Wall of Constantinople

Emperor Constantine I presents a representation of the city of Constantinople as tribute to an enthroned Mary and Christ Child in this church mosaic. St Sophia, c. 1000

Roman Emperor Constantine IV (652 to 685) and his court.   Constantine's reign saw the first serious check to nearly 50 years of uninterrupted Islamic expansion.

(Sandusky Register.com)        (www.antoine-helbert.com/fr)

Emperor Heraclius receiving the submission of Persian King Khosrau II

Pageantry has always been part of nations.  Partly it exists to stroke the egos of the leadership class and partly to impress the common people as to how important that leadership class is and that they must be respected as their "betters".

We are blessed with a fairly large number of first person accounts and histories from the Roman Republic and the early Empire periods.  But those accounts become few and far between as we go deeper into the Byzantine period.

In the book Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium the author Walter Kaegi provides a number of quotations from original accounts of official events during the Emperor's reign (610-641AD).

At this point below we are 162 years after the fall of Rome to the barbarians.  Imperial pageantry was in full swing as the 63 year old Eastern Emperor Heraclius crowned his son Constantine as co-Emperor to strengthen his dynasty's hold on the throne.

Pageantry helped present an image to the public of a strong and powerful empire and government during troubled times of invasion by Slavs in the Balkans and Muslims in Syria.

Roman coin depicting Heraclius and his sons Constantine and Heraklonas each with a crown.

July 4, 638

. . . on 4 July, eleventh indiction, the the Imperator (Autokrator) and great Emperor (Heraclius) wishing to announce the promotion of his son from the rank of Caesar to the dignity of Emperor acted in the following manner.

The Patriarch and all the Senators were summoned. The Patriarch approached the Emperor, with Constantine his (Heraklonas') brother being present.  Prayer took place in the chapel of the holy Stephen of Daphen.  His kamelaukion (a kind of cap or head covering) was removed from his head and the Imperial crown was placed on his head.

There was a prayer for the despotes David as the kamelaukion was placed on his head as he ascended to the rank of Caesar.

That having been done, the most glorious Patricians were summoned according to custom, and they entered the Augusterm and received the great Emperor and his sons, with the Caesar being present.

All the ex-consuls and those with ranks as high as illustres departed and stood on the steps of the forecourt.  The gates of the armory we opened and all the standards (signa) and scholae and demes (factions) entered.  The Patriarch exited with them (the Emperor and his sons).  And with everyone acclaiming them, the Emperor and his sons departed for the Great Church.  Everything took place according to form in the Great Church.

January 12, 639

On the first month of January, 12th indiction, the Emperor made a procession to the Great Church.

The despotes Constantine departed with him, wearing a tunic, and despotes Heraclius and (his, the Emperor's) son wore the toga praetextata, and supported on the arm of his own brother.

The Patricians Niketas and John and the Patrician attached to Iesdem (Yazdin) and the Patrician Dometios and the magister Eustathios wore togas, while the other officials wore pure silk tunics, and some of the ex-consuls wore the consular loros (sash).  Having entered the Great Church they lit candles and everything went according to form and was valid.

(Editor -  We see a splendid ceremony with great attention to dress and a show harmony within the Imperial family.  The presence of the Sasanian Perisan dignitary Yazdin, former Treasurer of the Persian Empire, underscores the vain hope of Rome and Persia working together even as both empires were being over run by Muslim armies.)

The impressive Great Church Hagia Sophia was prominently featured in many important Roman functions.

January 15, 639

(Editor -  This passage records a public demonstration of Imperial and familial solidarity with Heraclius' second wife Martina and their families.  Both Latin and Greek are used in the text.  The call "to conquer" is a reminder that the Empire is being invaded on every front as they speak.)

On the fourth of the same month, there being a horse race, the Emperor received the usual persons in the Augusteum, and he ordered them to come to him in the Hippodrome.

He received all of the officials, and having entered the Augusteum, they found the Emperor and the Augusta standing.  In front of them stood Augistina and Anastasia, their daughters and Augustae.

The Patricians were present and on the right stood the other children of the Emperor, and on the left were the cubicularii (chamberlains) and they cried out, saying:

"Good fortune to the government, good fortune to the government, good fortune to the government.  Heraclius Augustus, conquer! Anastasia Martina, conquer!  Constantine Augustus, conquer!  Heraclius Augustus, conquer!  Augustina Augusta, conquer!  Davis Caesar, conquer!  Martina most noble, conquer!"

Then the Emperor left for the Hippodrome.




(Heraclius - Emperor of Byzantium, Chapter 8)        (Heraclius)

It seems that the Eastern Roman Empire could never catch a break.  For centuries the empire had been fighting Muslim Arab invasions in Anatolia and Italy as well as endless Bulgarian invasions in the Balkans.

Then along comes the great Roman Emperor Basil II (976 - 1025).  His long reign were dominated by civil war against powerful generals from the Anatolian aristocracy. Following their submission, Basil oversaw the stabilization and expansion of the eastern frontier of the Byzantine Empire, and above all, the final and complete subjugation of Bulgaria, the Empire's foremost European foe, after a prolonged struggle. For this he was nicknamed by later authors as "the Bulgar-slayer", by which he is popularly known. 

At his death, the Empire stretched from Southern Italy to the Caucasus and from the Danube to the borders of Palestine, its greatest territorial extent since the Muslim conquests four centuries earlier.

From the seventh to the 12th centuries, the Byzantine army was among the most powerful and effective military forces in the world – neither Middle Ages Europe nor (following its early successes) the fracturing Caliphate could match the strategies and the efficiency of the Byzantine army. 

Restricted to a largely defensive role in the 7th to mid-9th centuries, the Byzantines developed the theme-system to counter the more powerful Caliphate. 

From the mid-9th century, however, they gradually went on the offensive, culminating in the great conquests of the 10th century under a series of soldier-emperors such as Nikephoros II Phokas, John Tzimiskes and Basil II. The army they led was less reliant on the militia of the themes; it was by now a largely professional force, with a strong and well-drilled infantry at its core and augmented by a revived heavy cavalry arm. With one of the most powerful economies in the world at the time, the Empire had the resources to put to the field a powerful host when needed, in order to reclaim its long-lost territories.

Eastern Roman Themes The themes were the main military-administrative divisions of the middle Byzantine Empire. They were established in the mid-7th century in the aftermath of the Muslim conquests of parts of Byzantine territory, and replaced the earlier provincial system established by Diocletian and Constantine the Great. The first themes were created from the areas of encampment of the field armies of the East Roman army, and their names corresponded to the military units that had existed in those areas. . .A theme was an arrangement of plots of land given for farming to the soldiers. The soldiers were still technically a military unit, under the command of a strategos. They did not own the land they worked as it was still controlled by the state. Therefore, for its use the soldiers' pay was reduced. By accepting this proposition, the participants agreed that their descendants would also serve in the military and work in a theme. . .The commander of a theme did not only command his soldiers. He united the civil and military jurisdictions in the territorial area in question.  Military staffing for local themes might range up to 9,600 men.

The Seljuq Turks


By 1045 the Byzantines had stabilized their eastern borders with the Arabs and eliminated Bulgaria as a threat.  But they were still being pressed by Muslim armies in Italy.

This fairly peaceful situation did not last.  A new enemy appeared.  The second half of the 11th century was marked by the strategically significant invasion of the Seljuq Turks, who by the end of the 1040s had succeeded in building a vast nomadic empire including most of Central Asia and Persia.

The Seljuqs united the fractured political scene of the eastern Islamic world and played a key role in the first and second crusades. Highly Persianized in culture and language, the Seljuqs also played an important role in the development of the Turko-Persian tradition, even exporting Persian culture to Anatolia. 

The settlement of Turkic tribes in the northwestern peripheral parts of the empire, for the strategic military purpose of fending off invasions from neighboring states, led to the progressive Turkicization of those areas.

A Seljuk horse-archer

(steppes.proboards.com)

The Battle of  Kapetron

Once again we are faced with major political and military events about which there is near zero meaningful information.

The 1040s saw the Muslim Seljuk Turks first appear on the eastern borders of Byzantium.  Word of the aggressive and militaristic Turks would have long before reach Constantinople's leaders.  Since the 900s the Seljuqs had slowly expanded their empire from central Asia through Persia to the borders of Byzantium.

The Turks had invaded the Roman military theme of Iberia (see map below), and for some time there appears to have been a considerable amount of fighting on the eastern border.

The Turks under İbrahim Yinal attacked the city of Arzen, a vibrant commercial center in the Byzantine-administered in Iberia.  The city was home to warehouses belonging to Syrian and Armenian merchants.

The city defended themselves for six days by barricading the streets and attacking the Turks from roof tops.  Roman troops in the area refused to march to the defense of the city, and the Turks were focused on destroying a supply base for their enemies.  The Turks set fire to the city reducing it to ashes.

Emperor Constantine IX The Emperor organized an allied army to face a Turkish invasion.

Armenian historians claim that 140,000 people were killed and that the Turks filled the slave markets of the east with women and children from Arzen.  

As Roman troops entered the area in 1048 it was reported that tens of thousands of Christians had been massacred and several areas were reduced to piles of ashes. 

Both Byzantium and the Christian Kingdom of Georgia were alarmed and agreed on an alliance to face the Turks.

The Emperor Constantine IX ordered a defensive strategy till the arrival of Georgian reinforcements.  The Emperor sent to the Georgian warlord Liparit, whom the Byzantines had aided in his struggle against the Georgian king Bagrat IV, to unite with Roman forces against the advancing Seljuqs.

A combined Byzantine-Georgian army of 50,000, under the command of Aaron, Katakalon Kekaumenos and Liparit, met the Seljuqs head-on at Kapetron on September 10, 1048.

For reasons that are not explained the allied army took on the Turks in a fierce nocturnal battle.  The Turks might have been outnumbered and may have tried to surprise their enemies in a night attack.

Night battles in any war are more about anarchy and the blind attacking the blind.  That was most likely the case at Kapetron.  Blind or not, the Christian allies managed to repel the Turks, and Aaron and Kekaumenos, in command of the two flanks, pursued the Turks "till cock's crow". 

In the center, however, Yinal managed to capture the Georgian prince Liparit, a fact of which the two Byzantine commanders were not informed until after they gave thanks to God for their victory.

Losses on both sides were said to be great.

Ibrahim Yinal was nevertheless able to safely leave the Byzantine territory, laden with spoils and captives. The Emperor later sent ransoms to the Turks who refused them, however, and released Liparit on condition that he would never again fight the Seljuqs.

The devastation left behind by the Seljuq raid was so fearful that the Byzantine magnate Eustathios Boilas who moved to Iberia described, in 1051/52, those lands as "foul and unmanageable... inhabited by snakes, scorpions, and wild beasts." The Arab chronicler Ibn al-Athir reports that Ibrahim brought back 100,000 captives and a vast booty loaded on the backs of ten thousand camels.

The Roman-Georgian army had driven their enemy from the field of battle and earned a "victory" of sorts . . . the right to rule over a countryside that was devastated by their Muslim enemy.

It was not a good sign that the Allied generals decided they would not, or could not, follow and crush a defeated enemy.  The allies may have felt they were too weak, the Turks still too strong or both.  

But allowing a defeated enemy army burdened with captives and loot to slowly escape sent a strong message of Christian weakness to the Turks.

Seljuk Turks

Eastern border of Byzantium in 1025 The Turks invades the Byzantine military theme of Iberia.

(Battle of Kapetron)      (Seljuk Empire)      (Byzantine Army)

(Iberia)      (Battle of Kapetron)

Skyline of the Sava's bank of Ušće by night, seen from the Kalemegdan fortress.  The hilltop Roman-Byzantine fortress commanded a panoramic view of the Danube.

The Danube Limes

The frontier of the Roman Empire, from the Danube to the Black Sea, played a crucial role in making and breaking emperors and protecting Roman society along its course.

Along the Danube from Bavaria to the Black Sea there is a frontier system with fortresses and fortlets built by the Roman army such as Carnuntum (Austria), Aquincum (Budapest, Hungary), Viminacium (near Belgrade, Serbia) or Novae (Svistov, Bulgaria). Together with hundreds of watchtowers and large urban settlements they are part of an impressive military machine.

(Roman-Empire.net)

The river itself was the most dominant element of the frontier system, used as a demarcation line against the Barbarian world to the north and as a fortified transport corridor.

The forts, situated mostly on the right side of the river, acted as check-points to control traffic in and out of the empire. Their ruins, above and below ground, visible or non-visible, are often in remarkable shape and well integrated in the landscape.

The Fortress of Singidunum was one of the limes strongpoints.

Singidunum is the name for the ancient city in Serbia which became Belgrade, the capital of Serbia. It was recorded that a Celtic tribe, the Scordisci, settled the area in the 3rd century BC following the Gallic invasion of the Balkans.  

The Roman Empire conquered the area in 75 BC and later garrisoned the Roman Legio IV Flavia Felix in 86 AD. It was the birthplace to the Roman Emperor Jovian. Belgrade has arisen from its ashes 38 times.

It wasn't until the rule of Octavian, when Marcus Licinius Crassus, the grandson of the Caesarian Triumvir and then proconsul of Macedonia, finally stabilized the region with a campaign. 

Beginning in 29 BC Moesia was formally organized into a province some time before 6 AD, when the first mention of its governor, Caecina Severus, is made. Singidun was Romanized to Singidunum. It became one of the primary settlements of Moesia, situated between Sirmium and Viminacium, both of which overshadowed Singidunum in significance. Singidunum became an important and strategic position along the Via Militaris, an important Roman road connecting fortresses and settlements along the Danubian limes, or border.

Was this the Byzantine Fortress? In the probing of the medieval walls of the Belgrade Fortress the walls of the Roman castrum Singidunum were discovered beneath.   . Governments are always on a budget.  It is common for the military to  take the line of least resistance and expense by using or improving  upon existing older fortifications.  We do not know what the original Roman-Byzantine fortifications looked like.  But it would be a good  guess that they might have looked much like the surviving structures.

Roman Empire around 600AD The Fortress of Singidunum was one of several strongpoints  on the Danube Limes defense system.

Belgrade Fortress consists of the old citadel (Upper and Lower Town) and Kalemegdan Park on the confluence of the River Sava and Danube, in an urban area of modern Belgrade, the capital of Serbia. 

Belgrade Fortress is the core and the oldest section of the urban area of Belgrade. For centuries the city population was concentrated only within the walls of the fortress, and thus the history of the fortress, until most recent times, equals the history of Belgrade itself. 

The first mention of the city is when it was founded in the 3rd century BC as "Singidunum" by the Celtic tribe of Scordisci, who had defeated Thracian and Dacian tribes that previously lived in and around the fort. The city-fortress was later conquered by the Romans, was known as Singidunum and became a part of "the military frontier", where the Roman Empire bordered "barbarian Central Europe". Singidunum was defended by the Roman legion IV Flaviae, which built a fortified camp on a hill at the confluence of the Danube and the Sava rivers.


Singidunum reached its height with the arrival of Legio IV Flavia Felix in 86 AD. The legion set up as a square-shaped castrum (fort), which occupied Upper Town of today's Kalemegdan. 

At first, the fortress was set up as earthen bulwarks, but soon after, it was fortified with stone, the remains of which can be seen today near the northeastern corner of the acropolis. The legion also constructed a bridge over the Sava, connecting Singidunum with Taurunum. The 6,000-strong legion became a major military asset against the continuous threat of the Dacians just across the Danube. 

Another step the Romans took to help strengthen Singidunum was the settlement of its legion veterans next to the fortress. In time, a large settlement grew out from around thecastrum. The town took on a rectlinear construction, with its streets meeting at right angles. The grid structure can be seen in today's Belgrade with the orientation of the streets Uzun Mirkova, Dušanova, and Kralja Petra I. Studentski Trg (Students' Square) was a Roman forum, bordered by thermae (a public bath complex whose remains were discovered during the 1970s) and also preserves the orientation the Romans gave Singidunum. 

Other remnants of Roman material culture such as tombs, monuments, sculptures, ceramics, and coins have been found villages and towns surrounding Belgrade. Hadrian granted Singidunum the rights of municipium during the mid 2nd century. Singidunum later outgrew this status and became a full-fledged colony. The Roman Emperor Jovian who reestablished Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire was born in Singidunum in 332. Singidunum and Moesia experienced a peaceful period, but that was not to last, due to the growing turmoil not only from outside the Roman Empire, but also from within.
The Byzantine Period

In the period between AD 378 and 441 the Roman camp was repeatedly destroyed in the invasions by the Goths and the Huns. Legend says that Attila's grave lies at the confluence of the Sava and the Danube (under the fortress).

In the 5th and 6th centuries, Moesia and Illyricum suffered devastating raids by the successive invasions of the Huns, Ostrogoths, Gepids, Sarmatians, Avars, and Slavs. Singidunum fell to the Huns in 441, who razed the city and fortress, selling its Roman inhabitants into indentured servitude. 

