Talk:Byzantine battle tactics

project going on

This article is'nt yet finished, it is an'open project everyone can help Philx Philx 22:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The byzantine infantry tactics and strategies isn't completed yet i have to deciphrate better what nikephoros say about dual infantry wing. Everyone that has some grasp with greek is needed to help. Philx Philx 13:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my friend, I've been on a bit of a wiki-break this weekend...Veteran's day holiday, family visits etc. Then it was Monday. I'll get started on our article. I think I may know of someone to help us with the Greek too. F.S.S.D Amico, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Send for the cavalry!

So Phil, do you think we are done yet? Do you have anything else we can add? I think we need one more section on other types of Byzantine cavalry besides the Katas. I know they had light cavalry, mainly provided by foreign allies and mercenaries (much in the same way the Romans had). But I'm not sure exactly what they were called nor their exact composition. Plus these forces, obviously, varied greatly over time. As always I welcome your thoughts, ideas and information, amico --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

We 've done friend! it is impossible however to name their ligth cavalry Nike says that there were in the 9th century slavs, bulgars, turks and other population use as light cav, there were psiloi kata psiloi ippeutes and so on, i see if i can found some mottos on maurikos but it seems hard. Philx 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there's no real need to bother with the mottos this time unless you REALLY want to. It looks like we are mostly done. Though this being the Wiki, nothing is ever truly FINISHED ;>. I asked User:Adam Bishop to look it over. He says it is good and has nothing to add or correct. So we have, to my mind, passed an important test:> I would like to mention those terms you listed, though. I know Psiloi means skirmisher. I've seen it used maninly when referring to those of earlier Greek/Macedonian armies. The "psiloi kata" were lancers or javelineers and the "psiloi ippeutes" were the archers and slingers right? R.D.S.S.D.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

you re right friend, psiloi ippeutes are light cav archers while katas psiloi are javeliers

Philx 12:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Observations

Reading the article in its present form, I have some questions and observations. I am not aware of your sources (what I am drawing upon are the Osprey Series books and some Greek historical magazines) and thus did not change the relevant sections in the article, despite some rewriting...

Referring to the chiliarchy, it is cited as the basic Byzantine unit. In fact, the basic unit was the Bandon or Tagma, of between 200-400 men, which indeed matches the description given in the article: front and side rows were skutatoi, and the rest (about one third) psiloi or saggitatores (i.e. archers) or peltastoi (i.e. javelineers/unarmoured spearmen). The bandon was subdivided into ekatontarchiai (centuries). Several banda were grouped together in a moira (also referred to as drougga, chiliarchia or taxis, depending on source/period) of 2-3 thousand men, which in turn were grouped into a tourma or meros, i.e. an army division. The same applies roughly to the cavalry.

Furthermore, it is stated that "the Clibanophori would destroy the enemy's cavalry (this tactic was used mainly against Franks, Lombards or other Germanic tribes who deployed heavy cavalry)". As far as I am aware, Germanic peoples did not field heavy cavalry, but rather heavy infantry (at least the Franks), as long as we are talking about the first centuries of Byzantium. Byzantine heavy cavalry (and for that matter its Roman precursors as well) were primarily developed to counter the Sassanid cataphracts. The latter-age cataphract was more an all-purpose armoured cavalry, rather than the 'tank' of late Roman times. The 'old' cataphract, with the armoured horse and the full panoply, designed to breach the enemy formation, was revived only during Nicephorus II Phocas' reign. Conversely, the Vandals and the Avars are credited with strong heavy infantry, while they excelled in cavalry (Middle-Byzantine cavalry equipment was after all, copied almost wholesale from the Avars)...

As far as archers are concerned, the Byzantines certainly did not simply raise new archers whenever they needed them. They justly regarded archery to be very difficult to master, and were never able to recruit sufficient numbers of capable indigenous archers. Indeed, horse-archers were predominantly mercenary Asians. Cplakidas 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thank for the edits! I appreciated a lot your revision.

