Byzantine military technology was part of a much wider picture, and both shared in and contributed to the evolution of the defensive and offensive techniques common to the western Eurasian world: in the former, by the adoption of techniques and products from the East; in the latter, by transmitting the Byzantine version of these techniques to neighbouring cultures. Through the various peoples who inhabited or passed through the steppe regions north of the Danube and the Black Sea the empire maintained regular contacts with more distant societies, so that elements of central Asian and even more easterly military panoply or practices permeated into the Balkans, Asia Minor, and Middle East. In the late sixth century a form of the stirrup may have been adopted from the Avars, who had carried it across from the eastern steppe and China; the same people seem also to have stimulated the use of lamellar (or scale) armour on a much greater scale than hitherto; while in the eighth or ninth century the single-edged cavalry sabre and the lamellar cuirass with associated splinted arm-guards was adopted from the steppe, probably through the Khazars and Magyars (Bivar 1955 and 1972:286-7; Lazaris 2005).
In the infantry of the later fifth and sixth centuries it was primarily those who made up the first and second ranks who wore the full defensive panoply, which
Consisted of breastplate, helmet, leg-armour (splinted greaves of either iron or leather or felt), and wide round or oval shields of 1.5 m (about 5 feet) in diameter, to afford maximum protection. The shields of those in the front rank were also supposed to have spiked bosses. Spears and swords were the main offensive arms of such soldiers. There is a certain element of antiquarian detail in this information: the writer of the anonymous treatise On Strategy (now dated to the ninth or tenth century but including much earlier material relating to the sixth century and earlier, and attributed to Syrianos Magister (Zuckermann 1990)) assumes that a solid breastplate will be worn, for example, which may have applied to some officers, and perhaps to soldiers in parade uniform, but for which there is no evidence from other contexts (Dennis 1985: 53 (§16.14-15)). The sources would indicate that, in reality, a mail shirt would be worn, with padded jerkin or coat beneath. Cavalry during the sixth and early seventh century are described by Prokopios and, in particular, in the Strategikon (c.6oo; Dennis 1985), whose precepts suggest that the influence of the Avars was at this time particularly powerful. According to Prokopios’ probably idealized description {Wars I. i. 12-16), the best-armed horseman wore a mail coat reaching to the knee, on top of a thick padded coat to absorb the shock of any blows; he wore a helmet, a small circular shield strapped to the left shoulder (another feature found on the steppe), and was armed with a lance, sword (hung from a shoulder strap on the left side), and bow with quiver (on the right side). The horse was unarmoured, since the cavalry described by Prokopios functioned both as shock troops and highly mobile mounted archers. The sixth-century anonymous treatise specifies further that the front-rank cavalry mounts were to be armoured (for the neck, chest, and flanks) and that their hooves were to be protected against caltrops (spiked metal balls) by metal plates. This practice was clearly continuously observed, for an account of an eleventh-century battle between imperial cavalry and Arab forces in Sicily refers to the metal plates protecting the Roman cavalry’s hooves (Haldon 1999:129).
It is clear, both from incidental references in accounts of battles, and from these treatises, that heavy armament was limited to relatively small numbers of men, destined primarily to serve in the foremost rank or ranks of the battle line. The ma jority of infantry and cavalry were equipped with quilted or padded coats {zabai) reaching to the knee, and protection for the chest of leather, possibly in the form of scale armour. For the infantry, whether or not helmets were worn, shields, spears, and padded coats will have been the predominant form of armament. Light infantry wore quilted jerkins, may have carried small shields, and were armed with slings, bows, or javelins. These descriptions match what is known, from pictorial and archaeological evidence, of the standard panoply of Roman infantry in the third century and suggests a considerable degree of continuity in basic style and form of military garb.
By the fourth century helmets with integral neck-guards made from a single sheet of metal had been replaced by composite helmets of two pieces connected by a welded and riveted ridge piece, which also evolved decorative aspects; cheek - and neck-guards were attached via leather straps and the lining of the helmet, although not all such ridged helmets had crests. It is likely that this type derives from a Parthian-Iranian archetype. Other varieties consisted of several segments, some with hinged cheek-pieces and riveted neck-guards. Known today as SpangenhelmCy they derive probably from trans-Danubian models, and were widely adopted during the fifth and sixth centuries (Bishop and Coulston 1993:167-72).