Over the next two hundred years, the city passed hands several times: the Romans reclaimed the city after the fall of the Hun confederation in 454, but the Sarmatians conquered the city shortly thereafter. In 470 the Ostrogoths seized the city around, expelling the Sarmatians. The city was later invaded by Gepids (488), but the Ostrogoths recaptured it in 504. Six years later the Eastern Roman Empire reclaimed the city according to a peace treaty.

The Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I rebuilt the fortress around 535. In the following centuries the fortress suffered continuous destruction under the Avar sieges. 

The Slavs (Serbs) and Avars had their "state union" north of Belgrade with the Serbs and other Slavic tribes finally settling in the Belgrade area as well as the regions west and south of Belgrade in the beginning of the 7th century. 

The name Belgrade (or Beograd in Serbian), which, not just in Serbian but in most Slavic languages, means a "white town" or a "white fortress", was first mentioned in AD 878 by Bulgarians. 

The fortress kept changing its masters: Bulgaria during three centuries, and then the Byzantines and then again Bulgarians. The fortress remained a Byzantine stronghold until the 12th century when it fell in the hands of the newly emerging Serbian state. It became a border city of the Serbian Kingdom, later Empire with Hungary. 

The Hungarian king Béla I gave the fortress to Serbia in the 11th century as a wedding gift (his son married the Serbian princess Jelena), but it remained effectively part of Hungary, except for the period 1282–1319. After the Serbian state collapsed after the Battle of Kosovo in 1404, Belgrade was chosen as the capital of the principality of Despot Stefan Lazarević. Major work was done to the ramparts which were encircling a big thriving town.  

Belgrade remained in Serbian hands for almost a century. After the Despot's death in 1427 it had to be returned to Hungary. An attempt by Sultan Mehmed II to conquer the fortress was prevented by Janos Hunyadi in 1456 (Siege of Belgrade), saving Hungary from Ottoman dominion for 70 years.

Think of the word "Porous" . The Danube Limes was not a solid wall defending the Empire's frontier.  Rather it a was a series of fortified cities, small forts and watchtowers.  The Limes was porous with assorted invading Slavs, Huns or Avars pouring through on raids dedicated to looting or conquest.  In theory the Roman/Byzantine strongpoints would slow down invaders allowing for troops stationed close by to push the enemy back over the border.. . See:  The Danube Limes - Protecting the Roman Balkans

(Belgrade)      (belgradepass)      (voiceofserbia.org)      (Singidunum)

(Belgrade Fortress)

Vintage photograph of a Tuareg Berber warrior from the Sahara. The Byzantines could have faced tribal forces of a similar look.

The Germanic tribe called the Vandals had conquered Roman North Africa in 439 AD.  They also controlled the islands of Corsica, Sardinia and the Balearics. The Vandals were fearsome warriors having spread terror wherever they went.  In 455 they sacked Rome itself sending shock waves through the ancient world.

The Emperor Justinian was determined to drive out the barbarian invaders holding the western provinces of the Roman Empire.  To that end he sent a great army and fleet to invade Africa.  The Vandals were defeated at the Battle of Ad Decimum and at the Battle of Tricamarum.

Winning two battles was only the start.  Unrest in the army and among the peoples of North Africa made for wars that lasted for decades.

The real result of the endless wars was to leave Roman Africa in ruins.

The Moorish Wars (534 - 548 AD)

From The History of the Later Roman Empire by J.B. Bury

The general idea of the Emperor's scheme for the administration of the African provinces was to wipe out all traces of the Vandal conquest, as if it had never been, and to restore the conditions which had existed before the coming of Gaiseric. 

The ecclesiastical settlement, which lay near Justinian's heart, was easy and drastic. All the churches which the conquered Arians had taken for their own worship were restored to the Catholics, and heretics were treated with the utmost intolerance. Vandals, even those who were converted from their religious errors, were excluded from public offices. The rank and file of the Vandal fighting men became the slaves of the Roman soldiers who married the women. 

A 19th century Moor tribal warrior.

All the estates which had passed into the hands of the barbarians were to be restored to the descendants of the original owners who could establish their claims, — a measure which led to the forgery of titles and endless lawsuits. The ultimate result of the whole policy was the disappearance of the Vandal population in Africa.

The civil governor was invested with the title of Praetorian Prefect of Africa, and enjoyed the corresponding dignity and emoluments. Under him were the governors of the seven provinces: Proconsularis, Byzacena, Tripolitana, Numidia, the two Mauretanias, and Sardinia. But the compass of the Second or Western Mauretania (Caesariensis) was extended so as to include Tingitana, which in old days had belonged to the diocese of Spain.

The military establishment was placed under a Master of Soldiers, a new creation, since in old days the armies of Africa had been under the supreme command of the Master of Soldiers in Italy. The fundamental distinction between the mobile army and the frontier troops was retained. The mobile army consisted of the divisions of the comitatenses who had been sent with Belisarius, of foederati, and of native African troops (gentiles). The frontier troops were distributed in four districts, under dukes, who had authority also over mobile troops stationed in these military provinces. The establishment of this organisation throughout Africa was retarded for some years by wars and mutinies, but it was begun by Belisarius before he departed, and it was gradually carried out, along with an elaborate scheme of fortification against the inroads of the Moorish tribes.

The Moors began hostilities before the Romans had time to make provision for the defence of the country or to organise the new civil administration. The situation was so grave that Justinian, when he sent Solomon in autumn (A.D. 534) to replace Belisarius, united in his hands the supreme civil as well as military authority. Solomon was Praetorian Prefect as well as Master of Soldiers. This appointment struck the note of a change in the principles of provincial administration which had prevailed since Diocletian. We shall see how elsewhere Justinian departed from the general rule of a strict separation of the civil and military powers. In Africa, although the two offices were seldom united, perhaps only on three occasions, there is a tendency from the beginning to subordinate the Praetorian Prefect to the Master of Soldiers, and before the end of the century the Master of Soldiers will become a real viceroy with the title of Exarch.

Roman North Africa - Click to enlarge

The leading feature of the history of North Africa from the Roman reconquest to the Arab invasion in the middle of the seventh century is a continuous struggle with the Moors, broken by short periods of tranquillity. Each province had its own enemies. Tripolitana was always threatened by the Louata, Byzacena by the Frexi; the townspeople of Numidia lived in dread of the Moors of the Aurasian hills. Mauretania was largely occupied by Berber tribes. 

The Roman government never succeeded in effecting a complete subjugation of the autochthonous peoples. It was not an impossible task, if the right means had been taken. But the Roman army was hardly sufficient in numbers to maintain effectively the defence of a long frontier, against enemies whose forces consisted of light cavalry, immensely more numerous. 

This numerical inferiority might have mattered little if the troops had been trustworthy. But they were always ready to revolt against discipline, and in war their thoughts were not on protecting the provinces but on 
securing booty. They could do work under a commander who knew how to handle them, but such commanders were rare. Most of the military governors found their relations with their own soldiers as difficult a problem as their relations with the Moors. 

Berber Tuareg warriors in 1906.

Here we touch on a second cause of the failure of the Romans to secure a lasting peace in Africa — the unfitness of so many of their military governors. A succession of men like Belisarius, Solomon, and John Troglita would probably have succeeded, if not in establishing permanent and complete tranquillity, at least in defending the frontiers efficiently. But when a commander of this type had weathered a crisis or retrieved a disaster, he was too often succeeded by an incompetent man, who had no control over the soldiers, no skill in dealing with the Moors, and who undid by his inexperience all that his predecessor had accomplished. 

And apart from these weaknesses, it has been remarked with justice that the general military policy was not calculated to pacify the restless barbarians beyond the frontier. It was a policy of strict defence. The elaborate system of fortresses which were speedily erected throughout the provinces stood the inhabitants in good stead, but they did not prevent raids, and the Romans only opposed raids on Roman soil. Far more would have been effected if the Romans had taken the offensive whenever there was a sign of restlessness and sent flying columns beyond the frontier to attack the Moors on their own ground. Finally the want of success in dealing with the Moorish danger may have been partly due to defective and inconsistent diplomacy.

The one fact in the situation which enabled the Romans to maintain their grip on Africa was the disunion among the Moors. On more than one occasion they suffered such crushing disasters that if the Moors had made a determined and united effort the Imperial armies would easily have been driven into the sea. But the jealousies and quarrels among the chieftains hindered common action; and if one began a hostile movement, the Romans could generally depend on the quiescence or assistance of his neighbour.

On his arrival in Africa (A.D. 534) Solomon had immediately 
to take the field against Cutsina and other Moorish leaders who descended upon Byzacena, while Iabdas was devastating Numidia. He defeated the former at Mamma, but not decisively; they returned with reinforcements, and were thoroughly beaten in the important battle of Mount Burgaon (early in A.D. 535). An expedition against the Numidian Moors in the following summer was unsuccessful, but Solomon lost no time in setting about the erection of fortified posts along the main roads in Numidia and Byzacena. In A.D. 536 the Emperor regarded peace as established and the Moors as conquered.

Eastern Roman Reenactors

A Military Revolt

General John Troglita

John Troglita was the general finally able to end the Moorish Wars.

Troglita was a 6th-century Byzantine general. He participated in the Vandalic War and served in North Africa as a regional military governor during the years 533–538, before being sent east to the wars with the Sassanid Persians. 

John Troglita is first mentioned as having participated in the Vandalic War (533–534) under Belisarius.  Troglita remained in the province of Africa after Belisarius's departure in 534, and participated in the expeditions of Solomon against the Moors in 534–535. At the time, he was probably the local military governor (dux) in either Byzacena or, more probably, Tripolitania, for he is mentioned as leading successful expeditions against the Leuathae tribe. 

Troglita also fought against the mutinous army under the renegade Stotzas, participating in the first victory under Belisarius at Membresa in 536, and then, under Solomon's successor Germanus, in the decisive battle at Scalas Veteres in spring 537. In this battle, he was one of the commanders of the cavalry on the Byzantine army's right wing, which according to the historian Procopius was defeated and driven off by Stotzas's men, losing its standards in the process. Nevertheless, the battle resulted in an imperial victory. In 538, Troglita distinguished himself in the Battle of Autenti, probably in the Byzacena.

At some point after 538, Troglita was sent to the Eastern frontier, where by 541 he was appointed dux Mesopotamiae, one of the most important military commands of the region. 

High Command in Africa

During Troglita's absence from Africa, the situation had been turbulent. Germanus had remained in the province until 539, and succeeded in restoring discipline in the army and pacifying the core territories of Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena. He was succeeded by Solomon, who began his second tenure with great success, defeating the Moors of the Aurès Mountains and establishing control over Numidia and Mauretania Sitifensis. 

However, the Moorish revolt flared up again in 543 and Solomon was killed in the Battle of Cillium in 544. His successor, his nephew Sergius, was incompetent. He was defeated by the Moors, recalled and replaced with the senator Areobindus, who was murdered in spring 546 in another military revolt led by the general Guntharic. The latter intended to declare himself independent of Constantinople, but was soon murdered by the Armenian Artabanes. 

The need for a new and capable leader in Africa was apparent to Constantinople. After a truce was signed with Persia in 546, Emperor Justinian recalled Troglita from the East. After having him report on the situation there in Constantinople, the Emperor placed him at the head of a new army and sent him to Africa as the new magister militum per Africam in late summer 546.

6th Century Eastern Roman Cavalry

Battle of Marta

In late 546, when John Troglita reached Carthage, the situation was dire: the imperial troops, under Marcentius the dux of Byzacena and Gregory the Armenian in Carthage, were few in number and demoralized. They held out in the coastal cities, blockaded by the Moors of Byzacena under their chieftain Antalas, while the Leuathae and Austurae tribes from Tripolitania were raiding Byzacena with impunity. Diplomatic efforts, however, secured the allegiance of the Moorish leaders Cutzinas and Ifisdaias, who joined the imperial army with several thousands of their men. In addition, the tribesmen of the Aurès Mountains under Iaudas withdrew to Numidia on learning of Troglita's arrival and pursued a course of armed neutrality.



Troglita did not remain inactive: from Carthage, the praetorian prefect Athanasius and Troglita's young son organized reinforcements and supplies for the camp at Laribus, while Troglita himself succeeded not only in reconciling Cutzinas and Isfidaias, but also in gaining the allegiance of King Iaudas and his tribe. 

In the spring of 548, Troglita, having regrouped his forces, met with his Moorish allies at the plain of Arsuris on the northern limits of Byzacena. Corippus gives extraordinary numbers for the native contingents provided by each chief: 30,000 for Cutzinas, 100,000 for Isfidaias, and 12,000 under Iaudas's brother. Whatever the real numbers, it seems clear that Troglita's regular troops formed the lesser portion of the imperial army.

The tribes, under the leadership of Carcasan and Antalas, had encamped in central Byzacena, in the plain of Mamma or Mammes. Carcasan, confident after his victory the previous year, wanted to confront the imperial army immediately, but as it happened he gave way to Antalas, who advocated the more cautious and well-tried Moorish tactic of withdrawing and drawing the Byzantines into the interior, forcing them to march far from their supply bases and through a devastated country, thus exhausting and demoralizing them. The rebels thus retreated south and east, reaching Iunci after ten days. 

Troglita's army pursued them at some distance, only exchanging a few blows with the tribes' rearguard. Once the Byzantine army reached the plain before Iunci and laid camp, however, the Moors again withdrew into the mountainous interior. Having been informed by a spy of his enemy's strategy, Troglita refused to follow, and remained encamped near the port of Lariscus, from where he could be easily resupplied. Nevertheless, discontent grew among the soldiers, who did not understand their leader's reluctance to fight: the army mutinied and attacked the tent of Troglita, who was barely able to escape. Thanks to the allied Moorish contingents, who remained steadfast, Troglita was able to reimpose control over his men.

Troglita now moved his army to confront the enemy, who were encamped at a plain called the Fields of Cato. The Moorish camp had been heavily fortified, and Troglita was reluctant to launch a direct assault. He therefore blockaded it, hoping that hunger would force the Moors to fight him in open battle. To further encourage them, he restrained his men, feigning a reluctance to fight. 

Troglita's plan worked: encouraged by sacrifices to their gods and hoping to catch the imperial army unprepared, the Moors attacked the Byzantine camp on a Sunday. The battle hung long in the balance, with many dead on both sides, but eventually the Byzantines gained the upper hand. At this point, Carcasan rallied his forces and launched a fierce counterattack, but was killed by Troglita himself. Seeing their leader fall, the Moors broke and fled. 

The battle was a resounding success for the Byzantines: seventeen of the Moors' principal leaders were dead, the Tripolitanian tribes were decimated and withdrew to the desert, and Antalas and his followers submitted to Troglita. Byzacena, Numidia, and Tripolitania were finally secured, and a period of peace was inaugurated that lasted for the next fourteen years, until 562.

Aftermath

At about this time, Troglita seems to have been promoted to the honorific court rank of patricius, as attested by the 6th-century historian Jordanes. He remained in command in Africa for at least another four years, beginning the difficult work of reconstruction. Troglita re-established the civil administrative apparatus as originally envisaged by Emperor Justinian in 533, sharing his authority with the prefect Athanasius. The provincial fortifications built by Solomon were restored, and the subdued Moorish tribes carefully returned to a status of vassalage as imperial foederati. 

Troglita's record in re-establishing order and tranquility in the troubled province make him, along with Belisarius and Solomon, "the third hero of the Imperial reoccupation of Africa".

