Osprey+[Men+at+Arms+089]+Byzantine.armies.886 1118

rmm:I

MILITARY

MEN-AT-ARMS SERIES

BYZANTINE ARMIES 886-1118

I:\l" HE:\TH ANGUS :\lcBRIDE

89

EDITOR, MARTIN WINDROW [i!lm] MILITARY

MEN-AT-ARMS SERIES

BYZANTINE ARMIES 886-1118 Text by IAN HEATH Colour plates by ANGUS McBRIDE

89

Byztl1ltineArmies 886-11/8

Illtroduction For !.he era in which the)' li\'ed the Byzantines had a

remarkably sophisticated approach to politics and military strategy. Unlike most of their can· temporaries, they learnt very early in their history that winning a batllcdid not necessarily win a war, and they frequently bought off their enemies with

there is one essential fact that muSt not be forgotten; that such a policy of threat and bribery inevitably presupposed a strong military establishment. The Byzantine amlY of the loth and early I nh centuries, at the height of its power and efficiency, was the best-organized, best-trained, best-equipped and highest-paid in the known world.

treaties and bribes rather than squander men and materiel in potentially fruitless campaigns. Although, evell as carly as the 6th century, the historian Procopius bad shrewdly qbservcd that the payment of tribute to one type of enemy encouraged the aggression of another, still the overall success of this policy is well-testified by the Empire's survival, despite ilS limited manpower

and frequent internal dissension, right up 10 1453. Besides, since another aspect of Byzantine diplomacy \\as the playing off of one enemy against another, the attraction of additional foes was only rarely a problem which gold and honoul1i, falsified letters or sponsored revolts could not solve, and the Emperor's first-class intelligence service, the Office of Barbarians, kept him well abreast of current moods and trends at all times. Alas, the Empire's contemporaries did not always understand thc complex motives of plot and counter-plot, nattery and threat, which were csselltia I ingrcd icnts ofByzant inc politics, and most tcnded to regard the diplomatic manoeuvres and skullduggery of the Emperor and his ambassadors as underhand and two-faced (which it was) withoUl appreciating its true politico-military value. The 'bad press' that Byzantium has received from historians and chroniclers over the last thousand years has done littlc to enhance its reputation. to the point where evcn today tortuous and underhand beha\'iour is sometimes described as 'Byzantine'. But against this backdrop of deceit and intrigue

ByrA!lwu: warrio... orthe late loth CIt>ltury. UllfortWUltety the lI.rt.;"t;c: slyle ul.itillecl Hlnty....;ps or II O;lroOll dallo;ic:al in8ueoc:e and "tne iaac:c:untcilt'S kaye Lherebr introduced. The otd.f:....hio.ec1 ptilyltS, ror i.a.tan~, lire hi&bJy i.a:>probabJe lit this dale. The lanle1larc:onelet, orldibaNOII, or the risht-h.aad 6pre is 1Ic:au-ale howevft-. ~ the tnusdecllnthu c:onelet orhis c:ompaaion is ora type thai kad prot-bJ)" bent obsolete ror m.a.ay hwtdreds of ,.ears. 80th c:orwdets .... ye thiclr.lnthu strips c:aIled P'tUUl" ("(nth""') ~ rrom waisl aad ahouJder. The c:&-ks iadic:allt thai thftllt are probabty hOrHIDnL

*.

ftIO.