By the end of the sixth century, Avar influence was especially obvious: heavy cavalry soldiers were protected by long coats, intended to cover them down to the ankle, of either quilting or mail-on-quilting, a mail hood and neck-guard, spiked helmet and small circular shield. Elite units also had arm-guards. The late sixth-century Strategikon states explicitly that much of this equipment was modelled on the Avar panoply, in particular the throat-guard or gorget and the thong attached to the middle of the lance, and the loose-fitting and decorated clothing. Troopers also wore a wide, thick felt cloak to protect them from the weather, and were equipped with two stirrups, an innovation copied from the Avars. The panoply was completed by a cavalry sword, and the horses were to be armoured in front with a skirt and neck-covering, either of iron or felt, or ‘in the Avar fashion’ (with lamellar of iron or leather). Lamellar armour does not appear to have been used widely, although various types of lamellar construction for both horse - and body-armour were certainly known.
Infantry were less well armed. The best of the heavy infantry wore zahaiy if they were available, and those in the front rank were also to wear greaves (of iron or wood, thus probably splinted), and helmets. All carried a spear, shield, and ‘Herul’ sword; the Herul infantry figure prominently in Prokopios’ accounts of the war in Italy {Wars I. xviii. 44-8; viii. 29-32), and clearly influenced imperial fighting techniques to a degree. The light infantry carried a small shield, a sling, javelins, and bow, together with an arrow-guide to enable them to fire short, heavy bolts as well as arrows of the normal length (a device common in the Islamic world, and perhaps also introduced via the Avars to the Byzantine and western world). Barbarian influence is clear here, too, as with the cavalry: the Strategikon notes that the infantry should wear ‘Gothic’ boots, short cloaks rather than the large, cumbrous ‘Bulgar’ (i. e. Hunnic) capes, and that some of the light infantry are equipped with Slav javelins.
The basics of heavy and light infantry equipment seem to have changed little during the period from the fifth to the early seventh century, except for the admission in the Strategikon that the majority of the heavy infantry did not possess the more expensive mail armour of those who made up the front rank of the line of battle. In contrast, the heavy and medium cavalry panoply shows marked steppe influence, as well as the influence of Sassanian cavalry tactics and arms (Haldon 1975 and 2002: 68-72; Dixon and Southern 1992: 43 ff.; Bishop and Coulston 1993: 149 ff«; also Nikonov 1998).
By the tenth century, this basic panoply had altered very little, although the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries had seen a number of developments in both the forms and appearance of armour and weaponry, and in fighting technique. The appearance of the single-edged sabre (which seems to be the meaning of the term paramerion in tenth-century treatises), and the greater use of felt and quilted defences, are the most obvious changes, the latter in particular a reflection of the general impoverishment in the levels of equipment of the thematic infantry and cavalry already discussed. Thematic cavalry were armed with mail, lamellar, or quilted armour, according to individual wealth and status; the waist-length kliban-ion of lamellar appears to have been standard, but mail surcoats (lorikia) were also worn. The long coat described in the Strategikon no longer appears in the midtenth-century sources, suggesting that it probably fell out of use during the seventh century; although knee-length coats of what may be lamellar appear in an eleventh-century Byzantine manuscript illumination (Diehl 1933: pi. Ixxxii). Helmets were probably also standard, although some soldiers may not have possessed them, using felt caps with neck-guards instead, while the main weapons were the lance or spear, sword, complemented by the light cavalry shield. Bows and quivers (on the Iranian pattern) completed the armament. Light cavalry had less body-armour, and carried javelins or bows, or both.
