I was reading a letter submitted by David Perry, who offered his interpretation of Byzantine skoutatoi for the DBM Nikephorian list in Saga #55 (August-September 1996). Since I have been doing some research on the Byzantines, I offer my own views on the subject.
One of the oddities of the DBM Byzantine lists is the change in the interpretation of the Byzantine skoutatoi from the first to the last list in Book Three. The skoutatoi begins as a successor to the Roman legionary being defined as a Blade in the first two lists. In the Thematic list, he becomes a pikeman. In the last two lists, he is considered a Bowman (X) or (O). I am at odds with WRG on this point because I do not believe that there was a change in the standard infantry types.
I have given my own views about the early skoutatoi in a previous column. Now I wish to address the later interpretations.
David Perry agrees the DBM classification of pike and then the Bowman (X) and (O). He puts forward some evidence to support his argument. David refers to the depth of the normal Byzantine infantry formation and its role as a rally point for cavalry. He believes that the infantry provided lots of firepower thus justifying the classification as bowmen.
Here are some contemporary 10th Century descriptions of the skoutatoi:
1. Praecepta Militaria (army fighting against Arabs)
Infantry are formed in Taxies of 1000 men each (taxis). The unit consists of 400 spearmen (kontaratoi), 300 archers (psiloi), 200 slingers (sphendonitai) and/or javelinmen (akontistai), and 100 monoaulatoi.
2. Sylloge Tacticorum (philosophical or idealised view written about 970 AD)
Infantry are divided into hoplites, peltastoi and psiloi organized into taxiarchy of 1000 men each. Alternate name was chilliarchy with commander called chilliarch. The author describes the use of spearmen, archers and slingers/javelinmen in seven rank or ten rank formations similar to the above book.
3. Liber de re Militari
Infantry are formed into taxies of 500 spearmen, 300 archers and 200 javelinmen with no monoaulatoi.
So it would appear that there is general agreement on the composition of the basic skoutatoi unit. The spearmen and archers being very close in numbers. The additional javelin and sling armed troops providing more firepower to augment the archers. This information tends to support the emphasis of firepower best represented by the bowmen (X) and (O) combination.
This is not quite the situation presented in the formations actually described in the manuals. The standard formation was 7 to 10 ranks deep, although a depth of 16 is sometimes mentioned. This may be a carry over from Hellenistic practices, which seem to be used as examples of ancient practice in many Byzantine books. The examples given consist of only spearmen and archers with javelinmen and slingers formed alongside the unit as flankers.
The formations according to the Sylloge were:
-
1. Antistomos - the standard formation of four ranks of spearmen, then two or three of archers and finally four more of spearmen.
2. Amphistomos -an alternate formation of one rank of monoaulatoi, then two ranks of spear, three of archers and finally two of spear.
3. Another option for use against cavalry was another rank of spear added in front of archers altering the formation to one rank of monoaulatoi, four ranks of spear, then three of archers and finally one of spear.
There are also references in the Sylloge that suggest a normal ratio of three spearmen to one archer. A tagma comprised 525 spearmen and 175 archers in seven files each of 100 men. This implies that the administrative unit was altered for tactical formations to emphasis the importance of spearmen. There was plenty of firepower in support but in a subordinate role. Some archers mixed with the spearmen while archers, slingers and javelinmen were brigaded as separate units. So a 1000 man taxis was divided into two combat units; the main one of 700 men and a support unit of 300. Both were then combined with other taxies to form tactical units. The spear and bow armed units formed the main infantry force, while the remainder were skirmishers in advance of the army or placed in the intervals between units of spearmen and archers. This mixing of troops on the battlefield is consistent with the Byzantine practice of relying on a combined arms doctrine.
The infantry had two major roles in Byzantine armies; to oppose enemy infantry and to act as a rally point for cavalry. They were expected to deal with enemy forces in terrain or conditions unsuited for cavalry or when no cavalry were present.
The army lists of DBM offer a radical view of the Byzantine infantry compared to the older WRG army lists. The latter tend to emphasise the importance of the spearmen with archers and others providing support. The older lists reflect what is written in the manuals and history books. From the 6th to 11th Century, the infantry often acted as a rally point for the cavalry, which were always the premier forces of the Byzantine army. This role was best suited to spearmen who could keep enemy cavalry and infantry at bay while archers provided overhead fire support, and javelinmen, slingers and monoaulatoi sallied out to flank enemy forces.
Procopius (The Wars), Maurikius (Strategicon), Leo VI (Tactica), Nikephoros Ouranos (Tactica), Michael Psellus (Chronography) and others provide similar commentary on the roles of the infantry. There is a lot of consistency which suggests that the infantry did not evolve as represented in the DBM lists.
The Byzantine military was rather conservative. This apparent in the military manuals and artwork. The arms, armour and dress tended to be similar to that of the ancient Greek and Roman armies. The use of archaic words such as peltast reflect this as well. While the artistic representation may be inaccurate and this has been argued for other armies and periods as well, the written evidence still suggests that the Byzantine army did not change radically over the centuries. It would be nice to have lots of archeological evidence to substantiate this theory but the Byzantines did not bury their dead with arms and armour nor did they leave large quantities of materiel in arsenals.
The differences between the administrative and combat units has caused problems in developing a clear picture of Byzantine infantry on the battlefield. If one follows the administrative figures, the ratio of troops suggests that spearmen and archers should be used in almost equal numbers. If one follows the tactical models, then spearmen should outnumber archers in the main battle line. In addition, more support units are required in the lists to cover the archers, slingers, javelinmen and others who were detached as skirmishers and support units.
By restricting the definition of Byzantine infantry, we can use the same figures for several armies. Even David points out that this is a practical idea. Armies did not dramatically change despite the change in names (such as Thematic to Nikephorian). To the contemporary observer, it was more likely that any changes would occur over a transition period of several years. Possibly only the military noticed the changes in doctrine as there was often little change in the weapons and dress of the troops. I suggest that Belisarian and Maurikian armies can be represented by the same figures as can later Maurikian and Thematic, and later Thematic, Nikephorian and Konstantian.
Related
Back to Saga #64 Table of Contents
Back to Saga List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1998 by Terry Gore
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com