3

being called a komes or count. By Leo VI's day, however, the hekatontarchion bad disappeared and the bandon was divided instead into six Although the Byzantines clung tenaciously to their allaghia (probably commanded by officers called Roman heritage in a great many respects (lhey penlekon/archai). These were generally paired off as even continued to call themselves Rhomaioi or in the infantry bandon and each pair was still Romans) army organization was not one of them, commanded by a hekatontarchos (or kenlarchos). and as early as the late 6th or carly 7th century, Each of the six allaghia had fifty men, organized in when the Emperor Maurice's military manual, the five dekarchiai of ten men each, comprising Stralegicoll, appeared, hardly a vestige remained of dekarchos, pentarchos, tetrarchos, ouraghos and tbe old Roman military system. The organization six men. On the battlefield the cavalry dekarchia which Maurice's work outlined remained praCli- usually formed up in two files five-deep with the cally unchanged until at least the late loth century dekarchos and pentarchos in the front rank, and probably up until about a century later than followed by a rank of lancers, then twO ranks of that, and il is rcpeated almost verbatim in another archers, and finally the tetrarchos and ouraghos military manual, the famous Tactica, written at the closing the files; all four officers were lancers. Basically, thcn, by the beginning of the loth beginning of the I ath century (c. 903) by Emperor century the standard infantry unit consisted of 256 Leo V I the Wise. The basic unit for both cavalry and infantry in men (sixteen times sixteen) and the standard Leo's day was the bandon, alternatively called in the cayalry uni t 01'300 (six timcs fift y), but the manuals earlier Strategicoll a tagma or arithmos (the laner a advise us that unit strength could in fact vary straight translation into Greek of the Latin lIume- between 200 and 400. Thosc in excess of official rus). The term bandon itself was derived from the strength were apparently not usually taken into German word for a banner, and bears witness to the action and pl'Obably accounted for wounded and foreign influence prevalem in the army at the time sick men and horses and raw recruits. It seems more that this panicular type of unit evolved in the 6th proba ble anyway that uni tS generally took the field century. Infantry banda consisted of sixteen under-, rather than ovcr-, strength. Standardlochaghiai, each of sixleen men commanded by an bearers, musicians, and officers above the rank of officer called a locllag/ws or 'file leader'; he was lochaghos and dekarchos do not appear to be assisted by a dekarcllos, 'leader of ten', a pentarc/lOs, included in these figures. 'leader of five', a tetrarchos, 'leader of four', and an One of Empcl'Or Nikephoros II's works (ruled ouraghos, 'file closer'. Each four lochaghiai con- 963-g6g) indicates that by the second half of the stituted an allaghion or 'winglet'; these were usually loth century the cavalry bandon could in fact be paired ow. In heavy infantry units three-quarters of only fifty strong, but this is quile probably a slip of the men were spearmen called skutaloi and one- the pcn and it seems more likely that the allaghioll quaner were archers, the archers presumably is meant. However, it is not impossible that the organized as a separate lochaghia within each term bandon might have changed its meaning in allaghion or as a separate allaghion. Light infantry the sixty-odd years since Leo had written. One or and guardsmen would not have had the split two sources also imply that by the late loth century between spearmen and archers, consisting instead the smallest infantry unit may have been ten rather of only one troop-type; it has even been suggcsted than sixteen men (with an archer: spearmen ratio that light infantry lochaghiai might have com- of 3:7), though Michael Psellus' Chrollographio, written in the last quarter of the 11th cenlury, still prised only eight men rather than sixteen. At the time when the Strategicoll was written refers to sixteen-man locbaghiai. cavalry banda had been subdivided into three At a higher level cavalry (and presumably hekatolltorchia, each commanded by a lIekatolltorc/IOS infantry) organization was in moirai (commanded of whom the senior acted as second-in-command by moirarclwi) or dhollllgoi (commanded by dhoullgarii and was called an illarches, the bandon or d/wullgarokometes) and turl1lai or merai (comcommander-in both infantry and cavalry units- manded by tllmlOrclwi and merarchai respectively).

Organization

4

• \

\

. • •

II''

J.

'. ,'., I

•

The moira or dhoullgos appears to have consisted of

an apparently variable numberofbancla, probably on average between twO and five, while the turma or mcros (the lattcr tenn somewhat archaic by the loth centul)') seems to have consisted of three moirai. The earlier Stra/~gi£o" records the moira as comprising 2,000-3,000 mcn and the mcros as 6,000-7,000, bUI by Leo VI's time we must assum~ that the strength of these larger units had declined considerably since even the biggcst theme (a provincial ann)' corps-sec later section) could

Spirited cavalry enp!erneatt fron> the Josl".. Roll, ...c:-hu'y ivory aoalnploy. M0lI1 of the Empire'. tnilitary arUlooacy wftt of Armnaiaa _cnlry and m the gth .....et lodI. """",nu-in Arm_i_n. fonned abolll no.-_1y-6ve per CftII of the Empire'. anneel forces or pos";'bly evea mo",.

S'f.""ICWA£\.

