There are many periods within the timeframe that is covered by this hobby which for varying reasons are lacking in information. This has often been the cause of frustration particularly with regard to the development of a satisfactory army list and the correct figures to use with the list. There has been a lot of ink and paper used to argue the merits of lists based on available material found in museums, books and uncovered archaeological sites, The quest for new references has fuelled the ongoing debates about what the armies looked like and how they operated. Each new piece of evidence is subjected to scrutiny before it is found fit for use in the continuing search for the (perfect?) replica of the historical army and its troop types.

Some of the most popular series of books for research are those published by Osprey. They are popular for a number of reasons including the colour plates of troops as well as the analysis of army operations and structure. Their size makes them ideal for a quick study of an army before undertaking to buy the figures or organize them into colourful units. However the limited number of pages means that the subject receives only a brief description which is usually followed by an impressive bibliography that appears to compensate for the dearth of detail. The intent being to provide a taste so that the inquisitive can then pursue more detailed studies later.

There is a serious drawback in the manner in which the text is presented for those interested in further study. The lack of any connection between the sources and the text means that all or at least a good proportion of the bibliography must he studied to both verify the author's interpretations and expand the knowledge of the student. Unless this is done, the researcher will not be able to fully appreciate the historical aspects of the army. For some gamers it is enough to have a rudimentary grasp of the army so that it can be used on the tabletop because the rules and army list provide sufficient material to employ a force which can be identified as the historical army. This is unsatisfactory to others who are keen to learn about the troops as they actually fought rather than being content with having picked a killer army for the next tournament.

The pursuit of more information was a motive for this writer to spend the last 18 months in Germany. Armed with books and access to museums as well as historic sites, it was a joy to be able to delve into the history of the various armies and expand the data base. The ability to study such pieces as Trajan's Column or the Arch of Constantine without being limited to what could fit into a picture was the reward after a long bus ride (10 hours) to Rome. It is art activity which is not available to all who enjoy this aspect of the hobby. For those people, it is the written accounts or sometimes the televised special that provide the details about the times and activities of the armies. These are the ones at a disadvantage every time a new Osprey is released and does nothing more than add to the controversy surrounding an army.

A good example is found in a recent release, Romano- Byzantine Armies 4th-9th Centuries (247). It was written by Dr D Nicholle, who has written a number of books for this publisher and illustrated by Angus McBride, who is a very popular artist of military figures. After enjoying the earlier collaboration of Osprey 222 (The Age of Tamerlane) and reading that Dr Nicholle is a scholar of Middle Eastern studies with access to European and Asian sources (a fact gleaned from reading a review of Osprey 150, The Age of Charlemagne, in SLINGSHOT), this title was eagerly anticipated.

A look at the bibliography quickly reveals the depth of the research conducted by the author as it includes both English and non- English titles of books and articles. The photographs of places and original artwork are also indicative of a well researched book. The colour plates provide some fine examples of historical soldiers and plausible reconstructions. Is this sufficient to satisfy the hard core student who is all set to bu ild an army from this period? Quite possibly not is the answer as the book was found to be less satisfying than anticipated.

It is easy to defend Osprey as it is trying to cover the whole of recorded history in a format which is affordable and attractive. A limited subject would not be popular enough to repay the investment in the project so the text must cover either too much or a very interesting topic. There are many titles limited to very specific areas like "Flags of the Napoleonic Wars" (77, 78 and 115) while others can be too generic like "Ancient Middle East" (109). This newer release falls into the latter category. It covers too much ground with too much uncertainty in its pages.

The main armies covered by this title are among the most popular of the hobby, namely the Later Roman, Belisarian and Maurician Byzantine. The Patrician Roman and Thematic Byzantine armies have also had success as tournament winners and are not to be overlooked. The debate over the composition of these armies has been keen in recent years as shown in the reworking of the lists (see NASAMW, SAGA and SLINGSHOT for examples). Thus a title on this period (or at least part of it) would be well received by the armchair generals. It is unfortunate that the Osprey book has not provided much clarity.