The Fortification of the Provinces . Ruins of the Byzantine walls of Theveste, one of the many sites restored and fortified under the Eastern Empire General Solomon. . While Solomon was fighting with the Moors, he was at the same time engaged in carrying out a large scheme of defensive fortification to protect the African provinces against the incursions of the barbarians.  The building of fortresses was one of the notable features of Justinian's policy. . Fortified towns, connected by a chain of small forts, formed the first frontier defence. Behind this there was a second barrier, larger towns with larger garrisons, which were all to afford a refuge to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood in case of an invasion. When the watchmen in the frontier stations discerned menacing movements of the tribes, they transmitted the alarm by the old system of fire signals by night or smoke signals by day, so that the people of the villages might have time to find refuge in the walled towns and the garrisons of the inland places might be prepared. . In many cases the towns were entirely surrounded by walls, and in some had the additional defence of detached forts. In other cases they were open, and protected by the citadel. The neighbouring strongholds of Theveste, Thelepte, and Ammaedera on the frontier of Byzacena present good examples of the three types. The features of a fully fortified town were a wall with towers, an outer wall, and a fosse; the space between the two walls being large enough to accommodate the refugees who flocked in from the open country in a time of danger. But this scheme is not invariably found; sometimes there was no outer wall, sometimes there was no ditch. These variations depended upon local circumstances, as the form of the fortress depended on the nature of the ground. A rectangular shape was adopted when it was possible, but very irregular forms were sometimes required by the site. Theveste is a well-preserved example of the large fortress, rectangular, measuring about 350 by 305 yards, with three gates, and frontier towers; Thamugadi of the smaller castle (about 122 by 75 yards), with a tower at each corner and in the centre of each side. Small forts, like Lemsa, had a tower at each of the four angles. . From Capsa (Gafsa) in the Byzacene province to Sabi Justiniana and Thamalla in Mauretania Sitifensis the long line of fortresses can be traced round the north foothills of the Aurasian mountains. Thelepte, Theveste, with Ammaedera behind it to the north, Mascula and Bagai, Thamugadi, Lambaesis, Lambiridi, Cellae, and Tubunae were the principal advanced military stations, which were connected and flanked by small castles and redoubts. When invaders from the south had penetrated this line, the inhabitants might seek shelter in Sufes (Sbiba) and Chusira (Kessera) in Byzacena; in Laribus (Lorbeus), Sicca Veneria (Kef), Tubursicum Bue (Tebursuk), Thignica (Aïn Tunga) in the Proconsular Province; Madaura (Mdaurech), Tipasa (Tifech), Calama (Guelma), Tigisis (Aïn el‑Borj) in Numidia, to mention a few of the military posts in the interior. . The Mauretanian provinces were more lightly held. It is interesting to observe that Justinian took special care to strengthen by impregnable walls the fortress of Septum on the straits of Gades. This ultimate outpost of the Empire was to be a post of observation. He gave express directions that it should be entrusted to a loyal and judicious commander, who was to watch the straits, gather information as to political events in Spain and Gaul, and send reports to his superior the duke of Mauretania.  (From J.B. Bury)

A Fortress of Ksar Lemsa in Tunisia.  This fine fortress with its strikingly well-preserved walls (except for the SE side) can be seen from afar dominating the valley in the middle of a field of ruins. A gushing stream flows down the mountainside next to it. The citadel probably was built by the patrician Salomon in the reign of Justinian, who established his country-wide system of fortifications in the first half of the 6th c. Built with materials from the monuments of the ancient city. Byzantine North Africa under Justinian

(Penelope.uchicago.edu)      (Procopius, History of the Wars)      (Cutzinas)

(John Troglita)

Azraq Fortress

The Limes Arabicus was a desert frontier of the Roman Empire, mostly in the province of Arabia Petraea. It ran northeast from the Gulf of Aqaba for about 1,500 kilometers (930 mi) at its greatest extent, reaching Northern Syria and forming part of the wider Roman limes system.

The defensive Limes was to protect the Roman province of Arabia from attacks of the barbarian tribes of the Arabian desert and to protect the commercial lines from desert-based robbers.

Next to the Limes Arabicus the Emperor Trajan built a major road, the Via Nova Traiana, from Bostra to Aila on the Red Sea, a distance of 267 miles/430 kilometres. Built between 111 and 114 AD, its primary purpose may have been to provide efficient transportation for troop movements and government officials as well as facilitating and protecting trade caravans emerging from the Arabian peninsula. It was completed under Hadrian.

Usually, Roman auxiliary troops were sufficient to deter any group of barbarians. Only rarely was it necessary to employ the legions, the backbone of their army. Still, they were the ultimate weapon.

We can discern two main types of military base:

1. Castra: the fortresses of the legions. At the end of the reign of Trajan (98-117), there were thirty legions in twenty-eight bases. Almost all of these were close to the border, at some distance of each other.
2. Castella: the forts of the auxiliary troops, which were usually infantry, sometimes cavalry, and sometimes mixed units. Typically, they were no less than twenty kilometer from each other. Along the road between the castella were watchtowers.

In Arabia there were castra every 100 kilometres (62 mi) with the purpose to create a line of protection and control.

Troops were progressively withdrawn from the Limes Arabicus in the first half of the 6th century and replaced with native Arab foederati, chiefly the Ghassanids. After the Arab conquest the Limes Arabicus was left to disappear.

Azraq was built and manned by the Romans in the early 4th century AD. (Photo - Roman Empire.net)

The Fortress of Qasr Azraq

The Roman province of Arabia Petraea would have been a somewhat quite sector of the Empire.  Though subject to eventual attack and deprivation by the Persians and Palmyrenes, it had nothing like the constant incursions faced in other areas on the Roman frontier, such as Germany and North Africa, nor the entrenched cultural presence that defined the other, more Hellenized, eastern provinces.

Petra served as the base for Legio III Cyrenaica and the governor of the province.

There are no histories of major battles involving the smaller fortresses of the Limes Arabicus.  The bulk of the major military campaigns were further north in Syria and Anatolia.  The fortresses on the Limes were mostly used to control bandits and maintain law and order among the locals.

Qasr al-Azraq (Arabic for "Blue Fortress") is a large fortress located in present-day eastern Jordan. It is one of the desert castles, located on the outskirts of present-day Azraq, roughly 100 km (62 mi) east of Amman.

6th Century Roman Soldier

The name of the fortress and associated town came from these. The settlement was known in antiquity as Basie and the Romans were the first to make military use of the site.

The castle is constructed of the local black basalt and is a square structure with 80 metre long walls encircling a large central courtyard.  At each corner of the outer wall, there is an oblong tower. The main entrance is composed of a single massive hinged slab of granite, which leads to a vestibule where one can see carved into the pavement the remains of a Roman board game.

Although very heavy — 1 ton for each of the leaves of the main gate, 3 tons for single the other — these stone doors can quite easily be moved, thanks to palm tree oil. The unusual choice of stone can be explained by the fact that there is no close source of wood, apart from palm tree wood, which is very soft and unsuitable for building.

The strategic significance of the castle is that it lies in the middle of the Azraq oasis, the only permanent source of fresh water in approximately 12,000 square kilometres (4,600 sq mi) of desert. Several civilizations are known to have occupied the site for its strategic value in this remote and arid desert area.

The area was inhabited by the Nabataean people and around 200 CE fell under the control of the Romans. The Romans built a stone structure using the local basalt stone that formed a basis for later constructions on the site, a structure that was equally used by the Byzantine and Arab empires.

The Roman Empire was heavily pressed by invasions in both the Balkans and Anatolia.  That resulted in the somewhat quite sector of Arabia being drained of troops to help more threatened sectors.  Christian Arab foederati such as the Ghassanids were paid to patrol the southern frontiers.  

Because of the local wetlands the Azraq fortress would have still been considered important.  But there are no records on troop levels or military activity.

With the invasions by Muslim Arabs in the 630s the Romans lost control of all their border fortifications as they retreated north to Syria never to return.

Later, the fort would be used by the Ottoman armies during that empire's hegemony over the region. During the Arab Revolt, T.E. Lawrence based his operations here in 1917–18, an experience he wrote about in his book Seven Pillars of Wisdom. The connection to "Lawrence of Arabia" has been one of the castle's major draws for tourists.

The Roman Frontier in Jordan - Part I

Azraq Wetlands Water in a desert made the Fort of Azraq an important stronghold for Rome.  The wetlands were created some 250,000 years ago as a result of being fed by aquifers that corresponded with geological changes. Azraq has, since ancient times, been the crossroads of both human trade routes and bird migrations. Millions of cubic meters of freshwater attracted camels caravans.

Azraq Fort (Prof. Richard T. Mortel)

Qasr el-Azraq, praetorium

Qasr el-Azraq, south tower

Qasr el-Azraq, south tower, room

Qasr el-Azraq, inner court from south tower

Qasr el-Azraq, inner court

In AD 106 the Romans under Emperor Trajan achieved control of the region east of the Jordan River, which was previously ruled by the Nabataeans. Until then, the Nabataean kingdom had provided a buffer between the Roman Empire and the threat of enemies to the east. Historians do not know how and why the Romans took direct control. Perhaps the lack of a legitimate successor to the deceased Nabataean king resulted in a power vacuum. The Romans annexed the area and called it Provincia Arabia. It was governed by a senatorial legate appointed by the emperor, and its capital was Bostra (or Bosra) in southern Syria.

(Azraq Wetland Reserve)      (livius limes)      (livius.org)      (Azraq fort)

(Arabia Petraea)      (Limes Arabicus)      (desert castles)      (Qasr Azraq)

• Armenians were everywhere in the Eastern Empire from Emperors, Generals, rank and file troops, Clergy and in business.

The Byzantine Empire was not a Greek Empire.  Although it is true that Greek was used as the language of the Empire, that can not be taken as proof that the empire was 'Greek.' Latin was the original official language, imposed by the Romans who established and ruled the Roman Empire.

In 395 A.D. when the Roman Empire split into western and eastern (Byzantine), Latin continued to be used as the official language but in time it was replaced by Greek as that language was already widely spoken among the Eastern Mediterranean nations as the main trade language.

Yet the Emperors, the Church clergy, the army, and the artists, although they spoke Latin and Greek, where not exclusively of Greek ethnicity.  The Empire was made up of many nationalities - Thracians, Egyptians, Macedonians, Illyrians, Bythinians, Carians, Phrygians, Armenians, Lydians, Galatians, Paphlagonians, Lycians, Syrians, Cilicians, Misians, Cappadocians, etc.  The Greeks composed only a small portion of this multi-ethnic Empire.

The earlier Byzantine Emperors were Romans but in time people of different ethnic backgrounds ruled this multi-ethnic empire.  It is known that the empire reached its zenith while it was ruled by the Macedonians while the Macedonian Dynasty was in power for almost two centuries.  Other dynasties that ruled were the Syrian, Armenian, Phrygian (Amorian), and other emperors were of various nationalities." - Even this "Macedonian Dynasty” founded by Basil I who was of Armenian descent.

The collective Armenian role in Constantinople escalated in the seventh and eighth centuries as hundreds of Armenian nobles were forced to seek haven in the Byzantine Empire during the Arab occupation of Armenia.  

In Byzantium the Armenian nobles became an important element within the dominant elites and figured in numerous military and political events.  A total of twenty rose to the rank of emperor, and there were those who attained prominence within the established Orthodox Church.  They were kings and princes, rebels and usurpers, intellectuals and diplomats—all operating within the Byzantine context.

Eastern Emperor Basil I on horseback. Though from the Theme of Macedonia, Basil was of Armenian heritage ruling from 867 to 886.

Provincia Armenia Province of the Roman Empire

The Coming of Rome

From Antioch the emperor (Trajan) marched to the Euphrates and farther northward as far as the most northerly legion-camp Satala in Lesser Armenia, whence he advanced into Armenia and took the direction of Artaxata....Trajan was resolved to make this vassal-state a province, and a shift to eastern frontier of the (Roman) empire generally...Armenia yielded to its fate and became a Roman governorship..Trajan thereupon advanced and occupied Mesopotamia...and, like Armenia, Mesopotamia became a Roman province.

Photo - Duncanon military show

The Roman Legions

Grinding poverty in the rural provinces of the Empire was always a factor in a man's decision to join the army.  Armenians were happy to accept the Emperor's coin.  There was also the opportunity for upward social mobility for both peasant and noble alike.

For example, the Emperor Romanos Lekapenos was the son of an Armenian peasant with the remarkable name of Theophylact the Unbearable (Asbastaktos). Theophylact, as a soldier, had rescued the Emperor Basil I from the enemy in battle and had been rewarded by a place in the Imperial Guard.

Although he did not receive any refined education, Romanos advanced through the ranks of the army during the reign of Emperor Leo VI the Wise. In 911 he was general of the naval theme of Samos and later served as admiral of the fleet (droungarios tou ploimou) and became Emperor in 920.

Legio Prima (I) Armeniaca - Armenian First Legion

Symbol of Prima Armeniaca

Legio Secunda (II) Armeniaca -  Armenian Second Legion

Symbol of Secunda Armeniaca

Despite a number of reforms, the Legion system survived the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, and was continued in the Eastern Roman Empire until around 7th century.  

With the legions continuing on in one form or another it is certain that the Armenian units would have served in wars against the Persians or the Arabs.

By the 7th century reforms were begun by Emperor Heraclius to counter the increasing need for soldiers around the Empire.  What Legions were left were settled in local districts as citizen-soldier-farmers resulting in the Theme system.

Emperor John I Tzimiskes meeting with Svyatoslav I the Grand Prince of Kiev.  John was born into the Kourkouas clan, a family of Armenian origin.

Armenian Soldiers in the Byzantine Army

Armenia made great contributions to the Eastern Roman Empire through its troops of soldiers. The empire was in need of a good army as it was constantly being threatened. The army was relatively small, never exceeding 150,000 men. The military was sent to different parts of the empire, and which took part in the most fierce battles and never exceeded 20,000 or 30,000. men.

From the 5th century forwards the Armenians were regarded as the main constituent of the Byzantine army. Procopius recounts that the “Scholarii”, the palace guards of the emperor “were selected from amongst the bravest Armenians”.

Armenian soldiers in the Byzantine army are cited during the following centuries, especially during the 9th and the 10th centuries, which might have been the period of greatest participation of the Armenians in the Byzantine army. Byzantine and Arab historians are unanimous in recognizing significance of the Armenians soldiers. Charles Diehl, for instance, writes: “The Armenian units, particularly during this period, were numerous and well trained.” 

Another Byzantine historian praises the decisive role which the Armenian infantry played in the victories of the Byzantine emperors Nicephorus Phocas and John Tzimiskes.

At that time the Armenians served side by side with the Scandinavians who were in the Byzantine army. One historian relates this first encounter between the Armenian mountain-dwellers and the northern people: “It was the Armenians who together with our Scandinavian forefathers made up the assault units of Byzantine.” 

There were similarities in the way of thinking and the spirit of the Armenian feudal lords and the northern warriors. In both groups, there was a strange absence and ignorance of government and public interest and at the same time an equally large interest in achieving personal distinctions and a loyalty towards their masters and leaders.

Many Armenians became successful in the Byzantine Empire. Numerous Byzantine emperors were either ethnically Armenian, half-Armenian, part-Armenian or possibly Armenian; although culturally Greek. The best example of this is Emperor Heraclius, whose father was Armenian and mother Cappadocian. Emperor Heraclius began the Heraclean Dynasty (610-717). 

Basil I is another example of an Armenian beginning a dynasty; the Macedonian dynasty. Other great Roman-Armenian emperors were Romanos I, John I Tzimiskes, and Nikephoros II.




(Roman Legion)      (Armenian history)      (St-andrews.ac.uk)

(Looys.net)      (larsbrownworth.com)      (rbedrosian.com)

(Byzantine Armenia)      (Roman Armenia)

Gold Solidus of Emperor Arcadius (383 - 408 AD).

The raw power of money is underrated in history.  Money buys not only political influence, it buys the military power to defend yourself and enforce your will on others.  Roman gold coins represented that power for thousands of years.

Money used in the Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of the West consisted of mainly two types of coins: the gold solidus and a variety of clearly valued bronze coins.  By the end of the empire the currency was issued only in silver stavrata and minor copper coins with no gold issue.

The start of what is viewed as Byzantine currency by numismatics began with the monetary reform of Anastasius in 498, who reformed the late Roman Empire coinage system which consisted of the gold solidus and the bronze nummi.

The only regularly issued silver coin was the Hexagram first issued by Heraclius in 615 which lasted until the end of the 7th century. It was succeeded by the initially ceremonial miliaresion established by Leo III the Isaurian in ca. 720, which became standard issue from ca. 830 on and until the late 11th century, when it was discontinued after being severely debased.

The gold solidus or nomisma remained a standard of international commerce until the 11th century, when it began to be debased under successive emperors beginning in the 1030s under the Emperor Romanos Argyros (1028–1034).

The Byzantine solidus was valued in Western Europe, where it became known as the bezant, a corruption of Byzantium. 

Theodosius II (408-450), Heavy Miliarense, Constantinopolis, AD 408-420; diademed, draped and cuirassed bust r., Rv. GLORIA – ROMANORVM, emperor standing facing, holding spear and resting on shield. . As part of his currency reforms, Constantine introduced a fine silver coin called the miliarense (from the Latin miliarensis (meaning “of a thousand”), because a thousand of these coins roughly equaled the value of a pound of gold, a unit used to express large sums such as the salaries of officials). There were two versions: a “light” miliarense struck at 72 to the pound, and a “heavy” 60 to the pound. One gold solidus was worth 14 heavies or 18 lights. Miliarenses were handsome, well-made coins, and many surviving specimens are pierced for wear as ornaments or amulets. A typical obverse design was the emperor’s portrait, while the reverse often showed his standing figure in military garb, striking a noble pose and surrounded by the Latin motto GLORIA ROMANORUM (“Glory of the Romans.”)

In the late Roman period, coins were minted in a number of cities, mainly because of the danger and cost of moving large quantities of precious metal from place to place. This system was inherited by Byzantium, and in the 6th century there were six mints in the Eastern Empire (Constantinople, Nicomedia, Cyzicus, Antioch [Theoupolis], Alexandria and Thessalonica) and three in the Western provinces that Justinian had reconquered from the Vandals and the Ostrogoths (Carthage, Rome and Ravenna). . Gold coins were minted mainly in the capital and consequently have the mint mark CON (for Constantinople), with OB added on the solidi to show that they were minted of pure gold.