•

The Batde of Durazzo, 108•. Alexiu. planned 10 .!tacl< the Nonnan camp from th..- directions, bUI Robert ClUscard advanced 10 meel the main Byzantine anny on the pial", dKlroyiag the bridge behind him to preY....t Ri~ht; though he wu 1101 aware of il this also fruslrated Alexlu.' _drdmg tDovnnau. The Nonnaa nyot ft.an.I< p " way wbea it came up .pinst the V a ~ Guard, bul th_ in IU.... we.... defealed by the No........ Lar...try wh.... the')' bad ad,_ced too far from their main body to receive supporL M.a.ay V .... as:i.a. tool< muge m doe cJ:".rcb of 51 lltticbul, to which the Nonna.nJI set 6ft. TIle Byzaatine CftItre pve way after a hanI fight .....et brokem ....1.

The actual reformed army nucleus of the immediate post·Manzikert era at fir.it seems to have included the remnants of the old Tagmata, the Scholae, Excubiti, lkanatoi and Hetacreia all being recorded on occasion in theclosing decades of the 11th century, but these seem to have faded away to nothing before the end of Alexius I's long reign (I I [8). Nikephoros III seems .to have made lhe first concerted allempt to reorganize thc central army, establishing both the Phrygian Chomatenoi regiment and, \vhilst Logothete of Michael VII, the Immortals. The laller appear to have been raised from amongst the remnants of the Eastern Themes and according to Bryennius were 10,000 in number; he adds that the titleof'lmmortals' was at first applied only to the unit's officer's but was soon used of the whole regiment. AJexius I himself raised another regiment, the Archontopouloi or 'Sons of leaders', recruited from amongst officers' orphans and numbering about '2,000 men. All three were cavalry units, and in addition there were 'the

29

.

.

,...~._~-, ..,...-,-~ ...,.,~~ ....,-~~

. '.

, 'w"" .. ~h.

I

\

" ...--,

_.. ... '-·4

~.

,

"

., ..... _~'.

~,

,.,

"

~

'

...,.,.

-'_.~--"'.'.".'

•

",

• •·•• ,l•• _" ••;-,;, ••;,.....". •• and appear 10 be circular. The la"t figure comK from the Madrid Scylitz.... hilll ..rmo.... really differing little froUl that or the .oth century. The shield of the lalll figure. whodaleli froUl c. IIIO,i5 the indigenoulll Byzantine 'three-cornered', or kite. shield; he appears to wear a padded cor~let ofsome kind.

These figurell reprelienting pliil"i ..re lllken fro.n .... ..5SOrfnlent of loth-century ivory caskets. The first thing we see ill that. d .... pite the .nilil"ry m ....ual5· 51..teonenls 10 the contrary. heltnels appeu.r 10 h ..ve been in widespread use a.nong"t light infantry. Bows and swords are the armll mOllt COmnlonly depicled on the caskelli. but nOle that of the lOp two figures One hall a slightly cu.rved w_pon and the other a sabre-hilted sword, both probahly one-edged parameria.

1084, in Anna Comnena's Alexiad. They were lessheavily equipped than the skutatoi, which would seem to mark them ror a linking role benveen heavy and light inrantry, like the peltasls or classical Greek armies. However, their evolution may in raCt have been the result or cconomy measures necessitated by the Empire's stcadily increasing financial difficulties, the skutatos's heavier and more expensive armour ha\!ing become less widely available; cenainly the Sylloge recommends that the mail or lamellar armour or heavy inrantrymen should be

31

worn when available. It seems likely, then, that the description of such troops as peltasts reflected on their equipment rather than on their military function. The thickly-quilled bambakion is worn, plus an open-fronted helmet with neither hood nor aventail. The Sylloge states that they carried the circular thureos rather than the oval skuta. Arms comprised kontarion, javelins and, instead of a sword, the sabre-hilted, one-edged para merion. The end of the scabbard illustrated was square-cut.