The book is divided into six sections including an introduction and a last section on allies. The second section covers the era (300-476 AD) in which the two armies known in the WRG lists as the Later Roman and Patrician armies and is all of two pages, which is less than that of the allies at six pages.

The bulk of the text is devoted to the Byzantine army of the 5th to 9th centuries for a total of 16 pages. The remainder of the book is used for the coloured plates, bibliography and description of the plates in typical Osprey fashion.

In the overview of the Roman armies, there is no mention made of the developments of Diocletian and only passing reference to those of Constantine the Great. The image of the military is rather negative and does not account for the period in which Diocletian and his successors stabilized the empire in the 4th century. Most of the emphasis is on its evolution into the Byzantine state under Justinian the Great following the barbarian incursions of the 5th century.

There is some mention of the specialization of troops but the author depicts the army as being primarily barbarian in composition by using the terms "bucelarii" and "foederati". In fact there are several Latin words used in the text which are not always defined like limitanei or used out of context like sagitarii which is described as "mounted archers'' and yet the word translates simply as archers.

The Visigothic sack of Rome in 410 AD is an event which "shattered the administration of the Western Empire" and yet Rome had not been the main administrative centre for decades prior to this catastrophe. Both Milan and Ravenna had been used as the seat of government, and Constantinople and Nicomedia (in Turkey) had also been preferred by emperors. The author also states that there were massive desertions by the limitanei (a statement included in a sentence which mentions the fact that soldiers' families now lived in their forts but does not connect the two ideas).

Later in the same paragraph there is a second reference to desertions with to the rising successor states like that of Attila. This paragraph is rather confusing to read and the statements put forward are not backed up by all the sources listed in the bibliography. However it is difficult to determine which sources were used as there are no links made to these other books and articles.

The next section covers Justinian and his successors and would have the reader believe that the army of this period bore little resemblance to that described above. The forces were now mainly mercenary "as the old class of citizens..., had all but disappeared". How this supports the argument is not made clear; however, there are later references to limitanei in North Africa and Syria, which would indicate that the organization had not been completely changed.

The noteworthy units were those of "light cavalry foederati" and "hippo-toxotai horse archers" along with "hand-picked and highly trained armoured cataphracti."

The definition of foederati as light cavalry is contrary to sources going back to Oman (who is not in the bibliography nor is Vegetius) which usually categorize them as heavy and light horsemen depending on the original troop type either Germanic lance/spear cavalry or Hunnic archers or possible some other type recruited from neighbours or prisoners-of-war. The horse archer (the word toxotai is Greek rather than Latin and is taken from Procopius' description of the army of Belisarius and illustrates the replacement of Latin with Greek terminology) has been defined by NASAMW in its list as being the most prominent cavalry type of the period rather than the dual armed trooper of the older WRG lists.

Whatever the composition, the author has emphasized the cavalry and yet states that the empire lacked "many good horse-raising regions", This seems odd given that the general view of Byzantine armies and. most of its foes is one in which horsemen are dominant, although not necessarily the most numerous troop types.

In addition, both Grant and Ferrill (two of the sources list by Dr Nicholle) mention Spain, Cappadocia and Thrace as locations for stud farms which would imply that like military factories (also mentioned in the sources at which armour and weapons were produced throughout the empire) horses were produced to satisfy military requirements.

Another oddity is the definition of the "comitatus" in this section although the author had previously used comitatensis to describe the field armies of the 4th and 5th centuries. There is no connection made between these two words despite their common root and thus origin. It may have been helpful to mention the German influence from the beginning rather than place it tw 0 centuries after comitatus entered Roman military lexicons.

The next section covers the wars with the Sassanians and Islamic armies of the 7th and 8th centuries. This is the period in which the thematic system was introduced and the author terms it a "provincial army system, which owed nothing to ancient Roman tradition" in his introduction. He has overlooked an obvious connec t ion which is described in his own sources as the comitatensis field armies under the various magister militum which were de facto regional armies.