Aelia Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius No.: 617 Light miliarense, Constantinople 400-404, AR 4.46 g. AEL EUDO – XIA AVG Diademed and draped bust r., wearing earring and necklace; crowned above by the Hand of God. Rev. The Empress seated on throne facing, wearing diadem (?) and mantle, crowned above by the Hand of God; at sides, two crosses. . .The rarest fifth century silver was struck for empresses. For Aelia Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius (Byzantine Emperor 395-408), a light miliarense shows the elaborate helmet-like hairdo favored by imperial ladies of this era. On the reverse she sits enthroned, flanked by plain crosses, while the “hand of God” reaches down to crown her. Aelia Eudocia (the similar names are an endless source of confusion), wife of Theodosius II, appears similarly coiffed on a rare silver siliqua of Constantinople, but the reverse is simply a cross in a wreath.

Gold Medallion of Constantine I Multiple solidus struck at Sirmium in 324.   More than 10 years after his victory under the sign of the cross, the emperor is shown wearing the radiate crown, a reflection of his continued devotion to the Sun God, Apollo.

The Economy of the Eastern Roman Empire

The Roman Empire effectively created one large free trade zone.  Under the protection of a central military goods could be produced and shipped from Africa to the Balkans and from Mesopotamia to Italy.  A universally accepted imperial currency of gold, silver and copper coins helped stimulate trade.

Constantinople was a prime hub in a trading network that at various times extended across nearly all of Eurasia and North Africa. Some scholars argue that, up until the arrival of the Arabs in the 7th century, the Eastern Roman Empire had the most powerful economy in the world.

Copper follis of Emperor Anastastius I (491-518)

The state exercised formal control over interest rates, and set the parameters for the activity of the guilds and corporations in Constantinople, in which the state has a special interest (e.g. the sale of silk) or whose members exercised a profession that was of importance for trade. The emperor and his officials intervened at times of crisis to ensure the provisioning of the capital and to keep down the price of cereals.

Silk was used by the state both as a means of payment, and of diplomacy. Raw silk was bought from China and made up into fine brocades and cloth-of-gold that commanded high prices through the world. Later, silk worms were smuggled into the empire and the overland silk trade became less important. After Justinian I the manufacturing and sale of silk had become an imperial monopoly, only processed in imperial factories, and sold to authorized buyers.

Other commodities that were traded, in Constantinople and elsewhere, were numerous: oil, wine, salt, fish, meat, vegetables, other alimentary products, timber and wax. Ceramics, linen, and wooven cloth were also items of trade. Luxury items, such as silks, perfumes and spices were also important. 

Trade in slaves is attested, both on behalf of the state, and, possibly, by private individuals. International trade was practiced not only in Constantinople, which was until the late twelfth century an important center of the eastern luxury trade, but also in other cities that functioned as centers of inter-regional and international trade, such as Thessaloniki and Trebizond.

Follis of a new type, minted in large quantities in celebration of Emperor Theophilos' victories against the Arabs from ca. 835 on. On the obverse he is represented in triumphal attire, wearing the toupha, and on the reverse the traditional acclamation "Theophilos Augustus, you conquer".

Byzantine Coinage

The Decline The rapid decline of the late empire forced the coinage of silver.  Above is a silver Stavraton of the Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (r. 1391–1425).

(Coin Exhibition)      (Byzantine money)      (Coin Week)

(Byzantine coinage)      (Byzantine economy)

Bulgar warriors. Scene from reenactment of the battle, 26 July 2006. Photo credit: Klearchos Kapoutsis

In 629 AD the Eastern Roman Empire has reached perhaps the peak of its power.  The ancient enemy of Rome, the Persian Empire, had been totally crushed and Roman rule was restored from the Pillars of Hercules to the Euphrates River. 

It was not to last.  The year 629 saw the first invasions of militant Jihadist Arab armies that ultimately conquered the Roman Middle East, North Africa and besieged Constantinople itself.

While the Arabs were pressing Roman forces in the south, in 681 AD a new pagan enemy appeared - The Bulgarians.

Though Roman armies managed to win a number of victories, the Bulgarians steadily pressed beyond the Danube River frontier deeper and deeper into Roman territory.

A The Growing Bulgarian Empire The Eastern Romans did not have enough on their hands with the Muslim Arab invasions of the Middle East, Africa and two massive sieges of Constantinople itself.  Staring in 681 AD the pagan Bulgarian tribes appeared on the norther Danube frontier and aggressively pushed deeper and deeper into Roman territory.

Bulgarian Warrior Reenactor

Khan Krum the Fearsom

Krum the Fearsome was Khan of the Bulgarian Empire from sometime after 796 but before 803 until his death in 814. During his reign the Bulgarian territory doubled in size, spreading from the middle Danube to the Dnieper and from Odrin to the Tatra Mountains.

The Bulgars did not limit their wars only to Byzantium; they also waged wars in the west of the Balkan Peninsula, and those wars transformed from defensive to aggressive and invasive. During the first years of his rule, Krum had to attend to his north-west borders where at the beginning of the 9th century the political situation changed due to the expansion of the Frankish Empire in the Middle Danubian region and the repulsion of the weak remnants of the Avar Khaganate.

Khan Krum

In 805, the Bulgars killed and captured the remaining Avars, and annexed their lands in today's Eastern Hungary and Transylvania to Bulgaria. The Bulgars put the kagan to flight and captured a host of Avar soldiers; years later, the latter would serve in the Bulgars' wars against Byzantium. The Slav tribes that lived in those lands, after being freed from the Avar rule, recognized the power of the Bulgar Khan.

This victory resulted in the establishment of a common border between the Frankish Empire and Bulgaria.

Krum engaged in a policy of territorial expansion. In 807 Bulgarian forces defeated the Byzantine army in the Struma valley. In 809 Krum besieged and forced the surrender of Serdica (Sofia).  The Bulgar troops captured 1,100 litres of gold and killed many enemy soldiers including all strategos and most of the commanders. In 809 the Knyaz personally besieged the strong fortress of Serdica and seized the city, killing the whole garrison of 6,000.

This victory provoked Byzantine Emperor Nikephoros I to settle Anatolian populations along the Balkan frontier to protect it and to attempt to retake and refortify Serdica, although this enterprise failed.

In 811, the Byzantine Emperor organised a large campaign to conquer Bulgaria once and for all. He gathered an enormous army from the Anatolian and European themata, and the imperial bodyguard (the tagmata); they were joined by a number of irregular troops who expected a swift victory and plunder. The conquest was supposed to be easy, and most of the high-ranking officials and aristocrats accompanied him, including his son Stauracius and his brother-in-law Michael I Rangabe. 

The Bulgarian Kahn Krum is said to have made a drinking cup out of the skull of Roman Emperor Nikephoros.

There was extensive campaigning and fighting between the Bulgarian and Roman forces right up to the walls of Constantinople itself.

Forces Involved - The Romans

Traditionally both sides in war vastly inflate the numbers of troops involved.  That is certainly the case here with claims of some 80,000 Romans and 60,000 Bulgarians fighting.

The historian Warren Treadgold places the strength of the entire Roman Army at this point at 80,000.  So the idea of an 80,000 man army marching to meet the enemy is easily shot down.  You can apply the same logic to the Bulgarian side.

Since 681 AD the Romans had been fighting a brutal war with hordes of invading Bulgarians that involved an "ethnic cleansing" of the Empire's population.  Historians at the time all agreed that the Emperor Nikephoros responded to the Bulgarian threat with a major effort.

To try and end the Bulgarian threat the Emperor gathered regiments from Anatolia and Thrace.  Constantinople troops joined the force such as the Imperial Guard Excubitors (perhaps 4,000 cavalry) and the Imperial Vigla (tagma), the Watch, (perhaps as high as another 4,000 men).

Rounding off numbers:  The Emperor may have marched with 10,000 men from Constantinople, 15,000 from the Anatolian Themes and another 10,000 from the Balkans Themes.

The Emperor himself at the head of an army of about 35,000 works for me.  As to the mix of infantry and cavalry we do not know.

The historian Panos Sophoulis leans to a Roman army of 15,000 to 20,000.  He bases his numbers on the logistics needed to supply an army for weeks of campaigning far from Constantinople.  As true as his numbers might be, the fact is far larger armies had campaigned over the centuries and supplied themselves.  He neglects the ability of an advancing army to save on supplies by living off the farms and stored foods of a defeated enemy.  The Romans could have also pre-positioned supplies at towns along the way for use by the army during their return trip.

A 35,000 man army would leave about 45,000 troops left to protect the Empire's lands in Italy, the Dalmatian coast, the Greek islands and Anatolia.  There was constant danger on the southern and eastern fronts from Muslim Arab Jihads.  The Emperor could only send limited numbers of troops.

Byzantine reenactors

The Bulgarians

The permanent Bulgarian army consisted of the khan's guard of select warriors, while the campaign army consisted practically of the entire nation, assembled by clans. In the field, the army was divided into right and left wings.  The Bulgars were well versed in the use of stratagems. They often held a strong cavalry unit in reserve, which would attack the enemy at an opportune moment.

The Bulgarian army was well armed according to the Avar model: the soldiers had a sabre or a sword, a long spear and a bow with an arrow-quiver on the back. On the saddle they hung a round shield, a mace and a lasso.  The heavy cavalry was supplied with metal armor and helmets. The horses were also armored.

The infantry of the newly formed state was composed mainly of Slavs, who were generally lightly armed soldiers, although their chieftains usually had small cavalry retinues. The Slavic footmen were equipped with swords, spears, bows and wooden or leather shields. However, they were less disciplined and less effective than the Bulgar cavalry.

The Byzantine historian Pseudo-Simeon stated that Krum sent a 30,000 strong cavalry, "the whole armored with iron", which devastated Thrace.

Based on research it can be assumed that the heavy cavalry component of the Bulgarian army numbered between 17-20,000 and 30,000 men, depending on the level of mobilization.  Added to that number would be assorted assembled militia/tribal units of infantry and cavalry called into temporary service.

A Bulgarian army of 35,000 permanent and militia units is not a bad guess.

Ruins of Pliska

The Sack of Pliska

Historical accounts are few and often biased.  For example, the historian and clergyman Theophanes hated the Emperor.  He accused the Emperor of witchcraft, sacrificing an ox, homosexuality and worst of all, increasing taxes on the clergy!  The horror!  So we have to read between the lines of recorded history and draw our on conclusions on events.

The army gathered in May, and by 10 July had set up camp at the fortress of Marcelae (present-day Karnobat) near the Bulgarian frontier. Nicephorus intended to confuse them and over the next ten days launched several supposed attacks, which were immediately called back. Krum assessed the situation and estimated that he could not repulse the enemy and offered peace, which Nicephorus haughtily rejected. Theophanes wrote that the Emperor, "was deterred from his own ill thoughts and the suggestions of his advisors who were thinking like him".

The Emperor invaded the Bulgarian lands and marched through the Balkan passes towards the capital of Pliska. 

Gold coin of the Emperor Nikephoros I, 802-811, Athens, Numismatic Museum.

The geography itself was as much of an enemy as the Bulgarians.  During the first millennium, the territory of northern Bulgaria (Moesia) was covered with an unbroken forest, known in Europe as Magna Silva Bulgarica. The forest was especially dense and impassable in the region: Veregava and the plains and valleys at its foothills. It further slowed the march: the large army moved in columns along the narrow forest paths, the cavalry frequently dismounting at the steep slopes. 

Because this was a hostile territory, light cavalry scouts were sent ahead to spy out the army's line of march, the position of enemy forces and fortifications, the availability of wood and water, fodder and food, and were responsible for providing the commanders of the Byzantine forces with sufficient information for them to plan their route and the marching camps.

The Emperor divided the army each of which marched across the frontier by different routes,  One column moved through the mountains and the other near the coast.  The mountain column may have subdivided with multiple units marching through different passes.  

The Bulgars did not have the man power to defend multiple entry points and retreated.  It is possible that the Bulgars deliberately pulled back to conserve their strength.

The Romans met little resistance. When they reached the capital the Byzantines met an army of 12,000 elite, well armed Bulgarian soldiers who guarded the stronghold. The Bulgarians were defeated and most of them perished.

Elite Soldier of the Imperial Tagmata of Excubita/Excubitores.

The Kahn Krum hastily gathered together another army of 50,000.  This number is grossly inflated.  But we can assume these follow up troops were more militia then regular soldiers.  The two forces met on the plains of Pliska where the better organized Romans on flat ground soundly defeated the second Bulgarian force.

Following the victory the Bulgarian treasury was captured and the Emperor installed himself in Krum's residence.  The Emperor sent dispatches to Constantinople announcing the victory.  He said that he was planning to build a city named for himself on the site.

There then followed the rewarding of the Roman troops along with the destruction of the city.

The Chronicle reports a generous Emperor:

"(He) found great spoils which he commanded be distributed among his army as per the troop roster . . . When he opened the storehouses of (Krum's) wine he distributed it so everyone could drink his fill."

Obviously the Emperor felt his victory was so complete that drunken soldiers would not be an issue.

Michael the Syrian, patriarch of the Syrians Jacobites in XIIth century described in his Chronicle the brutalities and atrocities of the Byzantine Emperor: “Nicephorus, emperor of the Romans, walked in Bulgars land: he was victorious and killed a great number of them. He reached their capital, took it over and devastated it. His savagery went to such a point that he ordered to bring their small children, got them tied down on earth and made thresh grain stones to smash them.” 

The Byzantine soldiers looted and plundered; burnt down the unharvested fields, cut the sinews of the oxen, slaughtered sheep, pigs and committed rape. The Emperor took over Krum's treasury, locked it and did not allow his troops to reach it at the same time cutting noses and other appendages of soldiers who touched the trophies. At the end, Nicephorus ordered his troops to burn down Krum's residence.

According to the historian Theophanes, Krum’s proclamation stated, "Here you are, you have won. So take what you please and go with peace." Nicephorus, overconfident from his success, ignored him. He believed that Bulgaria was thoroughly conquered.



The Massacre of Vărbitsa Pass

The Emperor Nicephorus spent some time looting and leveling Pliska.  Whatever day dreams the Emperor may have had about restoring the province to Rome were shattered when scouts reported enemy activity in the surrounding areas.  The Emperor ordered the troops to march for home.

Kahn Krum had been busy gathering what forces he could.  He collected the surviving Bulgar warriors who had feld into the mountains and called up more of his soldiers.  He also hired what was left of the Avar warriors as well as neighboring Slav tribes (the Sklavinias).

As to numbers, we do not know how many troops Krum had available to him.  It is reasonable to assume he would have had at least 10,000 men and perhaps more.  Certainly he had enough troops available to confidently feel he could take on the entire Roman army that had just defeated him twice.

Initially Nicephorus intended to march through Moesia and reach Serdica (today Sofia) before returning to Constantinople, but the news of these preparations for a battle changed his decision and he chose the shortest way back to his capital . . . . through narrow mountain passes.  

This is never the best of choices for a commander.  Your troops are strung out over a long roads and unable to easily form up into compact units for attack or defense.  The smaller numbers of an enemy can take advantage and attack in multiple areas at the same time.

The Bulgarians built temporary log palisades in the narrow mountain passes to block the Byzantine retreat.

The Bulgarians had been busy preparing a trap for the retreating Byzantines.  In a unique Bulgar technique, they rapidly assembled and placed rude wooden palisades of logs bound with twine across the narrow mountain valleys.  The Chronicle of 811 says they were:  "a fearsome and impenetrable fence out of tree trunks, in the manner of a wall."

These palisades were not fortifications that could resist a siege.  Rather they would provide the Bulgarians a measure of protection while they launched arrows and missiles.  Being able to fire through slits in the wall negated the archery power of the Byzantines.

The fault for the coming massacre is totally with an overconfident Emperor.  He had beaten the Bulgarians twice on open ground and burned their city.  But even with reports of gathering enemy forces he appears to have had a relaxed, out for a stroll in the countryside view of a march through enemy territory.

This is illustrated by the Chronicle of 811 which reports that the Emperor's camp was not fortified and the other Roman troops were spread out up and down the mountain road and unable to support each other.  One historian noted that nights in this period were dark and moonless.  Perfect for sneaking up to the Roman camp.

The Bulgarians did not wait for the Romans to reach the log barriers.  The Chronicle of 811 says they attacked in the dead of night:

• "They fell on (the Byzantine soldiers) still half asleep, who arose and, arming themselves, in haste, joined the battle.  But since (the forces) were encamped a great distance from one another, they did not know immediately what was happening.  For they (the Bulgars) fell only upon the Imperial encampment, which they began to cut to pieces.  When few resisted, and none strongly, but many were slaughtered, the rest who saw it gave themselves to flight.  At this same place there was also a river, . . . . they threw themselves into the river.  Entering with their horses and net being able to get out, they sank into the swamp, and were trampled by those coming from behind.  And some men fell on the others, so that the river was so full with men and horses that the enemies crossed on top of them unharmed and pursued the rest."

