ambleton in the book by Simon MacDouvall “The Late Roman Infantryman 236-565. AD " publishing house "Osprey".
Everything is easier and easier …
The updated organization also corresponded with new weapons, which became much lighter and sufficiently versatile. The heavily armed infantryman, now called pedes, was armed with a lance-lanceyu, a cavalry sword-spatu, long and short darts. The latter, which were the prototype of modern "darts", were the most original weapons and were small throwing arrows 10-20 cm long and weighing up to 200 g, which had plumage and were weighted in the middle with lead, which is why they were also called plumbata (from Latin plumbum - lead), although some believe that their shafts were much longer - up to one meter. The shields became round with a characteristic color image for each military unit, and the helmets became conical, although "helmets with a crest" like the ancient Greek ones still continued to be used. The pilum was replaced by spiculum - a lighter, but still quite "heavy" dart with a harpoon-shaped tip on a 30 cm long tube.
These darts were now used for light infantry, which often did not have other protective weapons except shields, and instead of helmets wore fur pill-caps on their heads, called "caps from Pannonia". That is, only a shirt and trousers became the uniform of most soldiers. Well, also a helmet and a shield. And that's it! Apparently, then it was believed that this is quite enough if the warrior is well trained!
The main thing is to hit the enemy from afar
At first, the Romans underestimated the bow, considered it "insidious", "childish", "a weapon of the barbarians" that did not deserve the attention of a real warrior. But now the attitude towards him has changed a lot, and in the Roman troops there appeared whole detachments, consisting of infantry archers, even if they were just mercenaries from Syria and other eastern lands.
On the battlefield, the formation of the Romans was as follows: the first line - infantry in armor, with spears and shields; the second line - warriors with darts in protective weapons or without it, and, finally, the third - already consisted only of archers.
"Byzantine commander Constantine Duca escapes from Arab captivity", c. 908. Thumbnail from the Madrid list of the Chronicle of John Skylitsa. XIII century (National Library of Spain, Madrid)
Arrian, who recommended it in his work "Against the Alans", wrote that if the first row of warriors should put their spears forward and hold on, closing their shields, then the warriors of the next three should stand so as to freely throw their darts on command and hit horses with them. and the enemy's riders. The subsequent ranks should have used their throwing weapons over the heads of the soldiers standing in front, thanks to which a continuous zone of destruction was created immediately in front of the first rank. At the same time, the depth of the formation had to be at least 8 ranks, but not more than 16. Archers occupied only one rank, but their number was continuously increasing, so that one archer became obligatory for every five infantrymen.
It is interesting that, in addition to bows, crossbows were already in service with the shooters of Rome and Byzantium, although for a long time it was believed that in the West they appeared only during the era of the Crusades, and were borrowed by the crusaders in the East. Meanwhile, judging by the images that have come down to us, this weapon was widely used already in the army of the “late Roman Empire”, and not only in the East, but also in the West.
True, unlike later and perfect samples, they were pulled, apparently, with their hands, which is why their destructive power was not so great. The sling continued to be used - a cheap and effective weapon, since a well-trained slinger with up to 100 steps could rarely miss a person standing.
Byzantine warriors of the 7th century Rice. Angus McBride.
"Boar's head" - an invention of the Roman strategists
The Romans also knew the construction in the form of a column narrowed in front, that is, "boar's head" (or "pig", as we called it in Russia). It was intended only to break through the enemy's infantry front, since the mounted warriors could easily cover the "boar's head" from the flanks.
However, frontal formations were most often used: a "wall of shields", behind which there were soldiers with throwing weapons. Such a system was used everywhere in Europe. It was used by the soldiers of Ireland, where, by the way, the Romans never reached, the Picts knew it. All this says that in the dissemination of such a construction, there is no special merit of Rome. It's just that if you have a lot of warriors at your fingertips and they have to fight the enemy cavalry, and they have large shields, then you simply cannot find a better formation.
The longer you serve, you get more
The service life of the soldiers of the new Roman infantry, which now more and more often had to repel the attacks of the cavalry, now reached 20 years. If the pedes served longer, then he received additional privileges. Recruits-recruits were taught military affairs, no one sent them into battle from the "bay-flounder". In particular, they had to be able to act in single combat with a spear and shield and throw plumbat darts, which were usually worn on the back of the shield in a clip of 5 pieces. When throwing darts, you should put your left foot forward. Immediately after throwing, it was necessary to draw out a sword and, putting forward his right leg, cover himself with a shield.