The transition is not as much revolutionary as evolutionary. The Roman limitanei received land and other benefits just as his thematic successor, and the limitanei were a constant part of the army until the emergence of the theme system (to the extent that units were raised in the reconquered territories of the former western half). It is logical to assume that changes during times of tremendous upheaval like the sudden expansion of the Arab/Islamic empire would be gradual rather than drastic as the senior military leaders tried to cope with defeats in the Middle East and North Africa. Hence the retention of the limitanei/thematic units provided the basis for developing a defensive barrier to aggressive neighbours, be they German or Arab.

The military organization is still basically the same but with Greek, as stated above, replacing Latin to describe the military. There were nine exercitus or armies under Justinian; two Praesental, Armenia, Orient, Thrace, Illyricum, Africa, Italy and Spain. These were continuations of the Notitia organizations, or in the case of the reconquered territories, new formations. In the late 7th century, there were seven armies: the "Obsequium" instead of the two Praesental, Orient, Armenia, Thrace, Italy, Africa and Septem (modern Ceuta in Spain) as well as Sardinia which may have been part of Italy or Africa. These formations were created in the 4th century and provided the continuity between Roman and Byzantine organization. Even the connections between the units remained the same as the palatini and comitatensis gave way to Tagmatic, while the limitanei and pseudocomitatensis became thematic.

The process can be traced by the unit names, for example the Legio IV Parthica was known as "Kouartoparthoi" and the Legio V Macedonica as "Kouintanoi" or the "Makedonians". There are probably links between units recorded in the 10th century and Later Roman units (two turmae of the Thrakesion theme, the Theodosiaci and Victores, may descendants of units of the Magister Militum per Thracias). The original themes do have links with the armies listed above and like the provinces of the Late Roman period were reorganized in the following centuries so that the origins became harder to identify. The original names of the themes can be related to the armies that were stationed within these geographical areas; Opsikion (for Obsequium), Anatolikon (instead of the lost Orient or Middle East), Armeniakon (for Armenia), and Thracesion (for Thrace).

The last section describing Byzantine organization covers the 9th century in which Constantinople was able to reconquer some of the lost territory, It briefly discusses the organization and recruitment without really providing any details on either subject. The author does mention the introduction of the double headed eagle as a symbol, use of "archaic" uniforms by the tagmata, the akritoi or border warriors and common features between Moslem and Byzantine soldiers but these indicate a knowledge of material of a trivial nature when a general description of the army for this type of book is warranted. The trivia theme is found throughout the text which emphasizes the author's thorough research into the period without indicating that he has an equally thorough understanding of the military forces that he is trying to describe.

The use of photographs and illustrations throughout the text are also a source of frustration. Some are very good and support comments about dress and armour whereas some are so poor as a result of deterioration over the centuries that it is difficult to determine their value. There is also an inherent weakness in using original art as the artists may not have been using contemporary or even realistic models for their work. To say that the figures demonstrate the similarity or dissimilarity in dress and armour just because they are wearing specific historical items does not account for artistic license in using Moslem warriors to depict the enemies of Israel in religious pictures.

The lack of archaeological evidence means that the true nature of military costume remains in doubt. In the companion book by Ian Heath (Osprey 89, Byzantine Armies 8861118), there is a passage about the artistic license used in contemporary art and the lack of military art but lots of pictures of saints depicted as soldiers and other religious scenes of military activities. Thus it is at best a poor source to use for illustrating the warriors of the time.

One of the ink illustrations shows a variety of shield decorations reproduced from the Notitia Dignitatum which is mentioned in the text to describe late Roman organization and other sources. Unfortunately there is no colour code provided to identify the colours used in the designs although the shading of the patterns indicates a variety of colours.

It is possible to determine some of the colours as there are examples used in the colour plates by Mr McBride (only if the correct colours were used, and readers can refer to the WRG books for those or the copies of the Notitia Dignitatum in Oxford and Munich). As the decorations take up the majority of one page, it may have been useful to make them a more positive addition.

The colour plates are usually the highlight of these books and the artwork of Mr McBride is considered worth the purchase price. It is unfortunate that the subjects are not always posed clearly or picked to complement the text. An example is the Thracian cavalryman of the Leones Clibanarii (figure C1). There is not rationale given for identifying the man as a Thracian except that some sources are from the Balkans.