A4 Skulalos, according 10 loth century miLitary manuals The arms and armour listed in the various military manuals of this era probably represent the ideal rather than the norm that a soldier could expect to encounter during active selvice. Quite probably it was based on the equipment of the guard regiments that were based in Constantinople. Body armour of skutalOi consisted of mail corselet or horn or iron klibanion, though Leo VI's Tactica states that such armour was onen only worn by the first two ranks (sklllatoi generally forming up eight or sixteen ranks deep), those without substituting a bambakion. This was a padded and quilted corselet with hood and eighteen-inch sleeves, its name deriving from the Arabic word ptlmbuck, meaning cotton, from which it was largely manufactured. Leo also mentions that some skutatoi might in addition wear epilorikia, a similar type of corselet, over their mail or lamellar armour. The leather harness of breaststrap and shoulder-pieces shown here is not mentioned in the manuals at all but appears in the vast majority of pictorial sources, worn mainly by foot-soldiers but also frequently by horsemen. Additional armour comprised greaves, vambraces and leather gauntlets. Leostated that onl y the front and rear ranks were 10 have greaves, while the much earlier Strategicon records greaves being worn by JUSt the front (wo ranks. However, manuals of the later loth century seem to imply that greaves had become standard skutatoi equipment, as 100 had a mail coif. The skUlatOS's main weapon was the twelve- to fourteen-foot kontarion, made of light wood with a socketed blade at least eighteen inches long. In battle it was tbrust at cavalrymen and hurled at infalllrymen. A few carried heavy javelins called menaulia in place of the long spear; these were

32

made of non-splintering wood such as cornel or oak. Other arms comprised sword or paramerion and tzikourion. The large three by four-foot oval skuta can be seen cleady here. This was slightly curved but not convex and had a brightly-painted face.

B1 Servant, 10tll-1 1 til untun'es Each guardsman, Tagmatic cavalryman or firstclass thematic cavalryman, three or four secondclass thematic cavalrymen and sixteen infantrymen had a slave or paid groom or selvant 10 look after the baggage and perform menial chores. Selvants of the Tagmatic guardsmen were provided by the Optimaton Theme, and the fact that this Theme could mustcr 4,000 men lends support to the argument that, c. 850-900, the Tagmata regiments comprised 4,000 mcn in loto. The infamrymen's servant drove a light muledrawn cart which contained, among other items, a hand-mill, saw, twO spades, mallet, wicker basket, scythe, bill-hook and twO pick-axes. Since the servants were responsible for emrenching the army's camp each night the purpose of these tools is fairly obvious. If there was a shortage of scrvants the worst soldiers (probably defaulters) had to carry out their chores. Known collectively as the luldum, servants carried a sling for self-defence and are sometimes to be found on the extreme Ranks of a Byzantine battle-array. B2 Puck-muLes, folll century Pack-mules of the Tagmata were provided from Imperial ranches and stud-farms administered by an official called the Logothete of the Herds, as were many of those used by the Imperial household, the latter also receiving contributions of mules from state and church officers. A1l1hose of the Imperial household wore red housings. The Imperial baggage alone required hundreds ofmules and horses for its transport, including 100 for cooking utensils and silver table-ware and thirty for chandcliers, tapestries, silver bowls and cooking cauldrons. Other items accompanying the Emperor on campaign included a library, a complete pharmacy and wardrobe, Turkish leather baths, and a private chapel complete with portable altar and ikons!

83 Unannouud i'!fanlT)'11wn, II th-12th trnlurits Infamr)'lllcn of this type occur with incrcasing regularity in sources of thc II th-13th centuries as the role of the fooHoJdier in Byzantine tactics steadily dcclined. This particular figure is based on illuminations in the Scylitzes manuscript in ~I,ad· rid. Despite thc absence ofamlour he is not really a

Detail. worth;, of notice i.a this lotb-ceatvol')' David .nd Goliatla ilI"minnOon roD> tlae Paris Psalt.... ~ ... the upper seene, Goliath'. erested b"'hnd with .vftlULil oflnth..... tnpl' and b.ir; jaV with b.att.. pille, aDd ... the low" seene David'. em... qed panun.....o Notl! also the .piked bdnteu .1 t",Ft &ad ri&bl. Tbe sbi",ld fairly certainly COII~~ bf:ff. and ............. • ppears to be I"-cloer. (Bibliolbiq_ N.IioaaI... Paris)

33

'light' inf.'1ntl'yman in the lnle sense of the word, since the sources tend lO show such soldiers fighting in fairly tight formations; more probably he should be classified as a 'light-medium' infantryman, successor to the pe1tastos described under A3. However, psiloi of the type described below also survived into the 12th century, being both illustrated in the ylitzes manuscript and recorded in the Alrxiad. '11e spear he carries is a rhiplarion or akoulion, a light throwing weapon.