Infantry wore quilted or lamellar body-armour, or mail, although those that could afford the more expensive mail or lamellar equipment may also have possessed horses and been classed among the mounted troops: the evidence suggests that, on the whole, the foot soldiers were less well outfitted than in the late Roman period. The majority of infantry, even the heavy infantry, had felt caps rather than metal helmets, for example, and this must have been standard wear from the later seventh or eighth century on, and remained so until the eleventh century and after (although there were certainly exceptions, especially among infantry tagmata recruited from foreign mercenaries, for example, whose panoply reflected their own cultural and martial traditions). Shields for the infantry were circular, oblong, or triangular; circular for light-armed troops, as well as for the cavalry, but the size varied according to the role of the troops in question. Weapons included various types of spear, mace, and axe (single-bladed, double-bladed, blade-and-spike, etc.), along with the traditional sword, although not all heavy infantrymen carried the latter. The standard infantry spear in the mid and late tenth-century treatises seems to have been longer than during the earlier period, and probably reflects the enhanced status and battlefield role of heavy infantry, who had to stand firm against heavy cavalry and present a ‘hedgehog’ of spears to repel the enemy.
The mid-tenth-century heavy cavalryman is described in several sources, in particular the Praecepta militaria ascribed to the emperor Nikephoros II Phokas, and was protected by a lamellar klibanioriy with splinted arm-guards, sleeves, and gauntlets, the latter from coarse silk or quilted cotton. From the waist to the knee he wore thick felt coverings, reinforced with mail; over the klibanion was worn a sleeveless quilted or padded coat (the epilorikon); and to protect the head and neck an iron helmet with mail or quilting attached and wrapped around the face. The lower leg was protected by splinted greaves of bronze. Offensive weapons included iron maces with a 3-, 4-, or 6-flanged head, the paramerion, and the standard sword, or spathion. Horses were also armoured, with felt quilting, or boiled leather lamellar or scale armour, or hides; the head, neck and front, flanks and rear of the animal would be thus protected. Their hooves appear also to have been protected against caltrops by metal plates. In addition to this information, a mid-tenth-century text (Dain 1938: §39.4) gives some details on the bow used by Byzantine soldiers: the basic model remained that of the Hunnic bow, adopted in the fifth and sixth century, measuring from 45 to 48 inches in length, with arrows of 27 inches (McGeer 1995; Breccia 2004).
Infantry soldiers may also have employed an arrow-guide, as mentioned above— a channelled tube used to shoot short bolts very rapidly, certainly in use in the Muslim world after the seventh century. First mentioned in the late sixth-century Strategikoriy it was introduced from the steppe according to later Arab sources, yet another example of military technology from the central Asian and Chinese sphere carried westward by the steppe peoples. Whether Byzantine soldiers also used the hand-held crossbow, some evidence for which exists from the late Roman period (as opposed to the much larger frame - or swivel-mounted weapon used as field-or siege-artillery, which certainly did continue in use), seems doubtful. Why it was not used is unclear: the answer must be sought in the conditions and nature of the fighting carried on by infantry in the period from the later fifth century on (Nishimura 1988).
Next to nothing is known of some aspects of military equipment: types and styles of sword-hilt, scabbard, shield, and helmet construction, and related issues of decoration. In these Byzantine weaponry had its own individual traditions and specificities, as is hinted at in the descriptions in the military treatises of uniform unit colours for shields, pennons, and for tufts or crests on helmets or other accoutrements. But few specific examples have been firmly identified (Haldon 1975; Kolias 1988; Dawson 1998 and 2002).
While Byzantine soldiers continued to be equipped in their own style, foreigners (such as Normans, Pechenegs, or Varangians) arrived and fought in their own traditional garb. As time went on, especially during the twelfth century, field armies of the emperors were increasingly recruited from foreign mercenaries, and the Byzantine panoply gave way to influences and styles from elsewhere, particularly western Europe and from the Seljuks of Anatolia. Byzantine heavy cavalry were armed more after the fashion of westerners where it co uld be afforded; light cavalry and infantry continued to be armed, like their Seljuk or Saracen enemies, with the traditional combination of lamellar corselets or mail, quilted fabrics or boiled leather, felt and cotton headgear, and the weapons described above. The heavy reliance upon mercenaries led by the end of the twelfth century to a situation where indigenous Roman units were not always able to match their enemies on equal terms, and a foreign warlord could plausibly assign imperial defeats to the inferiority of Byzantine weapons and artillery (Babuin 2002).
World History