The commands, judging by the texts of that time that have come down to us, were given very, very unusual: “Silence! Look around in the ranks! Do not worry! Take your seat! Follow the banner! Do not leave the banner and attack the enemy! They were given both with the help of voice and gestures, as well as conditioned signals with the help of a trumpet.
The warrior was required to be able to march in ranks and columns in different terrain, to advance on the enemy in a dense mass, to build a turtle (a kind of combat formation, when soldiers from all sides, as well as from above, were covered with shields), to use weapons depending on the circumstances. The food for the warriors was plentiful enough and even partially exceeded the army rations of the Americans and the British during the Second World War! An ordinary Roman soldier in Egypt was entitled to three pounds of bread, two pounds of meat, two pints of wine and 1/8 pint of olive oil per day.
It is quite possible that in the north of Europe, instead of olive oil, they gave out butter, and wine was replaced with beer, and that it happened that often unscrupulous suppliers simply plundered this food. However, where everything was as it should be, the soldiers did not starve.
Everything is cheaper and cheaper …
Armament to the Roman soldiers was first supplied at the expense of the state, in particular, by the 5th century there were 35 "enterprises" that produced all types of weapons and military equipment from shells to catapults, but the rapid decline in production on the territory of the Western Roman Empire led to the fact that already where -that in 425 most of the army was equipped at the expense of their own salary. It is not surprising that with such a "shortage" of supplies, many soldiers sought to buy themselves cheaper weapons, and, therefore, lighter, and in every possible way avoided buying themselves expensive protective armor. Usually the infantry wore chain mail of the Roman model and very often was content with only a light helmet and a shield - a scooter, by the name of which the infantrymen were called scutatos, that is, "shield-bearers". In normal times, both light and heavily armed infantrymen began to dress almost the same. But even those who had armor wore them only in decisive battles, and on campaigns carried them along on carts. Thus, the "barbarized" infantry of the Roman army turned out to be overly lightweight and too weak to fight with a sufficiently large and heavy enemy cavalry. It is clear that the very poor went to such an infantry, and those who had at least some horses were eager to go to serve in the cavalry. But … such mounted units, as, indeed, any mercenaries, were very unreliable. For all these reasons, the military power of Rome continued to plummet.
Byzantine mercenaries. On the left are the Seljuk, on the right - the Normans. Rice. Angus McBride
The motley ethnic composition of the empire and significant property stratification led to the fact that the Byzantine army had in its ranks soldiers with a variety of weapons. From the poor, detachments of archers and slingers were recruited with practically no protective equipment. except for rectangular shields woven from willow. Mercenary detachments of Syrians, Armenians, Seljuk Turks entered the service of the Byzantines with their own weapons, as, by the way, did the same Scandinavian Vikings, who became famous among them for their wide-blade axes, and who reached Constantinople by the Mediterranean Sea or along the great northern trade route "From the Varangians to the Greeks", who walked through the territory of Russia.
The Bulgarians ambush and kill the governor of Thessalonica, Duke Gregory of Taron. Thumbnail from the Madrid list of the Chronicle of John Skilitsa. XIII century (National Library of Spain, Madrid)
Cavalry of Byzantium
According to such an English historian as Boss Rowe, the main reason for the success of the Byzantines for a long time was the fact that they inherited an excellent technological base from the Roman Empire. Another important circumstance was its advantageous geographic location. Thanks to this, the Byzantines could successfully not only accumulate the military achievements of other peoples, but also thanks to the existing production base - to produce new items in this area in large quantities. For example, in Byzantium at the end of the 4th century A. D. weapons were manufactured at 44 state enterprises, which employed hundreds of craftsmen. Well, how effective the work on them was is evidenced by the following fact: in 949 alone, only two state "enterprises" produced more than 500 thousand arrowheads, 4 thousand spikes for traps, 200 pairs of plate gloves, 3 thousand swords, shields and spears, as well as 240 thousand light and 4 thousand heavy arrows for throwing machines. The Byzantines adopted and mass-produced Hunnic bows of a complex type, quivers of the steppe model - either Sassanid ones, which, according to the Iranian tradition, were worn at the saddle, or, as was customary among the Turkic peoples, on the belt. The Byzantines also adopted the loop on the spear shaft from the Avars, thanks to which the rider could hold it, putting this loop on his wrist, and - already at the beginning of the 7th century, a rigid saddle with a wooden base.