According to the Chronicle there was but one log palisade and it was unmanned.  That may or may not be correct.  Certainly the Bulgars put this one on what would be the main road out of the mountain pass.  If it was unmanned or lightly manned that speaks to the lack of available Bulgarian troops for this part of the campaign.  The Chronicle says:

• "Those who thought they had escaped from the carnage of the river came up against the fence that the Bulgars has constructed, which was strong and exceedingly difficult to cross . . . . They abandoned their horses and, having climbed up with their hands and feet, hurled themselves headlong on the other side.  But there was a deep excavated trench on the other side, so that those who hurled themselves from the top broke their limbs.  Some of them died immediately, while the others progressed a short distance, but did not have the strength to walk. . . . . In other places, men set fire to the fence, and when the bonds (which held the logs together) burned through and the fence collapsed above the trench, those fleeing were unexpectedly thrown down and fell into the pit of the trench of the fire . . . . both themselves and their horses.  On that same day the Emperor Nikephoros was killed during the first assault, and nobody is able to relate the manner of his death.  Injured also was his son Staurakios, who suffered a mortal wound to the spinal vertebrae from which he died after having ruled the Romans for two months."

The entire slaughter taking place in a pitch black night must and been a nightmare.

Bulgarian Warrior Reenactors (Screenshot HunHorda)

The Aftermath

After the battle, Kahn had the Emperor's head on a spike, then Krum encased Nicephorus's skull in silver, and used it as a cup for wine-drinking.

The defeat was the worst the empire had faced since the Battle of Adrianople over 400 years earlier, when the Eastern Roman forces were defeated by the Visigoths and Emperor Valens himself was killed. It was a stupendous blow to the Imperial prestige—to the legend of the Emperor’s sacrosanctity, so carefully fostered to impress the barbarians. 

Moreover, the Visigoths that slew Valens had been mere nomads, destined soon to pass away to other lands; the Bulgars were barbarians settled at the gate, and determined—more so now than ever—to remain there. The military might of the Empire was severely crippled.

Casualties -  There are no firm numbers for casualties on either side.  Contemporary accounts agree that the battle was a slaughter.  But a complete annihilation of an army is rare in military history.  We can speculate that Roman casualties might have easily gone above 50%, 60% and perhaps much higher.

Among the nobles killed were the patricians Theodosios Salibaras and Sisinnios Triphyllios; the strategos of the Anatolics Romanos and the strategos of Thrace; as well as the commanders of the Excubitors and Vigla tagmata.  Nicephorus's son, Stauracius, was carried to safety by the Imperial bodyguard after receiving a paralyzing wound to his neck.  Six months later, his wounds finally killed him.

That the Imperial Guard took the Emperor's son to safety says there were large gaps in whatever the Bulgarian battle lines were.  If parts of the Guard escaped it is possible that other units managed to get themselves out of the trap.

The bottom line is this massacre was a massive blow to both Roman psychology and to the army itself with many prime military units being lost. 

Byzantine Soldier

Click to enlarge

(THE GRAND STRATEGY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE)

(Warfare, State And Society In The Byzantine World 560-1204)

(Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831)      (Medieval Bulgarian Army)

(Krum)      (lyudmilantonov.blogspot)      (Battle of Pliska)

Thanks to Padfield.com

The Limes Tripolitanus was a frontier zone of defence of the Roman Empire, built in the south of what is now Tunisia and the northwest of Libya. It was primarily intended as a protection for the tripolitanian cities of Leptis Magna, Sabratha and Oea in Roman Libya.

The Limes Tripolitanus was built after Augustus. It was related mainly to the Garamantes menace. Septimius Flaccus in 50 AD did a military expedition that reached the actual Fezzan and further south.

The Romans did not conquer the Garamantes so much as they seduced them with the benefits of trade and discouraged them with the threat of war. The last Garamantes foray to the coast was in AD 69, when they joined with the people of Oea (modern Tripoli) in battle against Leptis Magna. 

The Garamantes started to become a client state of the Roman Empire, but nomads always endangered the fertile area of coastal Tripolitania. Because of this Romans created the Limes Tripolitanus.

The first fort on the limes was built at Thiges, to protect from nomad attacks in 75 AD. The limes was expanded under emperors Hadrian and Septimius Severus, in particular under the legatus Quintus Anicius Faustus in 197-201 AD.

Anicius Faustus was appointed legatus of the Legio III Augusta and built several defensive forts of the Limes Tripolitanus in Tripolitania, among which Garbia and Golaia (actual Bu Ngem) in order to protect the province from the raids of nomadic tribes. He fulfilled his task quickly and successfully.

As a consequence the Roman city of Gaerisa, situated away from the coast and south of Leptis Magna, developed quickly in a rich agricultural area Ghirza became a "boom town" after 200 CE, when the Roman emperor Septimius Severus (born in Leptis Magna) had organized the Limes Tripolitanus.

Former soldiers were settled in this area, and the arid land was developed. Dams and cisterns were built in the Wadi Ghirza to regulate the flash floods.  The farmers produced cereals, figs, vines, olives, pulses, almonds, dates, and perhaps melons. Ghirza consisted of some forty buildings, including six fortified farms (Centenaria).

With Diocletian the limes was partially abandoned and the defence of the area was done even by the Limitanei, local soldier-farmers. The Limes survived as an effective protection until Byzantine times.  Emperor Justinian restructured the Limes in 533 AD.

From 665 to 689, a new Muslim Arab invasion of North Africa was launched.  The limes fortifications played little part.

It began, according to Will Durant, to protect Egypt "from flank attack by Byzantine Cyrene." So "an army of 40,000 Muslims advanced through the desert to Barca, took it, and marched to the neighborhood of Carthage." A defending Byzantine army of 30,000 was defeated in the process.

Next came a force of 10,000 Arabs led by the Arab general Uqba ibn Nafi and enlarged by thousands of others. Departing from Damascus, the army marched into North Africa and took the vanguard. In 670 the city of Kairouan (roughly eighty miles or 160 kilometers south of modern Tunis) was established as a refuge and base for further operations.

This would become the capital of the Islamic province of Ifriqiya, which would cover the coastal regions of what are today western Libya, Tunisia, and eastern Algeria. Thus ended 800 years of Roman Africa.

Olive production and Roman water management. The Romans and Byzantines built dams and cisterns to capture the limited  rain fall. Local farmers produced cereals, figs, vines, olives, pulses, almonds,  dates, and perhaps melons.

Suq al-Awty

• A Centenarium is an Ancient Roman fortified farmhouse in the Limes Tripolitanus. There were more than 2,000 of these fortifications.  Retired legionaries received plots of land along the wadis, in arid areas and the countryside.

The first "Centenaria" were built during Trajan and Septimius Severus expansions of Roman Libya and Africa Proconsularis, when was created the Limes Tripolitanus.

From around the time of disbandment of the Legio III Augusta in 238 AD, legionaries built around two thousand centenaria in the areas around Leptis Magna and Sabratha. Examples remain at Gherait esh-Shergia and Gasr Banat. Some were characterized by the presence of paleochristian churches.

The "Centenaria" system of production, based on autochthonous berbers who were partially Latinized and often even Christians, was successful and worked very well until Byzantine times. Centenaria remained in use for several centuries after the Arab conquest in the second half of the seventh century, until the system collapsed in the eleventh century.

There is much conjecture about the origin of the word "centenarium".  Probably their Latin name was due to the fact that one hundred men (one hundred is said in Latin "centum") worked each fortified farm, under the orders of a former army "centurion".

The Wadi Bruza and three Roman centenarium fortified farms.

Suq al-Awty

On one of the northern spurs along the wadi is a large complex, known as Suq al-Awty, in which five constructions can be discerned.  Two fortified farms, two cisterns and a church.

The northernmost fortified centenarium (above photo) was measured as 20 x 20m with rooms situated around a small central square.  Ceramics show that the place was settles in the second century and so actually predate the construction of the Limes Tripolitanus.

The southern centenarium (photo 904 below) has an extremely heavy eastern wall and the building is about seventeen meters long.  Access was possible through a vaulted passage.  The outside was decorated.  It is as old as the first building.  These fortified farms were surrounded by huts.

A vaulted cistern was built on the southern slope of the hill.  The structure, made of plastered rubble, must have served to collect the rain water that fell on the hill itself.  It is a pretty deep structure and was erected on, not dug in the slope.

Church -  The main monument is the church dating from the early Byzantine period.  It is about 23m long, has three barrel-vaulted aisles and is almost 13m wide.  A baptistery has been identified.  Water must have been obtained from the nearby cisterns.  The people who visited the church came in from a wide area including a village some six km to the west.

The church was decorated with sculpture and frescoes.  There are also some graffiti including a representation of a water vessel.  A bit odd in a small village in a desert that produced cereals and olives.

Emperor Constans II The last Roman Emperor of Tripolitanus

Suq al-Awty and the two centenaria were abandoned in the second half of the seventh century. This may have been a direct result of the Arab conquest.  The church may have been a special target.

Across the Wadi -  There were two fortified farmson the south bank of Wadi Burza.  One of them may have had three stories.  The heavy walls, made of coursed rubble, were about a meter in diameter.  There were many people living here with at least twelve rooms in the building.  There were many cisterns in the neighborhood.

After Rome

Except for a new religion, the predesert civilization that was based on careful water management and constant vigilance remained the same. It was only in the eleventh century, when two Arabian dynasties, the Zirids and the Fatimids, were involved in a major war, that the system collapsed. After the garrisons had been transferred from the cities to the front, nomads of Banu Hillal tribe could capture the qsur. The agricultural production declined rapidly, the cities were no longer fed, and the remaining town dwellers abandoned Lepcis Magna and Sabratha to settle in Oea, which was from now on known as Tripoli.

The twelfth-century Sicilian geographer Muhammad al-Idrisi writes: 

"Until recently, the Tripolitana was well-exploited and covered with fig trees, olives, dates palms, and other fruit trees. But the Arabs have completely destroyed this prosperity. The peasants were forced to leave the country, the orchards were destroyed, and the canals were blocked."  - - - Al-Idrisi, Roger's Book, 121.

What had for eight centuries been a wealthy province of the Roman, Byzantine, and Muslim empires, now became a desert again. The decline of the population meant that there was no one who could destroy the ancient cities, the qsur, the watchtowers, the forts. They were simply left as they were, until nine centuries after the collapse, the first archaeologists started to study them.

Map of Wadi Buzra (Livius.org)

Suq al-Awty  (Bz 904) (Livius.org)

Suq al-Awty, cistern

Suq al-Awty, church

Suq al-Awty, church

View across the wadi

(Suq al-Awty)      (Tripolitania)      (Centenarium)      (Limes Tripolitanus)

(Limes Tripolitanus)      (Suq al-Awty)      (Roman Libya)

Mamure Castle is over 1500 years old and ranks among the best-preserved Medieval Castles on the Mediterranean coast. It is an authentic medieval fortification with styles from different conquering armies; the Romans, Byzantines, Seljuks, Karamanids and Ottomans.

The castle has perfect location for defense as it is dominating visually the surrounding landscape and the sea.

The original castle was built by the Roman Empire in the third or fourth centuries for the defense of the coastline from pirates.  The Eastern Empire repaired and continued to use the castle up through the era of the Crusades.  The castle would have been used by the Roman military for about 800 years.

During the extensive Byzantine period major wars would have taken place all around the castle.  Over the centuries there would have been land invasions by the Persian Empire, Crusaders as well as multiple land and sea attacks by Arab forces. 

But there is no record of any major military actions against the fort or to what degree the Romans stationed troops at the site.

The current castle was built by the rulers of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia on the foundations of the Roman-Byzantine original structure.  There is no way to tell what the original Roman fort looked like, but it may have looked much like it does now.

 When Alaattin Keykubat I of Seljuk Turks captured the ruins of the castle in 1221, he built a larger castle using elements of the earlier fortifications. Later, it was controlled by the Karamanid dynasty (who ruled a Turkish state in Anatolia).

Although the exact date is uncertain, according to an inscription by İbrahim II of Karaman in 1450, the castle was captured during Mahmut's reign (1300–1311). The castle was renamed as Mamure (prosperous) after repairs by Mahmut. In 1469, the castle was annexed by the Ottoman Empire.

It was subsequently repaired in the 15th, 16th and 18th centuries and a part of the castle was used as a caravanserai.


The Castle

The castle, covering an area of 23.500 m2, is one of the biggest and well-protected castles of Anatolia.

Although the exact construction date of the castle is uncertain, it is believed to have been built by the Romans either in the 3rd or the 4th century, due to the excavations conducted in 1988 by the Directorate of Anamur Museum.

These excavations revealed archaeological remains that have mosaic floor covering which belong to a Late Roman city (3rd-4th c. A.D.) called “Ryg Monai”, a city not prominent in that period. On the other hand, it is also known as the outer protective castle of Anemurium City.  The ancient city itself was abandoned around 650 when Arab attacks made the coast unsafe.

The castle is surrounded by a moat on the land side. The road on the rampart connects the 39 towers (4 of them are bigger than the others) and a lot of battlements to each other. There are 3 main yards within the castle; west, east and the south, which are separated from each other by high walls. In the yard at the west there is an outer castle, a small complex of a single minaret mosque, the ruins of a hamam (Turkish bath), a fountain, warehouses and cisterns.

In the east, there is an inner courtyard which has 7 bastions in different shapes on the high wall constituting its northwest border. The bastions on the north-eastern part of it have been ruined together with the wall. In the yard at the south; there is an inner citadel built over the rocks, the main watch tower which has the best view with 22 meters height inside the biggest bastion, 5 more watch towers and ruins of a light house.

The single minaret mosque which represents the characteristics of the 16th century Ottoman architecture was built by the Karamanids. The historic mosque is still functioning and has been renovated. The hamam which is located on the north of the Castle is also believed to have been built by the Karamanids. The entrance part of the hamam has been demolished but other parts are still intact.

Castle wall and moat. (www.castles.nl)

(whc.unesco.org)      (www.castles.nl)      (Mamure Castle)

Roman Africa

The land acquired for the Roman provinces of North Africa was taken from the Republic of Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War (149 BC to 146 BC) was the third and last of the Punic Wars.

The third war was a much smaller engagement than the two previous Punic Wars and primarily consisted of a single main action, the Battle of Carthage, but resulted in the complete destruction of the city of Carthage, the annexation of all remaining Carthaginian territory by Rome, and the death or enslavement of thousands of Carthaginians. The Third Punic War ended Carthage's independent existence

The Legio III Augusta was defending North Africa.

The new provinces included the ancient city of Carthage as well as Hadrumetum, capital of Byzacena, Hippo Regius. The province was established by the Roman Republic in 146 BC.

Rome established its first African colony, Africa Proconsularis or Africa Vetus (Old Africa), governed by a proconsul, in the most fertile part of what was formerly Carthaginian territory. Utica was formed as the administrative capital.

It is certain that from 30 BCE on, the Legio III Augusta was permanently in Africa, although it was not always stationed in the same camp. An inscription from 14 CE informs us that the soldiers had to build a road from Tacapsa to their winter quarters, which may at this stage have been at Theveste.
      
Although Africa was usually a tranquil part of the Roman Empire, III Augusta saw action in 17-24, when it fought against Tacfarinas, who had organized several Numidian and Mauretanian tribes in an anti-Roman coalition.

The African provinces were amongst the wealthiest regions in the Empire (rivaled only by Egypt, Syria and Italy itself) and as a consequence people from all over the Empire migrated into the Roman Africa Province, most importantly veterans in early retirement who settled in Africa on farming plots promised for their military service. One historian estimated that under Hadrian nearly 1/3 of the eastern Numidia population was descended from Roman veterans

The region remained a part of the Roman Empire until the Germanic migrations of the 5th century.



Click map to enlarge . The Roman colonization of Northern Africa . Colonization consisted first in a protectorate, then in a direct administration (40-430), divided into four provinces : Africa Proconsularis (Tunisia, East Constantine region, and the Tripolitan region), Numidia (the greater part of the Constantine region), Mauretania Caesariensis (the Algiers and Oran regions) and, from the name of Tingis (Tangier), Mauretania Tingitana.  (crc.org)


The Vandal Kingdom

Roman rule in Africa was interrupted by the invasion of the Vandals from Spain.
The Vandals migrated to Africa in search of safety; they had been attacked by a Roman army in 422 and had failed to seal a treaty with them. Advancing eastwards along the coast, the Vandals laid siege to the walled city of Hippo Regius in 430. 

After 14 months, hunger and the inevitable diseases were ravaging both the city inhabitants and the Vandals outside the city walls, with the city eventually falling to the Vandals, who made it their first capital.

Peace was made between the Romans and the Vandals in 435 through a treaty giving the Vandals control of coastal Numidia and parts of Mauretania. King Geiseric chose to break the treaty in 439 when he invaded the province of Africa Proconsularis and laid siege to Carthage.

The city was captured without a fight; the Vandals entered the city while most of the inhabitants were attending the races at the hippodrome. Genseric made it his capital, and styled himself the King of the Vandals and Alans. Conquering Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Malta and the Balearic Islands, he built his kingdom into a powerful state.

The Western Empire under Valentinian III secured peace with the Vandals in 442. Under the treaty the Vandals gained Byzacena, Tripolitania, part of Numidia, and confirmed their control of Proconsular Africa.



