Re: Roman infantry tactics into the Dark and Middle ages...


<am05@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150221191.267241.231200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

David Read wrote:
<am05@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

At which period (approximately) the armies of the Western/Eastern
Empires
ceased to be ....er... 'classic' Roman armies. By 'classic' (choose any
term
you think is appropriate) I mean armies in which highly disciplined and

uniformely-organized infantry was the most important branch.

That would depend upon what you mean by "highly" in "highly disciplined".
However, infantry disciplined along Roman lines lost their predominance
from around the beginning of the second quarter of the fifth century in
the
west,

Which means approximately time of Aetius.

and the middle of the sixth century in the east.

Time of Justinian?

Yes.

And by predominance,
I do not mean with regard simply to numbers but also to battlefield
tactical
doctrine and practice. In the west, infantry disciplined along Roman
lines
increasingly gave way in field armies to Germanic troops operating under
their own leaders and own fighting styles.

Of course.

This was a situation that existed
only temporarily in the east before Roman training and discipline were
re-established.

How did they manage to do this? Well, probably this is not a question
with a simple
answer.

Indeed. It goes something like this:

"Zeno, knowing what Theoderic really wanted, invited him to invade Italy
and, if he could overthrow Odovacr, rule in his place as Zeno's viceroy. It
was an attractive proposion to Theoderic, and it was significant of the
moral authority that the East exerted that he still needed the Emperor's
invitation to such an adventure. For him it promised a self-sufficient
Ostrogothic kingdom instead of perpetual shortages, and fighting on
another's behalf or simply in order to extract gold or favour from the wily
emperor. To Zeno it was a heaven-sent opportunity to rid the Balkans of the
Ostrogothic proto-state for good.

The conquest of Italy was not easy. In August 490 Theodoric defeated
Odovacer at the battle of Addua near Milan, but the war dragged on for
another three years, in which town after fortified town had to be taken, and
the bloody massacres of Odovacer's garrisons prolonged the desperate
resistance. Theodoric, with his upbringing in Roman ways, courted and gained
the overall support of the senatorial nobles. After Addua had tipped the
balance, the Senate sent their _Princeps_, Festus, to seek Zeno's public
recognition for Theodoric as his Patrician and viceroy in Italy. This was a
major step in the larger survival of the East. A shifting warlike
population, groping towards a nmore settled statehood, had conquered and
occupied a stable national territory."

Stephen Williams and Gerard Friel, _The Rome That Did Not Fall: The Survival
Of The East In The Fifth Century_, Routledge, 1999. pp. 195.6

As for the subsequent revitalisation of the East Roman Army:

"After putting down a revolt by the Isaurians, Zeno's successor Anastasius I
finally brought the fifth-century military crises to an end. His success
seems to be connected with a change he made in the soldiers' pay. About 498,
as part of more extensive financial reforms, Anastasius replaced issues of
rations, uniforms, and arms with cash allowances that let the men purchase
whatever they needed. These new allowances were evidently generous - so
generous that the army attracted large numbers of native volunteers. The
forced conscription prevalent during the fourth century was abandoned, and
the barbarian mercenaries who had been so numerous during the fifth century
became much less important. No new barbarian generals tried to take over the
empire, and the army became a much more effective instrument."

Warren Treadgold, _Byzantium and Its Army 284-1081_, Stanford, 1995. pp.
14-15



As I understand, at the times of Justinian infantry (at least in the
armies of Belizarius)
played a 'secondary' role on the battlefields or at least was not used
offensively and
the armies of this period were mostly ad hoc formations with a high
proportion of the
foreign mercenaries and the household troops of the military leaders.

The army as a whole was not organized ad hoc, although what we see in the
battles of Justinian's Wars of reconquest are field armies that fought
pretty much as you describe.


Yes, I was talking strictly about the field armies. It looks like a lot
of the old military
titles were still in existense so probably there was some
infrastructure behind them.
Or were they just the old-fashioned titles with no practical meaning?

There were many titles of recent and not so recent tradition, some more
meaningful than others.



So, when this was not (yet) the case?

Do you mean before or after Justinian's wars of reconquest?

Yes.


Or perhaps it would make sense to consider just an existence (not
dominance) of the
disciplined infantry? Was it still there at, say, the times of Aetius?

It was still in existence in the west, even under Aetius, but in much
reduced numbers and probably not as disciplined as it had been a
generation
or two previously.