84 PsiloI, Quording 10 Jotll untmy mllilary manuals The principal weapon of the psilos or light infantryman was the composite bow drawn to the chest, though some substituted javelins, staff-sling or crossbow, illld archers were often issued in addition with a sling as a reserve missile weapoll. The bowcasc/quivcr, slung from a Strap across the left shoulder, carried fonyarrows. I n Leo's day the psi los's only defensive wealx>n was a light hand· axe, the tzikourion. Armour was not usually worn, though the m:llluais say that light mail or lamellar COrselelS should be supplied to as many archers as possible ifavailable, at the same time admitting the difficulty ofgctting them for more than a few men equipped thus were probably to be found only in heavy infantry units. A small shield oftwelve inches diameter was probably also carried, though Leo forbids it and Ihe earlier Strattgit:on says it was often discarded in aClion as 'too heavy'! Kikephoros II, however, records that his archers are to have a small shield, as well as twO quivers (one of sixty arrows and one of forty), twO bows, four bow· strings, sling, sword and tzikourion. Thou~h

ofi.....produced, thill ivory "",..kel from the ViClor;'" ...d Albert MUMum 1I1i11 ............11 one of the be.t .... p~ ient.tio... of loth-c,.ntury "kut.to;' AU we.r lanlellar 4:Qr""leuI, dU'1 nfl.he Rated genu'al ..11,.fl ruching to 1m......S well all etbow, and carry konl.. ria iO loag th..1 (h..,. diliJlppe.. r oul of Ihe lOp of th,. panel. Though badly cut th,. luther barn"' ofbrealit-band. and lihouider-piec:etI i. alto "pparent. Two large oVll..l.hieldll of the type called ,,"uta; ppa....nl, whiJ,. the RlIUI at e.trftne le:ft carri,... .....t,.,w circv.har thu.-- Th,. two 6pres at th,. Of'I""ite nod of th,. pand ..... • ppa...... tly w,..riftS ........... dallie .nnour, .,illa,.r te-th,.r Or ponibty quiJlM f.hric, .nd ..... perh.plI pel..stoi. AU have be1n>t:es willa seal,. avftltail!l, sunnount«t by .. rinllo whida .. Cl"'"$1 would be .ttached OD parade. (V;t:eoria IUId AI'-rt MulOftUD, Londota)

H

CI Kafapl'Yat:IOS, aaordillg fo loll, (millry military manuals 1110ugh inevitably the descriptions contained in the various military handbcX>ks differ in detail, the equipment they list is similar enough to arrive at this composite figure. Body·annour comprised a mail corselet or. ifunavailable, a klibanion of iron, horn or leather lamellae. &th the Tatlita and lhe Sylloge mention that a klibanion could in fact be ,,"om over the mail corselet. and it is clear from the pictorial sources that this was indeed fairly common practice. At the shoulders smaller versions of the helmet crest were worn. Additional armour consisted of vambraces and greavcs (here, of wooden strips), leather gauntlets and-when available-a mail hOClCi attached 10 the brim of the helmet. Leo mentions that a padded wool or linen gorget could be worn if the mail hood W:lS unavailable, but he is quoting the earlier Strategicoll practically verbatim at this point. Padded armour could also be worn under or Ovtr the corselet. Kalaphractoi of the loth century carried as their main weapon either lance or bow. The lancc was the slender, twelve·loot komes (meaning 'bargepole' !). more commonly referred to as a kontarion by this time, with ilS ten·inch head and coloured pennon (Leo says that the pennon was remo\'ed in battle). It would seem lhat two lances \\ere issued per lancer in Leo's time, the spare probably being carried in the baggagc train. Those equipped with a bow instead carried the quiver suspended at the right hip and the watcrproof bowcase, complete with a pouch containing a spare bowslring,

suspended at the left. The quiver contained thirty to forty 27in arrows. Bad archers substituted two javelins for lhe bow, and during the second half of the century two javelins and a spear could also be substituted for the lance. Other arms comprised sword and dagger. Officers at least had a mace too, carried in a leather case attached to the saddle. The kite-shield carried here is the indigenous Byzantine type. Small circular targets twelve inches in diameter are specified in Leo's Tactica, but larger circular shields of twenty-four to thirty inches diameter and, later, ki te-shields are far more common in pictorial sources. Archers officially carried no shield at atl, but it seems likely that regulations were often ignored and most bowarmed katapbractoi probably carried the small twelve-inch target, strapped to the left forearm.