Eastern Roman Troops

Eastern Roman Africa (533 AD to 709 AD)

Roman rule was restored when the Vandal Kingdom came crashing down in the Invasion of North Africa by Belisarius under the Eastern Emperor Justinian.

After the victories at Ad Decimum and Tricamarum Roman rule in Africa was restored in 533 AD and the Vandal people killed, used as soldiers or enslaved.

The Late Roman administrative system, as established by Diocletian, provided for a clear distinction between civil and military offices, primarily to lessen the possibility of rebellion by over-powerful provincial governors.
Under Justinian I, the process was partially reversed for provinces which were judged to be especially vulnerable or in internal disorder.

Capitalizing upon this precedent and taking it one step further, the emperor Maurice sometime between 585 and 590 created the office of exarch, which combined the supreme civil authority of a praetorian prefect and the military authority of a magister militum, and enjoyed considerable autonomy from Constantinople.

Two exarchates were established, one in Italy, with seat at Ravenna (hence known as the Exarchate of Ravenna), and one in Africa, based at Carthage and including all imperial possessions in the Western Mediterranean. The first African exarch was the patricius Gennadius.

North Africa was an important economic and military addition to the Empire.  The provinces provided grain shipments, tax revenue and soldiers.

During the successful revolt of the exarch of Carthage Heraclius in 608, the Amazigh comprised a large portion of the fleet that transported Heraclius to Constantinople.

Roman rule continued until the final conquest by invading Muslim Arab armies in 709AD.

Byzantine Fortress of Ammaedara

Fortress Ammaedara

The Byzantine fortress was built about 550AD on the orders of the Emperor Justinian.

The fortress was one of many defensive strongpoints built by the Romans looking to protect the more valuable coastal zone, cities and agriculture against raids and armies coming from the Sahara Desert or invasion by the Moors.

Originally the Legio III Augusta was stationed in Africa.  No trace has been found of their camp.  It is suspected that the Fortress Ammaedara may have been built on the site of the legion's camp.  The only evidence of this is circumstantial.  It comes maily from the headstones of the legion discovered in the military cemetery east of the city.

The fortress is said to be the largest of its kind in North Africa. The original measures were 200 metres by 100 metres, and with walls as high as 10 metres. Parts of this still stand.

Inside the fortress are a chapel and a church.


One of the earliest Roman settlements in North Africa, Haidra in Tunisia contains the remains of the Roman city of Ammaedara. Well off the beaten track, Haidra – also called Hydrah – attracts few tourists and even the archaeological excavations have been few and far between.

Founded in the first century AD, Ammaedara was originally a legionary outpost, used by the Third Legion Augusta during their campaign against the rebellious Numidian leader Tacfarinas – a deserter from the Roman auxiliaries who led his people in an uprising against Rome during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.

After the defeat of the rebellion, Ammaedara was settled by veterans from the campaign and grew into a thriving Roman city. Indeed, remains of the cemetery of the 3rd legion have been identified on outskirts of the site.

It is unclear as to whether a pre-Roman settlement existed at Haidra. Though the foundations of a Punic temple to Ba'al-Hamon were found near the site, there is little additional evidence of a major settlement.

The Romans ruled the region until the Vandal invasions of the 5th century AD and the ruins of Haidra contain evidence of the period of Vandal rule as well as the subsequent Byzantine period which followed after Justinian’s successful re-conquest.

Today Haïdra contains a number of interesting ruins dating from the various periods in the city’s history. The fortress acted as a defensive stronghold for the newly conquered Byzantine lands.

Dating to around the same period is the Church of Melleus which is in a reasonable state of preservation with a number of surviving columns and interesting inscriptions from the 6th and 7th centuries on the paving stones. Evidence of the Vandal period survives in the form of the Vandal Chapel - dating to the reigns of King Thrasamund and King Hilderic in the early 6th century AD.

The Fall of Ammaedara

There is no record of major military actions involving Ammaedara.  This is not surprising considering its purpose was mostly to discourage fairly minor raiding parties coming in from the deserts or the Moorish lands to the west.

But an inland fort looking south and west would have been cut off as Arab armies marched overland from Egypt to invade Carthage in the late 600s.  Any troops stationed there could have either been withdrawn to defend Carthage itself or they would have surrendered to the Muslims having been cut off from help.

The ancient Roman city of Ammaedara was abandoned and the area renamed Haidra in Arabic.  Even today it remains basically a rural crossroads with only 3,000 people.

Remains of the Byzantine Fortress

The south side of the Byzantine Fort. These walls were easily 20-25 feet high.

Underground Baths http://looklex.com/tunisia/haidra06.htm

Underground Baths

The structure called "Vandal chapel" has paving stones with crude inscriptions of 6th century Vandal kings. The chapel by itself is small and uninteresting, but it is one of very few remains from this period.   (looklex.com)

The Basilica of the Martyrs stands alone to the extreme east at Haïdra. Its layout can be made out, and the apse is in fair condition.

This is one of the numerous gravestones inside the church. The majority are in Latin, but there are also several in Ancient Greek.

(Vandal Kingdom)      (Exarchate of Africa)      (Africa - Roman province)

(crc-internet.org)      (isaactunisia)      (looklex.com/tunisia/haidra)     

(looklex.com)      (historvius)      (ammaedarahaidra)     

(Haidra)      (panoramio)      (paris-sorbonne.fr)

Sometimes one has to wonder what the point is of border "fortifications". 

The Romans spent mountains of money to "secure" their borders on the Rhine and Danube Rivers.  But this expensive line of fortifications acted more like a sieve than a wall.  For centuries enemies of every kind appeared to pour through in one long endless parade, often with little to no fear of defending Roman armies.

That brings us to the Gothic invasions and the Battle of Adrianople (9 August 378), sometimes known as the Battle of Hadrianopolis.  The battlewas fought between a Roman army led by the Eastern Roman Emperor Valens and Gothic rebels led by Fritigern.

Eastern Emperor Valens

The Goth Invasion

The first incursion of the Roman Empire that can be attributed to Goths is the sack of Histria in 238. Several such raids followed in subsequent decades, in particular the Battle of Abrittus in 251, led by Cniva, in which the Roman Emperor Decius was killed.

At the time, there were at least two groups of Goths: the Thervingi and the Greuthungi. Goths were subsequently heavily recruited into the Roman Army to fight in the Roman-Persian Wars.

Over and over again massive waves of invading peoples pushed into the Empire from beyond the Danube looking for land, wealth and security. . . . usually looking for the wealth of the Romans.

By 376 AD, displaced by the invasions of the Huns, the Goths, led by Alavivus and Fritigern, asked to be allowed to settle in the Roman Empire. Hoping that they would become farmers and soldiers, the Emperor Valens allowed them to establish themselves in the Empire as allies (foederati).

As the Goths undertook the crossing, Valens's mobile forces were tied down in the east, on the Persian frontier and in Isauria. This meant that only limitanei units were present to oversee the Goths' settlement. The small number of imperial troops present prevented the Romans from stopping a Danube crossing by a group of Goths and later by Huns and Alans. What started out as a controlled resettlement mushroomed into a massive influx.

The situation grew worse. The Roman generals present began abusing the Visigoths under their charge, they revolted in early 377 and defeated the Roman units in Thrace outside of Marcianople.

After joining forces with the Ostrogoths and eventually the Huns and Alans, the combined barbarian group marched widely before facing an advance force of imperial soldiers sent from both east and west. In a battle at Ad Salices, the Goths were once again victorious, winning free run of Thrace.

By 378, Valens himself was able to march west from his eastern base in Antioch. He withdrew all but a skeletal force — some of them Goths — from the east and moved west, reaching Constantinople by 30 May, 378.

Meanwhile, Valens' councilors, Comes Richomeres, and his generals Frigerid, Sebastian, and Victor cautioned Valens and tried to persuade him to wait for Gratian's arrival with his victorious legionaries from Gaul, something that Gratian himself strenuously advocated.

What happened next is an example of hubris, the impact of which was to be felt for years to come. Valens, jealous of his nephew Gratian's success, decided he wanted this victory for himself.




Opposing Forces

From ancient times to today all sides have exaggerated the numbers of troops involved.  This makes it tricky at best to get proper battle estimates.

Eastern Romans  -  The once great Legions had at one time numbered about 5,000 men. By this period their full strength was far less, and probably no more than 1,000 or so. Most operations were small in scale, and even emperors often led armies numbering no more than a few thousand men.

The fourth-century Roman army specialized in low-level warfare. Pitched battles were rare. They fought instead mainly as the barbarians fought, using speed, surprise attacks, and ambush. Roman troops proved adept at this type of fighting, aided by their training, discipline, clear command structure, and well-organized logistical support.

Valens' army may have included troops from any of three Roman field armies: the Army of Thrace, based in the eastern Balkans, but which may have sustained heavy losses in 376–377, the 1st Army in the Emperor's Presence, and the 2nd Army in the Emperor's Presence, both based at Constantinople in peacetime but committed to the Persian frontier in 376 and sent west in 377–378.

Valens' army was composed of veterans and men accustomed to war. It comprised seven legions — among which were the Legio I Maximiana and imperial auxiliaries — of 700 to 1000 men each. The cavalry was composed of mounted archers (sagittarii) and Scholae (the imperial guard). However, these did not represent the strong point of the army and would flee on the arrival of the Gothic cavalry.

There were also squadrons of Arab cavalry, but they were more suited to skirmishes than to pitched battle.

The historian Warren Treadgold estimates that, by 395, the Army of Thrace had 24,500 soldiers, while the 1st and 2nd Armies in Emperor's Presence had 21,000 each. However, all three armies include units either formed (several units of Theodosiani among them) or redeployed (various legions in Thrace) after Adrianople. Moreover, troops were needed to protect Marcianopolis and other threatened cities, so it is unlikely that all three armies fought together.

On the low end of estimates Roman troops in the battle might have been 15,000 men, 10,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry.  The high end might be in 30,000 to 40,000 range.

The Gothic invasion was a major priority for both the Western and Eastern Empires as both Emperors were bringing armies to the Balkans to beat down the threat.

Under these circumstances the low end estimate of 15,000 is absurd.  The Emperor himself would not be marching into a major battle with a small force.

In combining units from the eastern front and the field armies in the Balkans and Constantinople an army of 30,000 to 40,000 men would not be an unreasonable number.

These  Scandinavian  warriors  are  almost  identical  with  their  Gothic  relatives  because  of  their  unity  of  culture.  The  weaponry  of  the  Scandinavians/Vikings  was  in  fact  originated  from  the  arms  and  armor  of  their  Germanic  kinsmen  in  the  main  European  continent , especially  from  those  of  the  Eastern  Teutonic  tribes. (Periklis Deligiannis)

The Goths  -  The Gothic armies were mostly infantry with some cavalry, however; in the battle of Adrianople the large force of Gothic cavalry was 5,000 strong. 

The Goths and Vandals were predominantly cavalry-oriented armies although, as the Battle of Adrianople illustrates, they could also field redoubtable infantry.

There is little direct evidence for Gothic military equipment. There is more evidence for Vandal, Roman, and West Germanic military equipment, which provides the base for inferences about Gothic military equipment.

Generally speaking there was little difference between well-armed Germanic and Roman soldiers, furthermore many Germanic soldiers served in the Roman forces. The Roman army was better able to equip its soldiers than the Germanic armies.

Late Roman representational evidence, including propaganda monuments, gravestones, tombs, and the Exodus fresco, often shows Late Roman soldiers with one or two spears; one tombstone shows a soldier with five shorter javelins.Archaeological evidence, from Roman burials and Scandinavian bog-deposits, shows similar spearheads.


Goth warriors 4th Century

Cavalry mainly took the form of heavy, close combat cavalry backed up by light scouts and horse archers. For a Gothic or Vandal nobleman the most common form of armour was a mail shirt, often reaching down to the knees, and an iron or steel helmet, often in a Roman Ridge helm style. Some of the wealthiest warriors may have a worn a lamellar cuirass over mail, and splinted greaves and vambraces on the forearms and forelegs.


Army Size

Numbers are wildly thrown around that range from as low as 12,000 to 100,000 Goth warriors.  Both extreme ends are ridiculous. 

In no way would a small army of 12,000 Goths be so dangerous that both Emperors would drop everything and rush to the Balkans.  The extreme of high numbers of Goths is simply the traditional over counting of an enemy for some domestic political purpose.

There were probably two main Gothic armies south of the Danube. Fritigern led one army, largely recruited from the Therving exiles, while Alatheus and Saphrax led another army, largely recruited from the Greuthung exiles.

Fritigern brought most if not all of his fighters to the battle, and appears to have been the force the Romans first encountered. Alatheus and Saphrax brought most of their cavalry, and possibly some of their infantry, to the battlefield late. These infantry were indicated as being an Alan battalion.

The Barbarian invasions were literally migrations of entire peoples and tribes.  This would result in what I call the de-Latinization of the Balkans as every new wave of invaders replaced the old Roman population.  So it is possible that the entire Gothic and related peoples below the Danube could have run up to 100,000.

In a major campaign the Goths would have gathered all possible males of military age to face down the Romans.  That might have resulted in a field army or armies totaling perhaps 30,000 warriors or more.  Certainly a force of that size would have commanded the attention of both Emperors.





The Battle

The battle took place about 8 miles north of Adrianople in the Roman province of Thracia.  Though fought between the Goths and the Eastern Roman Empire,  the battle is often considered the start of the final collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century.

The Western Emperor Gratian had sent much of his army to Pannonia when the Lentienses attacked across the Rhine. Gratian recalled his army and defeated the Lentienses near Argentaria (in modern France).

After this campaign, Gratian, with part of his field army, went east by boat; the rest of his field army went east overland. The former group arrived at Sirmium in Pannonia and at the Camp of Mars (a fort near the Iron Gates), 400 kilometers from Adrianople, where some Alans attacked them. Gratian's group withdrew to Pannonia shortly thereafter.

Western Emperor Gratian

Valens left Antioch for Constantinople, and arrived on the 30th of May. He appointed Sebastianus, newly arrived from Italy, to reorganize the Roman armies already in Thrace. Sebastianus picked 2,000 of his legionaries and marched towards Adrianople. They ambushed some small Gothic detachments. Fritigern assembled the Gothic forces at Nicopolis and Beroe to deal with this Roman threat

As at Ad Salices, the tribesmen had formed their wagons into a large circle with their families and possessions protected within, and the warriors forming a line outside, facing the approaching enemy.

The Romans began to deploy, the head of the column wheeling to the right and marching to where they would take position as the far right flank of the line. Cavalry and light infantry covered the deployment. The Goths began chanting as they tried to encourage themselves and intimidate their enemy. Others lit bush fires in the dry scrub and grass. The wind took the smoke toward the Romans, which was unpleasant, but more important, made it hard for them to see much of the Gothic position. Fritigern was expecting reinforcements, mainly from the Greuthungi (including a strong force of cavalry), and the smoke would conceal their approach.

The Gothic chieftain needed time to let these men arrive, but that does not mean that he was wholly insincere when he sent a delegation to parley with Valens. Fritigern had little to gain and a lot to lose by fighting the emperor. Negotiation was still his aim, although adding more warriors to his force would strengthen his hand.

Valens refused to receive the first delegation, since the men were of low status. However, when the Goths sent a second proposal and asked for a senior Roman to go over to them as a hostage for the safety of their own party, the emperor's staff got as far as choosing a man for the job. Valens may also have been playing for time, for his army was still moving into position, and yet he too would have been willing to end things with negotiation, especially since the Goths were much more numerous than he had expected. A bloodless victory was as prestigious as a battlefield success, and avoided Roman losses.

Roman Cavalry (Roman Empire.net)

Whatever the intentions of the leaders, some of their followers proved more aggressive. When two armies were formed up so close to each other, things were bound to be tense. Suddenly two Roman cavalry units on the right wing launched an attack, without orders. The Goths soon chased them away, but the fighting quickly provoked the rest of the Roman line to attack, and it drove forward, reaching the laager at some points.

Yet not everyone had been in position. The rear of the column was destined to make up the left of the Roman formation, but these men were only just arriving on the field. The rear of a long column is usually the most aggravating place to be on a long march. Soldiers there wait longest when there is any delay, and then must rush to catch up. Hurried on by their officers, these Roman regiments arrived tired and not yet ready for the general advance.

The account by historian Barry Jacobsen is a good one.  He writes that the Gothic position was upon a low hill, behind a barrier of wagons, defending their camp. The Romans deployed in the plain below them. The Roman foot held the center, the cavalry divided on both wings.

Throughout the hot summer day, the Romans stood deployed under the baking sun; while the Fritigern stretched out peace negotiations. No doubt the Gothic leader hesitated to engage in a trial of arms against the elite “Army in the Presence”. Just as importantly, they were stalling for time to allow their cavalry to return; which were away foraging.

Late in the day, a skirmish broke out between the Roman leftwing cavalry and the Goths opposite them. Losing patience, Valens ordered a general attack.