I was curious how important/relevant were these troops at the time of,
say, battle
at Chalon. There were clearly not adequate for stopping the Hunns on
their own but
were they of any real usefulness?

In terms of numbers, they were militarily insignificant at this time in
field armies compared with German troops, federates and suchlike. In terms
of efficiency and discipline, those who remained probably made adequate
garrison troops.


Indeed, the question of military discipline itself is
highly dependent upon the skills and exertions of the leadership, and
some
leaders would have been better at stopping the rot than others, however
temporalily.

Probably (in)ability to provide a regular pay also was a big factor in
the issue of
maintaining a discipline.

Indeed.

In the east, disciplined infantry continued to form a
significant proportion of the army as a whole, but its battlefield role
became "subordinate" to that of the cavalry, and there were some
complaints
from contemporaries that they had declined in quality. It's difficult to
know how true this was. Roman infantry had always had problems with the
cavalry rich armies of Persia, and part of the growth in the importance
of
cavalry in Roman armies, (especially in the east) from the third century
can
be traced to a Roman response to such threats.

Good point.


It should be borne in mind is that although cavalry became increasingly
important across the board in Roman armies from the 3rd century, in both
numbers and tactical usage, in any given campaign or battle the ratio of
cavalry to infantry could be highly variable, dependent upon the theatre
of
operations and the nature of the enemy.

It looks like Belizarius had very limited use of it on a battlefield.
Which, of course,
leaves the sieges, garrisoning, etc.

The primary use of infantry on the battlefield in the armies of Belisarius
and Narses was to provide a manoeuvre base for the cavalry - i.e., somewhere
for the cavalry to rally behind before launching further attacks, and so
forth. Its tactical offensive capability was limited. Infantry were usually
present on the battlefield in fifth century East Roman armies. Nevertheless,
the Byzantines could and did fight battles without without infantry, while,
on the other hand, they could and did sometimes use part of their cavalry on
the battlefield in a dismounted role.

However:

"The battle of Casilinus illustrates the fact that well-ordered infantry,
drawn up in the traditional fashion and properly supported by cavalry, were
still an important and highly effective force in the Roman armies of the
period. It also suggests that discipline remained the essential ingredient
and that the absence of this element, rather than any sudden revolution in
tactics, was the real cause of so many problems faced by Roman commanders in
this period. In general, the battles described by Procopius and Agathias for
the reign of Justinian make it clear that while infantry renmained a key
element of most armies, cavalry were playing an increasingly important and
often more versatile role and, when employed appropriately - as seems to
have been the case for at least some of Narses's cavalry at Taginae - could
even replace infantry in the battle line. These developments were to become
increasingly pronounced in the warfare of the later sixth century."

John Haldon _The Byzantine Wars_ , Tempus 2001. p.44.

--

cheers,
David Read


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Roman infantry tactics into the Dark and Middle ages...
    ... "Wedge" type formations, trained up as a unit, equipped with Roman ... At which period the armies of the Western/Eastern ... at the times of Justinian infantry (at least in the ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: Roman infantry tactics into the Dark and Middle ages...
    ... "Wedge" type formations, trained up as a unit, equipped with Roman ... At which period the armies of the Western/Eastern ... infantry disciplined along Roman lines lost their predominance ... only temporarily in the east before Roman training and discipline were ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Medieval Total War 2
    ... A vastly enhanced version of the Total War engine vividly portrays the pure bloodlust of Medieval warfare with massive battles of more than 10,000 troops splayed across new graphically rich environments. ... All the time the Pope and the Papal States watch over the Christian world, assessing the strength of your faith and making demands to prove your loyalty. ... Armies are now made up of meticulously detailed troops built with unique heads, body, weapons and armour with unique animations and poses that gives each individual unit character and depth. ... A legion of more than 250 new and unique units split over 21 factions, each with their own new special abilities that open up a wealth of intuitive battlefield tactics. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic)
  • Re: Roman infantry tactics into the Dark and Middle ages...
    ... At which period the armies of the Western/Eastern ... infantry disciplined along Roman lines lost their predominance ... I do not mean with regard simply to numbers but also to battlefield tactical ... only temporarily in the east before Roman training and discipline were ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: Possibilities for Bardic Reinforcement
    ... belong on the battlefield. ... drummers and bugulars for large armies. ... purpose, but once you get down to squad or individual tactics, ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.development)