Answering your questions:

• About the avars, yes you were right they had powerfull cavalry, i may have typed wrong and so, i'm sorry there was nos intention in doing this.
• About the clibanarii\cataphractarri, sorry i don't see the error, cathaphraktos were used like shock cavalry, not only for chasing persian katas, thus they were a commistion of cliba and persian katas.
• The banda or tagma as you stated were comparable to unit cohort for fighting capabilities, so it was not the main tactical unit, chilias, according to Phokas was.
• Germanic population had both cavalry and strong infantry, goths aren't germanic?
• the problem you mentioned about the archers apperared after the lost of anatoly in manzikert battle were trebizondans archers culdn't be mopre recruited. Cheers --Philx 13:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the quick reply! Concerning the cataphracts, I simply think there should be a distinction between the 'ordinary', all-purpose Middle-Byzantine cataphract and the heavy clibanophoros, who were exclusively shock cavalry. As for the units, I haven't read the Praecepta Militaria, but am aware that Phocas referred to the chiliarchy or taxis of ca. 1000 men as the main tactical unit. Nonetheless, most byzantine texts and relevant studies that I have come across usually refer to the bandon/tagma as the basic unit (despite its small size) from the late-Roman era up to the 11th century. To me it qualifies as the basic (at least in the army's organization) unit because it (and not the moirai/chiliarchies) had distinctive colours/emblems, despite its relatively small size. Anyhow, there should be a more complete mention of the lower-scale units and the lochoi, perhaps with the addition that Phocas prescribed the taxis as the main tactical unit. Now, about archers... The inadequacy of archers was actually a rather constant problem (Leo VI for instance complains that "archery has fallen into disuse among the Romans") and anyway, Byzantines did prefer to recruit mercenary nomadic horse-archers, from the late Empire (Huns) right to the end (Cumans & Turks), who were certainly much better than indigenous archers. Trebizontians and other Pontians did indeed come to the fore in the 11th century, but I wouldn't generalize too much... There were also the Isaurians earlier, for instance... Cplakidas 14:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

Hi again, you said yourself that the clibanophoroi were used only with phokas, so i think that from the 5th to the 14th century the katas remained almost the same, excepet however a shift in equipmement but his role was almost the same, so i don't see the need of a distinction, besides this, it is not true that the banda had their distinctive insignia, at least reading ouranos, phokas and leo i didn't came across such distinction, but if you think that it would be usefull to insert lower tactical unit, please insert it. About the archers,

i knew that they were callaed toxotai, nor psiloi, where psiloi described javeliners. Besides this, it is indeed true that the byzantines used mercenary auxilia, but till the 11th they had enough manpower to recruit their own, the practice of the bow's art fallen in disuse at least at the 11th, for what concerns foot archers, you might say for mounted archery, but that's another story, again thank you for you observation and feel free to edit the article. --Philx 20:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response and Thanks for your outstanding edits/additions. My sources were: Charles Oman, The History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages (1898, rev. ed. 1953) and, of course the invaluable Encyclopedia Of Military History: From 3500 B.C. To The Present. (2nd Revised Edition 1986) by R.E. Dupuy and T.N. Dupuy. As mentioned in the references. Phil used original sources, so we had a good balance between first and secondhand accounts. This aside, Byz organization was complex and confusing. And deliberately so, they kept it that way so their enemies would not be able to figure out the size and composition of their armies (Which were usually small). A Byzantine Turmae, for example, could have anywhere from 10 to 50 men. Nikephoros as a general understood this and would'nt divulge too much detail. I chose Numeri, or Banda as they were also sometimes called, because this was used more consistantly throughout both early and late Byz history. It is still a bit confusing because they also called these units Artimos and, as you point out, Tagma. A Numeri or Numerous is also a term for an auxillary unit of about 1000, originally used in Roman times. Charles Oman in his translations chose to use it and so did Dupuy and Dupuy for their encycleopedia. We could, if you want, mention the Tagma. I don't see any harm in providing a bit more organizational detail, plus it further illustrates our point about the Roman origins of the Byz army and how its complex organization evolved. Our goal was just to create a general overview article, where before there was none. But if you wish to expand it still more, by all means, please make what additions, corrections you see fit. Best Regards,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Leo VI's Taktikos

A synopsis of this work can be found at http://roman-empire.net/army/tactics.html . I beleive that the information presented would be a valuable adition to this article. What are your thoughts? The following is a direct transcript from the site:

"Leo VI's manual, the famous tactica, provides precise instructions for dealing with various foes.