Standing in ranks all day under a blazing sun, wearing helmet, carrying a 12 pound shield, and in some cases wearing metal body armor will sap the strength of the best conditioned soldiers. Pushing uphill, the already tired Roman forces were sluggish. Even so, progress was being made and the wagonberg was overrun in some places when suddenly, returning to the field, the Gothic cavalry fell upon the flanking Roman horse!

In a cavalry fight, impetus and momentum are of the highest importance. One moment the Roman horse had been mere spectators, holding the flanks and watching their infantry assaulting the wagonberg. The next, they were caught  “flat-footed”, as charging Gothic horsemen smashed into their formations! After a brief and desperate struggle, the Roman squadrons gave way, routing from the field.

Goth Hill Looking south over the battlefield from the hill where the Gothic wagonberg was located. This is the view the Goths would have had from their camp of Valens’ army deployed on the plain; and gives a good impression of how difficult a “slog” up this hill, under fire from Gothic bows and javelins, the tired Roman infantry would have had that hot sumer afternoon.

Deprived of their cavalry and the flank protection it afforded, the Roman attack on the wagonberg faltered. Roman soldiers, looking over their shoulders, could see and hear the furious melee on their flanks. And though clouds of choking dust no doubt obscured the details, it must have been apparent that their cavalry was fleeing the field.

The victorious Gothic cavalry now wheeled inward, attacking the flanks and rear of the Roman infantry. At that moment, the Gothic foot sallied from the camp, attacking the Romans from the front. Valens and his men now found themselves surrounded and assailed from every direction.

Ammianus Marcellinus, himself a soldier, provided a vivid description of what followed:


In the blinding, choking dust that covered the battlefield, all cohesion and tactical control was lost. Attacked from all sides, the Roman lines crumbled inward. Reports tell how soldiers were pressed together so closely that many could not raise their arms from their sides.



Some of the elite units held their ground, making a last stand. Foremost of these were two of the  Palatine Legions (elite legions that served in the Emperor’s own field force), the Lanciarii Seniors and the Matiarii.  The Lanciari were the senior legion of the Roman army, and they showed their quality that day. When all others lost their heads, they kept theirs. Valens took refuge in this island amidst the storm. He ordered the reserves brought up; but though comprised of elite cohorts of Auxilia Palatina,  these too had fled the field. The officers sent to fetch them followed suit, deserting their emperor.

Accounts differ as to Valens fate. One tale has him struck dead amidst these stalwart last defenders.  Another, though, states that he was struck by a Gothic javelin or arrow; and was carried to a nearby farmhouse. There, his bodyguards held the Goths off for a time; till the house was set afire; killing all but one, who jumped free of the blaze and was taken prisoner (later relating the Emperor’s fate). That Valens’ body was never recovered lends credibility to this account.

The battle ended with the coming of darkness, allowing some survivors to fight their way out.  On the battlefield, the Emperor and the cream of the Eastern Roman Army lay dead.






Roman Infantry The blue clothed soldier with the square shields are the Roman legionaries. The less heavily armed soldier with the lighter, green, oval shields in the foreground are non-Roman auxiliary troops; in this case Batavian infantrymen. . The spooky wolf’s head protruding over all at the back of the picture is the animal skin decoration of the vexillarius, the standard bearer of the unit.

Aftermath

Some two-thirds of the Roman army died. Ammianus compared the disaster to the battle of Cannae in August 216 bc, a devastating battle in which Hannibal had slaughtered some 50,000 Roman and Italian soldiers and captured another 20,000. Valens's force was smaller and very different from the citizen volunteers who had marched to battle the Carthaginians. Nonetheless, Adrianople was a dreadful Roman defeat.

Thirty-five Roman tribunes—officers elected by the people who commanded regiments or were staff officers—also died in the battle. It is possible that they suffered a higher rate of loss than the two-thirds casualties suffered by the rest of the army. Since Valens himself apparently died, casualties among his headquarters may well have been extremely high.

According to the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, a third of the Roman army succeeded in retreating.

The Roman defeat was a great victory for the Goths. Yet strategically, Fritigern and his people had gained very little, for they needed to negotiate with an emperor, not kill one and destroy a Roman army. In victory, the Goths launched an attack on the city of Adrianople, hoping to capture the supplies Valens had brought to support his army, but there were enough soldiers still within the city to easily repulse the Goths.  Also, Ammianus refers to a great number of retreating Roman soldiers who had not been let into the city and who fought the besieging Goths below the walls.

Rome's response to its loss at first verged on panic. Local authorities disarmed and massacred parties of Goths throughout the eastern empire, even some serving loyally in the Roman army. For Gratian, it was more important to ensure a smooth transition of power than to focus on dealing with Fritigern. Early in 379, he appointed a man named Flavius Theodosius as eastern emperor, to replace Valens.

The two men proved able to work together, and the new emperor showed considerable talent as an organizer. He raised new troops, and reinforced the laws against draft dodging. It took time to train the recruits, and so he reverted to the earlier strategy of harassing the Goths whenever possible. After a while, Theodosius grew bolder and attacked a larger concentration. His father had been a distinguished general, but the son proved less talented and the enemy cut up his column.

Still, the Romans won the war slowly and gradually, with no more major battles. Instead, they raided and ambushed isolated groups of Goths, tried to keep control of the important mountain passes and gradually hemmed the migrants into a smaller and smaller area.

They were also keen to accept surrenders. Several groups capitulated to Gratian. He removed them, giving them land in Italy. By the end of 382, all of the Goths within the empire had surrendered.

The Death of the Roman Legion

The long-term implications of the battle of Adrianople have often been debated and re-debated.

One major idea is that the battle represented a turning point in military history, with heavy cavalry triumphing over Roman infantry and ushering in the age of the Medieval knight. This idea is mostly coming from historians who have a Western European knighthood frame of reference, and it is wrong. 

Eastern Roman cavalry did not become knights.  The cavalry arm of the army simply grew (evolved) because of the mobility of the enemies the Empire faced.

Roman cavalry slowly copied their Persian enemies and became cataphracts or armored horse archers.  The 5th-century Notitia Dignitatum mentions a specialist unit of clibanarii known as the Equites Sagittarii Clibanarii - evidently a unit of heavily armored horse archers based on the heavy cavalry of contemporary Persian armies.


The cataphracts were both fearsome and disciplined. Both man and horse were heavily armored, the riders equipped with lances, bows and maces. These troops were slow compared to other cavalry, but their effect on the battlefield, particularly under good generals like Belisarius or the Emperor Nikephoros II, was devastating.

I would say that Adrianople killed the old style Legion as a primary force in the east.  As the older Eastern Legions were destroyed or badly mangled they were not replaced or they merged with new units under new names. 

Units did survive Adrianople.  For example Legio I Maximiana is mentioned as still under Thracian command at the beginning of the 5th century, and was in Philae (Egypt, south of Aswan), under the dux Thebaidos.

What was left of Legion units were used more and more to man strongpoints in wars that increasingly became defensive in nature.

Despite a number of reforms, the Legion system did manage to survive the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and was continued in the Eastern Empire until around 7th century. At that time reforms begun by Emperor Heraclius to counter the increasing need for soldiers around the Empire resulted in the Theme system.

Despite this, the Eastern Roman/Byzantine armies continued to be influenced by the earlier Roman legions, and were maintained with similar level of discipline, strategic prowess, and organization.


(fordham.edu)      (Gothic War)      (Gothic warfare)      (Late Roman army)

(Valens)      (Goths)      (deadliestblogpage)      (militaryhistoryonline)

(historynet)      (roman-empire.net)      (Adrianople)

Tsar Samuel
Enemy of the Roman Empire


(Radio Bulgaria)  -  In 2014, this country marks 1,000 years since the tragic death of Samuel of Bulgaria, who couldn’t bear the sight of his blinded warriors after the Battle of Kleidion and most likely suffered a fatal heart attack as a result.

Radio Bulgaria has already framed the anniversary and the forthcoming commemorating events, but Samuel’s life appears to have been so colorful and full of dramatic turnabouts that a mini-series of articles devoted to it would be more than justifiable.

For instance, on 14 June 987 Samuel ordered the execution of… Aaron, his own brother! However, some prehistory here proves that he had a good reason to do that.

In the late 10^th century, both Bulgaria and Byzantium had entangled themselves in a war with Prince Sviatoslav, the ruler of Kievan Rus’. The relations between the two neighboring empires were tense as well, especially after the death of the Byzantine Princess Maria Lakapina, who had been married to the Bulgarian Tsar Peter I. The latter was forced to send his two sons – Boris and Roman, as honorary hostages to Constantinople, in order to maintain the peace. However, Petar I also died of a heart attack after a defeat by Prince Sviatoslav in 969 /or 970/.

Byzantine Emperor John I Tzimiskes took his chance and invaded the eastern parts of the Bulgarian Empire, kicking the Russians out at the same time. Everyone would say that it was the end of the First Bulgarian Empire, as the two heirs of the throne remained in Constantinople’s golden cage, but there was that Cometopuli dynasty to the West…

The remains of the Basilica of Agios Achillios in Lake Prespa, where Samuil's grave was found.

Samuel was the fourth and youngest son of Comita (count) Nikola - a Bulgarian nobleman from the Cometopuli dynasty, who might have been the count of Sredets (the ancient name of today’s capital Sofia), though other sources say he was a regional count somewhere in the region of what’s today Macedonia. Samuel’s mother was Ripsima of Armenia. His Armenian roots are also suggested by his hooked nose, as examined and reconstructed by contemporary Bulgarian anthropologists. A plaster copy of his skull and mandible were provided by the Greek government as early as 1974-76.

In the period 970 – 971, the four brothers with the biblical names – Samuel, David, Moses and Aaron rebelled against John I Tzimiskes. The chronology of the events that followed is not clear due to contradicting sources, but it is sure that after 971 Samuel and his three brothers were de facto the rulers of the Western Bulgarian lands. Despite being the most distinguished of the four, Samuel would refuse to overthrow the legislative power of Tsar Boris, still held a hostage in Constantinople. This however wouldn’t be an obstacle to his intentions to oppose Byzantium in every possible way and after the death of John I Tzimiskes in 976 the opportunity emerged.

The first two contradictory deaths in the legend of Samuel occurred during the assault, launched along the whole border by the Comitopuli brothers back then. Only within a few weeks after the start of the campaign David was slaughtered by Vlach vagrants near the town of Prespa – the official version, but historical sources claim his death was actually quite mysterious… At the same time Moses was fatally injured by some stone, accidentally thrown from behind the walls of the besieged Serres. There are historians, who would blame Samuel for both fatal endings, due to his lust for power. At the same time no historical source has confirmed that version so far and the fact that Samuel had refused to take the place of the legal tsar through all those years comes only to confirm his innocence…

Basil II defeats Samuel's army (top); The death of Tsar Samuel (bottom)

One way or another, a fateful event that followed would decide his destiny: somewhere around 978 the two heirs of the Bulgarian throne returned from Constantinople within quite vague circumstances. An escape, however, would be a very reliable version, as they were both dressed like Greeks – a fact that would turn into a fatal misfortune. A Bulgarian border police officer mistakenly took Boris for an enemy due to his clothing and killed him. The only thing, which saved Roman’s life, was his frantic screaming in Bulgarian.

Despite being turned into eunuch in Constantinople before that, the new tsar was warmly welcomed and inaugurated by Samuel. At the same time Roman was aware of his weakness and de facto he let his talented top general rule the country.

Unfortunately, the first danger that the new ruler had to cope with was… his own brother. The new Byzantine Emperor Basil II had decided to bribe Aaron, who was at that time in charge of the lands, situated most closely to Thrace, by offering him a marriage with his sister. Aaron wanted to stop the war with Byzantium and to unseat his brother, so he accepted. However, the woman, sent from Constantinople and accompanied by the Sebastian Bishop, had nothing to do with the emperor’s sister.

As Aaron immediately found out about the deceit, he ordered the burning of the bishop, historical sources say… When Basil II heard about the balefire, he gathered a huge army and besieged Sredets in the course of 20 days, but unsuccessfully. Upon his return, he was ambushed in the Gate of Trajan mountain pass on his way back to Philippopolis by the united forces of Aaron and Samuel, who inflicted such a defeat to the Greek army that Basil’s life was hanging by the thread and he escaped miraculously with few of his men.

The fact that Samuel helped his brother for the greater good wouldn’t mean forgiveness for his betrayal. Less than a year after the great victory on 17 August 986 Samuel ordered the slaughtering of the entire Aaron’s family and the execution of the latter… The new Bulgarian Cain had no time to lose, as he was about to continue his 40-year-long battle with the one who would be later remembered as the Bulgar-slayer…

First Bulgarian Empire Samuel was the Tsar (Emperor) of the First Bulgarian Empire from 997 to 6 October 1014. From 977 to 997, he was a general under Roman I of Bulgaria, the second surviving son of Emperor Peter I of Bulgaria, and co-ruled with him, as Roman bestowed upon him the command of the army and the effective royal authority. . As Samuel struggled to preserve his country's independence from the Byzantine Empire, his rule was characterized by constant warfare against the Byzantines and their equally ambitious ruler Basil II. . The Battle of Kleidion. Despite the desperate resistance the Byzantines overwhelmed the Bulgarian army and captured around 14,000 soldiers, according to some sources even 15,000 Basil II immediately sent forces under his favourite commander Theophylactus Botaniates to pursue the surviving Bulgarians, but the Byzantines were defeated in an ambush by Gavril Radomir, who personally killed Botaniates. . After the Battle of Kleidion, on the order of Basil II the captured Bulgarian soldiers were blinded; one of every 100 men was left one-eyed so as to lead the rest home. The blinded soldiers were sent back to Samuel who reportedly had a heart attack upon seeing them. He died two days later, on 15 October 1014. This savagery gave the Byzantine emperor his byname Boulgaroktonos ("Bulgar-slayer"). Some historians theorize it was the death of his favourite commander that infuriated Basil II to blind the captured soldiers.

(Samuel of Bulgaria)

Editor -  Below is a wonderful 1988 article by Professor Eric McGeer on Eastern Roman military tactics.  It is refreshing to read material by true experts on a subject.

Eastern Roman military history had suffered from a near total lack of proper histories written by those who witnessed the events.  We historians have to fill in the lack of detailed information with what we know from similar events. In this case I can say that the Byzantine infantry units have not been given proper credit by historians.

Byzantine infantry have lived in the shadow of the Roman Legions. But the Byzantine Army stood centuries longer than the legions of Rome. They must have been doing something right.

Professor McGeer details how Byzantine units formed and maintained complex infantry squares against attacking Arab cavalry. This required a great deal of training for the officers so they would be able to organize multiple units to act together while under enemy fire. But also the average soldier and his unit would must have had considerable training to firmly hold their assigned position during the madness of battle.

For over 800 years the Byzantines had to face down an seemingly endless stream of fanatical Islamist armies bent on conquest. Simply they held their own and often defeated and drove back their enemies.  Winning is not an accident. The soldiers and their officers were trained well.

Enjoy.

The Byzantines encountered many different nations on the battlefield during their long history. The surveys of foreign peoples in the military manuals amply illustrate the Byzantines' readiness not only to analyze the tactics and characteristics of their enemies, but also even to learn from them when necessary. Their recognition of the need to study and to adapt themselves to the unfamiliar methods of warfare practiced by their enemies pays witness to the intellectual and practical character of the Byzantine approach to war.


The recorded observation of enemy skills and tactics was a feature which the Byzantines added to the long tradition of military science inherited from classical Antiquity. The study of war was energetically renewed in tenth-century Byzantium, as the number of important manuscripts and texts dating from this period clearly demonstrates.

This renewal of military science was largely in response to the increasing danger from the Arabs, whom the Byzantines had come to consider their most formidable enemies. It is always a difficult problem to determine what relation there was between traditional theory and contemporary practice in the Byzantine military texts — to what extent did the tenth-century strategists combine theory with practice to create formations and tactics which would be effective against the Arabs?
The analysis of the battle formation and tactics prescribed for infantry in the Praecepta militaria (ca. 965) sheds interesting light on this question. The choice of this subject will provide the opportunity to examine the underestimated role and importance of infantry in Byzantine armies of the period, as well as to see how the author of the Praecepta relied on earlier sources and his own observations to develop a formation and set of tactics for Byzantine infantry facing Arab cavalry.


Other tenth-century treatises show that the Byzantines also used a square for the same purposes, but the Sylloge is the first text in which a square is prescribed as the standard battle formation for Byzantine infantry. According to this text, one employed the infantry square to act as a mobile base for cavalry, either to follow in support of a successful cavalry attack on the enemy or to offer an immediate place of refuge in case the cavalry met with defeat. The author of the Praecepta followed the Sylloge closely as the blueprint for the basic deployment and tactics for infantry supporting cavalry in battle, occasionally even quoting his main source.

But at the same time, it must be said that he read the Sylloge critically and realistically, leaving aside all of its painstaking calculations of the manpower in the infantry force or of the measurements of the infantry square. In selecting only material which he knew conformed with the types of soldier and equipment at his disposal, the author of the Praecepta sought to give an up-to-date account of the Byzantine army". The real departure from the Sylloge, however, begins with his systematic description of the infantry force and the situations which it might have to confront on the battlefield.