To protect themselves from the arrows of Asian horse archers, the horsemen of Byzantium, according to the old tradition called cataphracts, had to use armor made of metal plates, more reliable in this regard than chain mail, with sleeves up to the elbows, the plates in which were sewn either on fabric or on skin. It happened that such armor was also worn over chain mail. The Byzantines used sphero-conical helmets, which often had lamellar earpieces, and no visor. Instead, the face was cleaned by masks of two or three layers of chain mail with leather lining, descending from the comforter to the face so that only the eyes remained open. Shields were used "serpentine" (English term), in the form of an "inverted drop" and round, rather small, resembling the rondash and buckler of later times.
Chain armor among the Byzantines had the following name: hauberk - zaba or lorikion, a comforter made of chain mail - scappio, the aventail was called peritrachelion. Camelakion was a hood made of quilted fabric (although, perhaps, it could also be a simple quilted hat), they were worn along with an epilorikion - a quilted caftan worn by a rider over armor made of chain mail or plates. Kentuklon was the name given to "quilted armor" for both the riders themselves and their horses. For some reason, the quilted cabadion was worn at ceremonies. So we can obviously talk about something very heavily decorated.
The gorget around the neck - straggulion - was also quilted, and even stuffed with wool. It is believed that the Byzantines borrowed it all from the same Avars. Bucellaria - a privileged part of the Byzantine horsemen, wore protective bracers. The rider's armament was 4 m long, the spear was a contarion (the spears of the infantry could have 5 m), the spathion sword was a completely obvious descendant of the Roman sword spat itself, and such a seemingly unusual weapon for the Romans as the paramerion is a kind of single-edged straight proto-saber, also used by soldiers from Central Asia and … Siberia. Swords were worn either in the traditions of the East on a sling over the shoulder, or on a belt, in the traditions of Europe. It is interesting that the color of a warrior's clothes often depended on his belonging to one or another “party of the hippodrome”.
Average weight - 25 kg
D. Nicole, referring to a source from 615, reports that the weight of such equipment was about 25 kg. There were also lighter lamellar shells made of leather. Horse armor could not only be quilted or glued from felt in 2-3 layers, but also represent "shells" sewn onto a base of leather or fabric, plates of bone and even metal, for greater strength, and also connected to one another. Such armor, with a significant weight, provided good protection against arrows. The most heavily armed riders were called klibanophoros (or klibanophoros), since over the chain hauberk they wore klibanion armor made of plates, but at the same time they wore them under the quilted epilorikion.
Heavily armed cavalry of Byzantium. Rice. artist Yu. F. Nikolaev based on the works of Angus McBride and Garry Embleton.
Spearmen in the front, archers in the back
On the battlefield, the klibanophores were built with a "pig" or wedge, and so that in the first row there were 20 soldiers, in the second - 24, and in each subsequent row - four more horsemen than in the previous one, with archers behind the spearmen. Based on this, it turns out that 300 spearmen were supported by 80 horse archers, and a unit of 500 soldiers could be 150.
Thus, the role of the heavily armed cavalry as the nucleus of the army increased all the time, but at the same time the cost of its weapons and maintenance increased, and it was simply beyond the power of the stratiot peasants. So, on the basis of the feudalization of landed property, real chivalry could well have appeared in Byzantium. But, fearing the strengthening of the military nobility in the provinces, the emperors, as before, continued to use the peasants' militias that were losing their combat capability and increasingly resort to the services of mercenaries.
References
1. Boss R. Justian's wars. L.: Montvert, 1993.
2. Nicolle D. Romano-Byzantine armies 4th - 9th centuries. L.: Osprey (Men-at-arms series # 247), 1992.
3. Nicolle D. Yarmuk 636 AD. L.: Osprey (Campaign series # 31). 1994.
4. Nicolle D. The Armies of Islam 7th-l1th centuries. L.: Osprey (Men-at-Arms series # 125), 1982.
5. Macdowall S. Late Roman infantrymen 236-565 AD. L.: Osprey (Warrior series # 9), 1994.
6. Macdowall S. Late Roman cavalryman 236-565 AD. L.: Osprey (Warrior series # 9), 1994.
7. Heath I. Armies of the Middle Age. Volume 1, 2 Worthing, Sussex. Flexi print ltd. 1984. Volume 1, 2.
8. Farrokh K. Sassanian Elite Cavalry 224-642 AD. Oxford, Osprey (Elite series # 110), 2005.
9. Vuksic V., Grbasic Z. Cavalry, The history of fighting elite 658 BC 0 AD1914. L.: A Cassell Book. 1994.