C2 Cavalry standard-bearer,

rump Slra ps, these appear only rarely in illustrative sources. Harness was most commonly dyed red or black. olherwise being left as undyed yellowish leather. Saddle-cloths were often some shade of red. f\ote, incidentally, the absence of spurs on the rider's boolS, these apparently not being adopted by the Byzantines until quite late. The standard carried here is from the Scylitzcs manuscript and is probably the type called a bandon, used by both infantry and cavalry units by Leo V I's time. The size and shape of the bandon appears to have varied according to the size of the unit, those of dhoungoi and tunnai apparently being similar to but longer than those of banda. Those in Scylitzcs have between three and eight tails, the number of tails fXlSSibly indica ting the size of the unit. The cross appears to have been the most common standard device, often embroidered in gold and silver.

th- J 2th centuries This is the type of cavalry equipment most commonly depicted in contemporary sources from C3 Katapllractos, c. 1°50 the mid-I I til century onwards, comprising kite- Most cavalrymen seem to have had cloaks. Leo's shield, helmet with leather or scale aventail and a Tactica describes a waterproof, sandy-bro\lln colhip-length corselet with pteruges at the shoulders oured lype whieh appears to have been army-issue, and, less often, the waisl. The sources seem most bUllhosc to be found in contemporary enamels and commonly to depict the corselet as scale armour, manuscripts arc fairly certainly non-regulation and though the artislic convention followed could quite probably of civilian origin, being brightly equally well portray mail, or possibly on occasion coloured with richly embroidered hems and panels. even lamellar. Note lhat the kile-shicld is now of The panel on the fi'onl of the cloak, the characteristic shape of which can be seen here, was called a the more characteristic 'Norman' type. The horse accoutrements arc also fairly stan- tablioll. The cloak was HOi normally \110m in aClion, dard; though one or two of the manuals mention inslead being rolled up and strapped behind the plumes sllspended from throat-lash, breast and saddle. Jf

35

Detail from another .o,b-e:entury ivory panel depicting skutatoi, their large oval shields again much in evidence. The equipment portrayed differs from that of the last picture mainly in the addition of pleruge" 10 the cor"e1et". (Metropolitan Museum of Art, gUt of J. Piertnont Morgan '9'7)

D KlihanopllOros, c. 970 The klibanophoroi were a revival by Nikcphoros II of the truc caiaphracl, which had not bccn seen since late Roman times. The NikepllOri Praecept(l /.,;/ilifaria describes Ihe armour of Ihese super-heavy cavalry as a lamellar klibanion with elbow-lcngth sleeves, and over it a Ihick, padded epilorikion. The hcad was protcclcd by an iron helmct with a mail hood tWO or thrcc layers thick which left only the eyes uncovered, Ihe forearms and lower legs being protected by splint-armour vambraces and greaves, with any gaps filled by pieces of mail. In additioll mail-slrenglhened gaulltieis appear to have been worn, while fcet were probably pro· teclCd by a metal overshoe. Their stout horses were likewise heavily armoured, wearing klibania of oxhide, split at the front for case of movement and leaving only thc eyes, nostrils and lower legs unprotccted. Other forms of horse·armour mentioned in the sources include two or three layers of felt glued togcther; horn or iron lamcllae; and mail. An iron chann'on might also be worn. They drcw up in a wedge formation on the battlefield, Wilh tWCnty men in the first rank, twenty-four in thc sccond, and four more in each consecutive rank; lhe last rank (the twelfth) could

36

comprise as many as sixty-follr men, which means therc were 504 in thc whole unit. Apparently a unit of384 was more common (i.c. only tcn ranks). The front four ranks in eithcr case carried marwbar· boula in addition to the usual sword and komarion, and some mcn, lighlcr-equipped than the lancers, were armed instead with bows; if there were 300 lanccrs there could be eighty archcrs, and if there were 500 lancers there could be as many as 150 archers. Because of Iheir cost klibanophoroi were probably limited to the Tagmata regiments, and it seems likely that j'vlanziken saw the end or Ihem.

E f Guard rdficer, c. 880 Almosl identical figures appear in Byzalliine sources as early as the 4th century. This man, in drcss uniform, is probably a member of the Hetaereia or one of the Tagmata regiments, and the red cloak and circular cmbroidered panels on the skin of his tunic seem to indicate thaI he is an officer.