The Franks and the Lombards were defined as knightly heavy cavalry which, in a direct charge, could devastate an opponent and so it was advised to avoid a pitched battle against them. However, they fought with no discipline and little to no battle order at all and generally had few, if any, of their horsemen performing any reconnaissance ahead of the army. They also failed to fortify their camps at night.

The Byzantine general would hence best fight such an opponent in a series of ambushes and night attacks. If it came to battle he would pretend to flee, drawing the knights to charge his retreating army - only to run into an ambush.

The Magyars and Patzinaks, referred to as the Turks by the Byzantines, fought as bands of light horsemen, armed with bow, javelin and scimitar. They were accomplished in performing ambushes and used many horsemen to scout ahead of the army.

In battle they advanced in small scattered bands which would harass the frontline of the army, charging only if they discovered a weak point.

The general was advised to deploy his infantry archers in the front line. Their larger bows had greater range than that of the horsemen and could so keep them at a distance. Once the Turks, harassed by the arrows of the Byzantine archers would try and close into range of their own bows, the Byzantine heavy cavalry was to ride them down.

The Slavonic Tribes, such as the Servians, Slovenes and Croatians still fought as foot soldiers. However, the craggy and mountainous terrain of the Balkans lent itself very well to ambushes by archers and spearmen from above, when an army would be hemmed in in a steep valley. Invasion into their territories was hence discouraged, though if necessary, it was recommended that extensive scouting was undertaken in order to avoid ambushes.

However, when hunting down Slavonic raiding parties or meeting an army in open field, it was pointed out that the tribesmen fought with little or no protective armour, except for round shields. Hence their infantry could easily be overpowered by a charge of the heavy cavalry.

The Saracens were judged as the most dangerous of all foes by Leo VI. Had they in earlier centuries been powered only by religious fanaticism, then by the time of Leo VI's reign (AD 886-912) they had adopted some of the weaponry and tactics of the Byzantine army.

After earlier defeats beyond the mountain passes of the Taurus, the Saracens concentrated on raiding and plundering expeditions instead of seeking permanent conquest. Having forced their way through a pass, their horsemen would charge into the lands at an incredible speed.

Byzantine tactics were to immediately collect a force of cavalry from the nearest themes and to trail the invading Saracen army. Such a force might have been too small to seriously challenge the invaders, but it deterred small detachments of plunderers from breaking away from the main army.

Meanwhile the main Byzantine army was to be gathered from all around Asia Minor (Turkey) and to meet the invasion force on the battlefield.

The Saracen infantry was deemed by Leo VI to be little more than an disorganized rabble, except for the occasional Ethiopian archers who though were only lightly armed and hence could not match the Byzantine infantry.

If the Saracen cavalry was judged to be a fine force it could not match the discipline and organisation of the Byzantines. Also the Byzantine combination of horse archer and heavy cavalry proved a deadly mix to the light Saracen cavalry.

Should however, the Saracen force only be caught up with by the time it was retreating homewards laden with plunder, then the emperor Nicephorus Phocas advised in his military manual that the army's infantry should set upon them at night from three sides, leaving open only the road back to their land. It was deemed most likely that the startled Saracens would leap to their horses and take homeward rather than defend their plunder.

Another tactic was to cut off their retreat across the passes. Byzantine infantry would reinforce the garrisons in the fortresses guarding the passes and the cavalry would pursue the invader driving them up into the valley. Like this the enemy could be helplessly pressed into a narrow valley with little to no room to manoeuver. Here they would be easy prey to the Byzantine archers.

A third tactic was to launch counter attack across the border into Saracen territory. An invading Saracen force would often turn around to defend its own borders if message of an attack reached it. "

Dryzen 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"What are your thoughts?" I like these additions. Please add them! A few suggestions and caveats though- Put them in a new section called "The Tactikos" or whichever title you deem best. Also be sure to credit the site and/or change the wording. The wiki has become quite anal about copyright protection of late. It is interesting..on the Saracens, I recall reading, in Oman's translation, Leo the Wise saying-"Of all our foes, they have been the most judicious in adapting our practices and arts of war, and are thus the most dangerous." --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi gohst hi all, i agree they are valuable sources --Philx 21:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, hope you like it. You might want to make sure I didn't do any spelling mistakes (my curse).Dryzen 15:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I Do like it. Good job Dryzen! Now thanks to your section, readers will get a much better sense of how the Byzantines approached war. Thank you.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope to add some more information in the future.--Dryzen 13:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Toxotai Merge Proposal