Furthermore there is a reference to archery equipment and yet no bow or quiver are depicted as the man is carrying a spear/lance and small shield which is not shown in among the ink patterns but is similar to a shield accredited to the Thraces (line six of the illustrations)) which was an auxilia palatina unit that is to say auxiliary infantry not cavalry and as the Notitia Dignitatum does not include many of the cavalry patterns, it demonstrates a poor concern for detail in an otherwise detailed illustration.

As the unit was raised in the late 5th Century as a garrison unit in Egypt, there is no indication that it served with Belisarius or was a typical example of a cavalry unit, particularly if armoured cavalry (clibanarii or catafractarii) were not as common as the other two types mentioned above by Dr Nicholle. The choice of this figure to depict a cavalryman of the army of Justinian rather than a hippo- toxotai or foederati light cavalryman means that the author provides no example of the more common troop types. The presentation of these plates could be done so that the figures are shown to provide details of the colours, decorations, weapons and armour of the period. There are several shields and figures shown from the rear which means that it is impossible to tell what they represent.

The author concludes his text byintroducing his bibliography as follows:

"In recent years there has been a revival of interest in the Fall of the Roman Empire and the survival of Byzantium; hence the following list is longer than usual."

Here at least the author is correct in his presentation of a fact as the bibliography is almost two pages long. It is a pity, as stated above, that it has not been introduced to substantiate some of the author's points throughout the text. This is a common failing with some of the books used as references and yet one of the fundamentals required by most universities from students in their essays and theses. One has only to refer to the pages of SAGA and other journals of wargaming to see how thorough some writers can be in providing proof of their theories.

There is a great deal of interest in this period within this hobby of ours and researching the period is made easier by the addition of many of the sources mentioned by Dr Nicholle in his book. Unfortunately, it is the lack of guidance from this scholar as indicated above that may prove a further obstacle to providing enlightenment to any who read his latest release, There as many questions as answers in the pages of this book and some of the answers need to be clarified before bringing one of the many armies mentioned in the book onto the table.

Prior to writing this article, a number of sources were consulted, some are included by Dr Nicholle and others were not mentioned, The following sources were consulted for the period:

1. Bury, J.B., History of the Later Roman Empire (New York 1957)-not included

2. Connolly, P., Greece and Rome at War (London 1981)-not included

3. Dennis, G.T., Maurice's Strategicon (translation) (Philadelphia 1984)

4. Dennis, G.T., Three Byzantine Military Treatises (translation) (Washington 1985)

5. Ferrill, A., The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation (London 1986)

6. Grant, M., The Fall of the Roman Empire-A Reappraisal (Annenburg 1976).

7. Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire, 284-602 AD (Oxford 1964)

8. Seeck, 0., Notitia Dignitatum (translation) (Berlin 1876)

9. Warry, J., Warfare in the Classical World (New York 1980)- not included

(all of the above are owned by the author and this is not to demonstrate the author's elitism but rather to show that all are readily available for further research).

In addition, numerous issues of SLINGSHOT were consulted for additional material. These were very useful because of the access of the writers to non-English sources. Issue 147 was particularly insightful because of the article by Dimitris Christodolou (pages 19-23) on the unit organization and nomenclature of the early Byzantine army (AD 500-600). He has also contributed articles on the Byzantine armies using Greek and other sources. The WRG books as well as other Osprey books were also helpful in supplying material on units, shield patterns and organization. There was also material gathered from other sources conducted at Western University in Ontario, Canada which allowed access to a number of scholarly journals.

Two articles on the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine the Great were found in the Journal of Roman Studies (E.C. Nischer JRS xiii, 1923 and a later one by H.M.D. Parker refuting some of Nischer's arguments ' JRS xxiii, 1933) and provided information on the evolution of army reforms of the period.

The point of this last part is to show that it is possible for anyone interested in a period to check the statements made by expert scholars. In this case, there is a wealth of material as listed by Dr Nicholle and in other places as shown above to check the author's interpretations.