E2 Emperor in parade amlOur, c. 10/7 Though armour such as this, complete with crown, is frequently depicted in contemporary sources being worn by Empel'Ors in bailie this is un· doubtedly artistic licencc, and there is little doubt that in reality il was reserved for state occasions. Probably equipment more like that orCI was worn

distinguishcd by their gold 100xIlIes or neck·chains (characteristic of most Byzantine guardsmen from late-Roman times until at least the llih century); perhaps it was such sword·bcaring kandidatoi who were called spatharokandidatoi. On state occasions they could be mounted, and wore gilded armour and helmcts and had \\'hite cloaks and standards. £3 J/onbn of Ihe Basi/ikoi Anlhropoi, c. 880 The Basilikoi Amhropoi (the 'men of the Basileus' The kandidatoi were probably the oldest clement or Emperor) ,,'erc court attendants ofa military or of the Basilikoi Anthropoi, its members originally semi.military nature. comprising spatharokandidatoi. being selected, on the basis of their size and spalharioi (called spalhorioi basi/ikoi to distinguish strength, from the ranks of the Scholae. The them from those comprising the retinues of kandidatoi and spatharioi at least had their own strategoi). Ilratores, kandidaloi and mandalores. col- halls in lhe Imperial Palace. lecti\'ely under the command of an official called the protospathariol by this period. We know from FI Nus mercenary. c. 950 Constantine Porphyrogenitus lhat they bore the Many ofthosc Scandinavians who settled in Russia Imperial arms on parade, and it i~ clear frOIll their were soon influenced by the dress of their Slav and names that both spatharioi and spalharo- Asiatic ncighbours. This man, for instance, wears kandidatoi were, originally at least, sword·bearers. the bleached while linen tunic charactcristic of tile This particular figure. however, is p.-obably a Slavs, and his stripcd, baggy trousers arc probably kandidatus. who wore white uniforms and were of Asiatic origin; another Asiatic trait adopted by some Rus was the tattooing of the hands and arms David ....d Goliath ..,tne from the Mnool08hun of Basa II, up to the shoulder. Boots and a cloak clasped at the c. '0'7' 'Goliath' is a Sood eotample of . . lItb-etntllry heavy iJIl....t ..ynuu'. WfllrinS the usuallameUar c:onelet with frinSe shoulder completed their costumc. Most wore mail uad pler1lSes plus the ~h of. . offiCft". His helm.. t, . .d those or th.. l... th..r-annoured 'Is lites· c:rowded ...... ind th.. h.ill, i. coats, and anns comprised spear, axe, sword and

on campaign. Howcver, more functional vcrsions of the gold armbands, sometimes of scale btll more often of iron, appear in many sources from the 11th century onwards, oftcn cngraved to look like ptcruges.

of a ...e...- brimmed vari.. ty, jnisce.u of a ke1t1e-b"lrnet, whidl ......... 10 6 ...1 litan apptarias at aboul thi. dat... n .. 6~ of David, .... lower-da..ss C05tum.. -.ad armed -.ly with a sliDfI:, .,.... probahly be lakrtHDtati"e of th" apprs.......c:e of soldiers' HrvaalS OD tIH battldi,,1d ( _ Plat.. s.). (Biblioteea NaUonaI.. Marriana, V~)

Thous;b datias to th.. '3th «utury ou. is the helmet U i .....0.... by Goliath .... th.. M .....1op1Ut> pie panic:ular one i. v...-y ornate, "",«,,nd ..ilb ....besq.... pan........ and ..... clearly thai of ... oflie.-r.

,,"pot of This and

37

dagger. This man's helmet is ofSla" design, as is his shield, illustrated in the accompanying mono· chrome sketch. Rectangular shields of this type persisted in Russia for many centuries. In appearance the Rus were 'tall as date palms' with red or blond hair and ruddy complexions. ~Iost \\'ere bearded, though some affected only drooping Turkish-style mousl3chcs. Prince SvyatOslav of Kiev even shaved his head Turkishfashion, leavingjust two long locks of hair to signify his rank.