Toxotai who are old Greek archers have a 3 sentence entry of their own which is eloquently covered in this entry. It would be far better to merge the articles as it is not a subject that can be expanded on sufficiently to justify its own entry. --Matt 10:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What did you have in mind for the merger? The ancient Toxotai and the Byzantine version arn't the same unit, although they are linked by title and region.--Dryzen 16:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not have enough knowledge on the subject to make a reasonable decision, which is why I sort the opinion of other editors with more knowledge on the subject. After reading your opinion I will leave the merger alone, I am involved in an attempt to cleanup articles lacking sources since December 2005, which is how I found Toxatai. Perhaps you could have a look at the Toxatai article and improve it and provide some sources. I will come back and remove the merge proposal in a day or two as other editors with the page watchlisted, may also be encouraged into some activity by its presence, thanks for your feedback --Matt 03:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice article

Never before have I enjoyed reading such a short yet sweet article. Now all that is needed is references. Tourskin 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

???

The first line was called the kontarion, the first four lines were made up of skutatoi the remaining three of toxotai.

I don´t understand this sentence. Does it maybe refer to a battle order in Roman style, using Manipular tactics? If you don´t know what I mean: I am speaking about the hastati- principes - triarii-system. In this case, it seems to me that a depth of 15 to 20 men would be much to deep for one line, and this figure can only mean the total number of ranks for all four lines of skutatoi. --Mike F (German wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.113.55 (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now read the next lines of the article, which seem to disagree with my opinion, because it says that no "classical Quincunx formation" was used. I am totally confused.. --Mike F

I have also got another question: The skutatoi remember me strongly of the Roman legionary, so I wonder why they didn´t use javelins (pila). In addition to that, an organized infantery unit only equipped with swords seems a bit strange to me. So, I thought that MAYBE the author just forgot to mention the javelins? --Mike F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.113.54 (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And what the hell is meant by a "Bambakion"? --Mike F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.113.54 (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A Bambakion is easy. It was basically a quilted jacket. It was worn under the lamellar or mail. It was what, an inch thick? Not sure on the thickness. (SSJPabs (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

Article is good but needs more photos for the byzantine cavalry

Copied

This page is almost completely identical to this website. While I'm not sure how a page can undergo so many revisions and be completely identical to another page, the fact that this article has little to no citation while the webpage does leads me to believe this page was originally copied and tweaked several times.

I'm not comfortable with just getting rid of this article so I'll just call attention to this and let someone else handle it. 98.24.21.109 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the mlahanas webpage states that their article was copied from Wikipedia: right at the bottom, it says "Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/"". Constantine ✍ 13:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byzantine battle tactics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/haldon1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013035512/http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Rance2.pdf to http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Rance2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byzantine battle tactics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206022802/http://www.deremilitari.org:80/resources/pdfs/dennis1.pdf to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/dennis1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Original research?

Before the long editions of recent months the article and its narration made little to few sense at all with much of the information clearly improvised and irrelevant. Most of the sources cited apart from the last two include text, phrases and information directly borrowed from said sources.

How can the article acquire more negative watermarks when the narration and previous version of said article was much less elaborated and little revised? The review of the sources provided before the last two additions and their information should be thoroughly reviewed before any sudden changes.Pablo1355 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You've done a lot of good work, but much of what you've added is without any sources, which need to be added and it does need to be rewritten for style. The tags are there to support and to flag to other users that more sources should be added where they can. Unbh (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried to place the citations where I felt the information was most relevant and I agree that a better tone could be used but original research is largely ruled out as a flaw in the article's body, the information derived directly from those sources alone and it could be verified with a small review from the various sources on the page. In the text sections with the main information that I provide, there is no lack of sources, I took care of placing each one correspondingly.

As for the nature of the text there is not much you can do to add sources as it concentrates on the descriptive aspect and characteristics of the army which for the most part also has sources. I felt that for this reason it was better to remove the mark due to the lack of review or improvement in the article. The tag to continue adding sources should stay but a possible original search is totally questionable. The last two sources give a better perspective and treat with much more detail with the information provided so I hope you can consider the option of removing the original search tag, i repeat, much of the text is directly derived from the sources and even copied directly from the source text alone. Pablo1355 (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Any reviews on that topic? Pablo1355 (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)