F2 Varangian Guardsman.. c. 1000 The most distinctive feature of the Varangian's equipment was undeniably his axe, which appears to have been retained in preference to the rhomphaia more usually carried by Byzantine guardsmen. Psellus. however, claims that every Varangian 'wi Ihout exception' was armed wi th shield and rhomphaia, 'a one-edged sword of heavy iron which they carry suspended from the right shoulder' (perhaps meaning it was sloped across the right shoulder when not in use). TIlough the two-handed axe was their main weapon spears and swords are also memioned in the sources. It is clear from the sagas that many men kept their own swords when they entered the Guard, and since their axes too were fairly certainly brought from home we ha\'e leave to doubt just ho\\ much of their equipment (as opposed to unifonm) was actually official Byzantine issue. ~Iost probably a mixture of Scandinavian and Byzamine ge.tr was in usc, the latter probably becoming predominant the longer a man stayed in the Guard as his own equipment wore OUI. We know from Anna Comnena Ihal Varangians were generally heavily armoured, and this man has taken full advaillage of access 10 the Imperial arsenals to supplement his own equipment with vambraces and greaves. Their shields probably remained circular throughout the 11th century, but in 1122 we hear of Varangians with kiteshields.

•

•

•

f:,J , •

• •

,,

,

•

I, ~,: .

o 1/) •

•

I,

,,/ ~. .

jI,

\

•

I

\ , I~,

•

•

I

•

•

I

•

•

•

•

•

detail as comprising silk clothes (presented by the Emperor himself), a scarlet cloak, a gilded helmet, and a scarlet shield decorated with a warrior outlined in gold, probably all Byzantine issuc. In addilion, his sword had a gold-decorated hilt and grip, which is of intercst sincc wc know that the right to \\'ear a gold-hilted sword was one of the privileges that accompanied the COllrt rank of manglahiles, which was later to be held by Harald Hardraada as an officer of the Guard; Bolli, therefore, may likcwise have held this rank.

GI Tra/Ndlos, according /0 loth unlury military manuals ~ative light cavalry, called lra/N{itat, are described by both Leo VI and the author of the SJ·Uogt Taclicorum. They were unannoured (though some might wear a hcwxl of horn scales) and armed with sword, kootarion and IWO or Ihree javelins, the latter apparently not to cxceed ninc fect in length. It is also possible that some were equipped as horsearchers. The shield they carried appears to have been the large infantry skuta or lhureos, the circular thureos apparently remaining popular amongsl light cavalry untillhe 13th century. The S]lIogl' also ll1f'ntions a light cavalry shield of lwellly·seven inches diameter, and the small twelve-inch target seems to have been used too.

G2 Pat{inak mncmaries, I Ilh cmtury The Patzinaks, or Pechenegs, were a Turkish F3 Varanlian Guardsman in dress uniform, c. 1030 people often to be found in Byzantine employ from Laxdaela Saga records several ex-Varangian the lategth century onwards, comprising one of the Guards wearing searlel clothes when Ihey rcturned largest mercenary elements of lhe anny by the 10 Iceland in about 103°01' 1040. The equipment of middle to late II th century. ~Iany dctachments Bolli Bollasson, their leader. is described in some were employed as a son of provincial police by that

38

- ....-.-.- , • ..

••

"\' I

:;:-_.~~ H TWN (HLH"}1 'rA' ~

lime, in which role we find them dogging the unruly march of the Fil'st Crusade through the Empire's EUl'opean provinces. Like all Asiatic peoples their main weapon was the composite bow, but javelins, spear, sabre and hand-axe were also carried, as well as a lasso used to entangle enemy horses and riders in close comb-"ll. For defence a small circular shield ofosiers, wood or hide was carried. Body armour of lamellar construction could also be worn depending on the social status of the wearer; chieftains and their retinues, for instance, were normally armoured.

HI Stljuk mtrUlIary. la/t II th ernlury Surprisingly, Seljuk Turks did not appear in Byzantine service until oJttr their vicwry over Romanus IV at ~Ianzikert, when between 1071 and loBt successive Emperors and generals, desperate for troops, falher shortsightcdly introduceool "",nai". d.h, pa,"" "f full...".,;"IO' .",,·o,k ;"dudi", " d.,.iltd ...., ...... y "f ,I>< ,'chidc'. 'n'cr''''', CA;\II'AIG~

Conrioc•• u,hori, ••;.,c _ n , . of