The author informs us that the heavy infantrymen were to be picked out from both Byzantines and Armenians (who formed a particularly ferocious contingent in the armies of Nikephoros Phokas), while the lighter άκοντισταίwere supplied by « Russians » (or by other foreigners).

10th Century Byzantine Varangian Guard

The square offered the Byzantines important advantages as a battle formation in enemy lands. Facing four ways, it could not be outflanked or attacked from behind, always an urgent consideration when dealing with the Arabs. In providing immediate refuge for defeated cavalry, it prevented mass and prolonged flight which was usually the makings of real disaster for an army far from home. 

Furthermore, the author tells us that during battle the wounded and the exhausted could find shelter inside the square, while extra infantrymen could be assigned to bring water to the combatants to relieve their thirst, or stones and arrows to the slingers and archers so as to avoid these soldiers having to leave their places in search of more ammunition. Many of these factors suggest strongly that the author was well aware of the psychological advantages inherent in such a formation, not least the enhanced sense of collective security among men who know that their sides and backs are protected, that they can be saved if wounded and relieved if overcome with thirst or exhaustion. 

It must not be over looked, either, that a square facing four ways prevents easy flight by its very shape. For men about to face an all-out cavalry charge on their position, the lack of alternatives was probably the only reason why many of them decided to stay and fight when they would much rather have run away. Deployed as we have seen them, how were the Byzantine infantry to join battle with the enemy ?

Arab Cavalry in World War I.

Infantry versus infantry encounters are treated very briefly. If the enemy were not very sophisticated and simply attacked in a broad line, the άκοντισταίand the μοναυλάτοι on the two flanks of the square not directly engaged were to pour out round the enemy's flanks in a semi-circular movement and crush their line between them. If the enemy infantry were also deployed in a square (as Leo tells us the Arabs often were), then the άκοντισταίand the μοναυλάτοι inside the Byzantine square were sent to the aid of their comrades on whichever side of the square the enemy had attacked. 

These very sparse directions indicate that the author considered a purely infantry battle to be very unlikely, and, as a result, was far more occupied with infantry versus cavalry confrontations —both how to resist enemy cavalry with his infantry and how to destroy enemy infantry with his own cavalry, spearheaded by the mighty κατάφρακτοι.

It was when the enemy had defeated or scattered the Byzantine cavalry and intended to follow up on their success with an assault on the remaining force that the Byzantine infantry came into their own. 

The Arab cavalry posed two problems which the infantry square was designed to counter The first problem was that of their light skirmishers (to whom our author refers as Άραβϊται), who were mounted on very swift horses and used their great speed to ride round the square in hopes of luring the Byzantines into breaking ranks, whereupon they would suddenly wheel about to catch them off guard. 

But if these skirmishers were left at a distance or ignored, their effectiveness was much reduced, since they would never dare close with a strongly defended infantry formation, nor could they surprise the Byzantines with attacks from the flanks or rear. For their part, the Byzantines had no hopes of coming to grips with the elusive Arab raiders and thus could only remain in formation, undeceived by their enemies' feigned attacks and withdrawals.

The Infantry Square Above is a Turkish attack on an Austrian infantry square in 1788. . The infantry square can be traced to ancient times. The formation was described by Plutarch and used by the Romans, and was developed from an earlier circular formation. In particular, a large infantry square was utilized by the Roman legions at the Battle of Carrhae against Persia, whose armies contained a large proportion of cavalry. . The formation was constituted as a hollow square. It was vital for squares to stand firm in the face of a cavalry charge, but they were not static formations. Astute commanders could, in suitable terrain, manoeuvre squares to mass archer fire on enemy formations. . Attacking cavalry would attempt to "break a square" by causing it to lose its cohesion, either by charging to induce poorly disciplined infantry to flee before making contact, or by causing casualties through close-range combat. . Combined attacks by infantry and cavalry would also have the same effect - the defending infantry unit would be placed in the difficult position of either forming square and being shot to pieces by archers of the attacking infantry, or being ridden down by the cavalry if it decided to remain in line while trading volleys with the attacking infantry.

A Byzantine Infantry Square

The second problem was posed by the more intimidating Arab regular cavalry, or even, as it appears, by their heavy cavalry, to whom the task fell to make a direct attack on the Byzantine infantry. As it became clear which side of the square the enemy planned to attack in strength, the Byzantines bolstered their lines accordingly. The two πεντηκόνταρχοι (one on the left wing of the line, the other on the right) in one of the two rear lines of όπλϊται led their fifty men forward through the intervals into the front lines of their ταξιαρχία, making them three deep in όπλϊται. 

At this point, the one hundred μοναυλάτοι in the ταξιαρχία also came forward through the intervals into the front lines, now four deep. This manoeuvre, taught to the soldiers in training, not only provided for the prompt  reinforcement of the front lines where necessary, but also served to deceive the enemy as to the real depth of the front lines which they were about to attack. As I interpret the Praecepta, it would appear that the όπλϊται and the μοναυλάτοι anchored the butt ends of their spears against the ground and aimed the points at an angle into the chests of the enemy warhorses, creating, in effect, a « chevaux de frise » four men deep. 

The exceptionally thick and solid μοναύλιον was designed to withstand the impact of an enemy armoured cavalry charge, for as the author says, « even if the three-deep spears of the όπλϊται are smashed by the enemy κατάφρακτοι, then the μοναυλάτοι, being firmly set, stand their ground bravely, receiving the charge of the κατάφρακτοι and turn them away »29. Once embroiled with the όπλϊται and μοναυλάτοι in front of them, the enemy cavalrymen were then set upon by the άκοντισταί who circled in from the flanks of the square not under attack. These light and thus more agile soldiers could take advantage of the restricted mobility of the enemy cavalrymen engaged at close quarters and pick them off one by one by striking them from behind 
or from their unprotected right sides. 

The Arab cavalry ran up against this thicket of spears after riding through a hail of arrows launched by the nine hundred archers stationed behind the spearmen on any one side of the square. If indeed the όπλΐται and the μοναυλάτοι were crouched over their fixed spears, the archers would have been able to shoot over their heads all the more easily, even to within very short range as the enemy drew near. 

Most unfortunately, our author does not give any details as to how archers stood, how they were commanded, or what their rate of shot was expected to be in battle. But their close cooperation with spearmen in repulsing enemy cavalry must have been judged indispensable if one takes into account the vast number of arrows the army was instructed to have on hand. Each archer carried one hundred arrows himself and received fifty more from the store of arrows carried by the pack-animals in the army's baggage train. 

This plentiful supply was doubtless intended to guarantee that the archers would not run out of arrows during battle, and we have already seen that extra men were detailed to keep up a steady supply to them during the fighting. It seems clear enough from this evidence that the Byzantine generals wanted a constant and efficient performance from their archers to take a heavy toll on the enemy cavalrymen well before they reached the infantry lines. 

A Cavalry Charge

It took nerves of steel and discipline to stand shoulder to shoulder with your fellow soldiers and face a charge of enemy cavalry looking to chop you into small chunks. Your safety rested on all the other troops in your unit doing their job and holding firm. 

.

This video of a Norman cavalry charge gives you a flavor of what that must 

have been like.

Such, then, was the system developed and presented by the author of the Praecepta in order to satisfy the defensive requirements of Byzantine expeditionary armies. He adapted a simple, symmetrical formation outlined in an earlier source to the types of infantrymen in his army, and gave each type of infantrymen one specific task to perform in this defensive system. The formation and tactics which he developed were intended to solve two main difficulties for Byzantine infantry facing Arab cavalry — the swift attacks and counterattacks of the light skirmishers and the concentrated attacks of the regular or heavy cavalry. 

But as long as the Byzantine infantry could force the Arabs to fight on their terms, by making them attack from directly in front against a concentrated and reinforced defence, then the chances of success were probably very good. 

Later Byzantine strategists were not averse to making what changes were necessary to maintain the shifting balance between infantry and cavalry on the battlefield. Thirty years or so after the Praecepta was written, a second version of this work was written and included in the Tactica of Nikephoros Ouranos. 

Here we find a slight, but telling, adjustment in the system by which the Byzantine infantrymen deepened their lines before receiving the enemy charge. Instead of advancing one of the two rear lines of όπλΐται through the intervals into the front ranks; as we saw in the original Praecepta, the second version of this work by Nikephoros Ouranos (the victor at Spercheios in 996) instructs every second file of men in the ταξιαρχία to step sideways into the file beside it, thus making a file of men seven deep into a file of men fourteen deep. It will be observed from the diagram of this manoeuvre that the width of the ταξιαρχία is reduced by one file only. 

This adjustment was probably intended to secure two further advantages over the earlier system — that the Byzantine infantry could make their formation even deeper than before and that they could do so in less time. It is therefore tempting to conclude from this adjustment that as heavy cavalry came into greater use (as did the Byzantine κατάφρακτοι in the armies of Nikephoros Phokas and John Tzimiskes) the infantry were constantly obliged to find the means to stop them, resorting to deeper and deeper formations and to specialised soldiers such as the μοναυλάτοι, and that these countermeasures were periodically revised to keep pace with fresh developments. 

The close attention to infantry tactics in the military manuals consulted here reminds us that the Byzantines by no means neglected this component of their army in the middle period. The use of infantry was essentially defensive— in battle, on the march and in protecting encampments or fortresses — but was nevertheless indispensable in support of cavalry. In a broader context, the development of infantry tactics from the Sylloge to the Praecepta to the Tactica of Nikephoros Ouranos strengthens the argument that in this period the Byzantines did attempt to combine theory with practice and to pass their conclusions on for further thought. It is no coincidence that by the end of the tenth century their position along the Arab frontiers was much stronger than it had been one hundred years before. 

Eric McGeer 
Université de Montréal (Département d'Histoire) 

(Persee.fr)

Arab cavalry charge in the movie Lawrence of Arabia.

Persian Cavalry  (radpour.com)

The Iberian War was fought from 526 to 532 between the Eastern Roman Empire and Sassanid Persian Empire over the eastern Georgian kingdom of Iberia.

Tensions between the two powers were further heightened by the defection of the Iberian king Gourgen to the Romans. According to the historian Procopius, Kavadh I tried to force the Christian Iberians to become Zoroastrians, who in 524/525 under the leadership of Gourgen rose in revolt against Persia, following the example of the neighboring Christian kingdom of Lazica. Gourgen received pledges by Justin I that he would defend Iberia; the Romans indeed recruited Huns from the north of the Caucasus to assist the Iberians.

Violence escalated at various points where the power of the two empires met: in 525 a Roman fleet transported an Aksumite army to conquer Himyarite Yemen and in 525/526, Persia's Arab allies, the Lakhmids, raided Roman territories on the edge of the desert. By 526–527, overt fighting between the two empires had broken out in the Transcaucasus region and upper Mesopotamia, and the Persians continued to exert pressure on the Romans to obtain funds from them. Following the emperor Justin I's death in 527, Justinian I succeeded to the imperial throne. 

The early years of war favored the Persians: by 527 the Iberian revolt had been crushed, a Roman offensive against Nisibis and Thebetha in that year was unsuccessful, and forces attempting to fortify Thannuris and Melabasa were prevented from doing so by Persian attacks.

The Roman - Persian Frontier Some 30,000 Persian troops invaded Byzantium's Armenian  provinces resulting is the Battle of Satala.

Background

Satala Fortress East Gate Yes, I said the same thing, "That's a gate? How do they know?" I guess when the Persians destroy a fortress they really destroy a fortress.   From Livius.org

The Fortress of Satala

(From Livius)  When the emperor Vespasian added Commagene to the Roman empire (72 CE), the upper Euphrates became a frontier zone; across the river were the Parthian Empire and the buffer state Armenia. The main road along the Roman border (limes) was from Trapezus on the shores of the Black Sea to Alexandria near Issus, Seleucia, and Antioch near the Mediterranean in the south. The legionary bases along this highway were Satala (for the recently founded Sixteenth legion Flavia Firma), Melitene (XII Fulminata), Samosata (VI Ferrata), and Zeugma (IIII Scythica). 

Satala was chosen because it commanded not only the Euphrates, but also the road from central Anatolia to Armenia (essentially the modern E88/E80).

We would like to know more about the original settlement, but it will be hard to reconstruct it, because the site was destroyed in the mid-third century by troops of the Persian Sasanians (who had replaced the Parthians after 224), and was rebuilt several times. What can be seen today, belongs to the sixth-century reconstruction by the emperor Justinian (527-565). The circuit of the walls is too small to offer accommodation to a first- or second-century legion. The original military settlement is still lost.

Satala, Northern "Wall"

Satala, East "Wall"

Hardly anything is known about Satala's civil settlement, although it is certain that in the fourth century, there was a Christian community.

The city of Satala had been in a precarious state in ancient times. For it is situated not far from the land of the enemy and it also lies in a low-lying plain and is dominated by many hills which tower around it, and for this reason it stood in need of circuit-walls which would defy attack. Nevertheless, even though its surroundings were of such a nature as this, its defenses were in a perilous condition, having been carelessly constructed with bad workmanship in the beginning, and with the long passage of time the masonry had everywhere collapsed. But the Emperor tore all this down and built there a new circuit wall, so high that it seemed to overtop the hills around it, and of a thickness sufficient to ensure the safety of its towering mass. And he set up admirable outworks on all sides and so struck terror into the hearts of the enemy.

This fortress survived for almost a century, but was eventually captured and destroyed in 607/608 by the Persian Sasanian king Khusrau II the Victorious (590-628).

Persian King Kavadh I

Battle of Satala

Possible Route of the Persians It was a 126 mile march for the Persians from the Roman border fortress of Theodosiopolis (modern Erzurum) to Satala (Sadak). . The Persians would have had to detach considerable numbers of troops from the main army to secure their lines of communications and surround the Roman garrison at Theodosiopolis.

Eastern Roman Army Re-enactors

By Procopius of Caesarea
(500 to 560AD)

Editor -  Procopius is wonderful to read.  He gives us huge amounts of detail and first person accounts to events that were not seen by historians again for centuries. In the case of Satala, Procopius was not there.  I have reprinted his account because it does provide a certain amount of information.  But it is obvious by the lack of detail that Procopius is reporting to us events that were told to him by others.

Little remains of Satala. Here is a small portion of their ancient Roman aqueduct.

The "Eternal Peace"

After six years of combat the Iberian war was basically a draw.  The Romans had won the Battles of Dara and Satala, but Persian losses were so high in the Battle of Callinicum it was effectively a Pyrrhic victory.  After Callinicum the Romans captured some forts in Armenia, and effectively repulsed a Persian offensive.

Justinian's envoy, Hermogenes, visited Kavadh immediately after the Battle of Callinicum to re-open negotiations but without success. Justinian therefore took steps to bolster the Roman position, trying, at the same time, to engage Kavadh diplomatically. Kavadh died shortly afterwards, and in spring 532 new negotiations began between the Roman envoys and the new Persian king, Khosrau I, who needed to devote his attention to secure his own position. 

The two sides finally came to an agreement, and the Eternal Peace, which lasted less than eight years, was signed in September 532. Both sides agreed to return all occupied territories and the Romans to make a one-off payment of 110 centenaria (11,000 pounds of gold). 

The Romans recovered the Lazic forts, Iberia remained in Persian hands, but the Iberians who had left their country were allowed to remain in Roman territory or to return to their native land.

The Iberian War had ended.  But in only eight years yet another new Roman-Persian war broke out in Lazica.


(Procopius - History of the Wars Book I XV)      (Sittas)      (Livius.org - Satala)

(Mavors.org)      (Iberian War)      (Satala-530)

The Eastern Roman and Persian Empires

Anatolia remains one of the most important territories of the Byzantine Empire during this period. Eastern Anatolia becomes increasingly militarized in the 600s due to Persian and Arab invasions. The Iconoclastic controversy affects all the empire, including this region, until around 850, when Byzantium restors economic prosperity and military security. 

During this period, the Armenians and Georgians established themselves as relatively independent Christian states on the empire's eastern frontier. In Anatolia, Byzantine art and architecture flourishes, particularly in the sixth-century cities along the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts—including Ephesus, Sardis, and Aphrodisias—and in the region of Cappadocia, notable for its medieval, rock-cut structures.





The "Antioch Chalice," first half of 6th century
Byzantine; Made in Antioch or Kaper Koraon (?)
Silver, silver–gilt; 7 1/2 x 5 7/8 in. (19 x 15 cm)
The Cloisters Collection, 1950 (50.4)


When it was discovered at the beginning of the twentieth century, this "chalice" was claimed to have been found in Antioch, a city so important to the early Christians that it was recognized with Rome and Alexandria as one of the great sees of the church. 

The chalice's plain silver interior bowl was then ambitiously identified as the Holy Grail, the cup used by Christ at the Last Supper. The elaborate footed shell enclosing it was thought to have been made within a century after the death of Christ to encase and honor the Grail. The fruited grapevine forming the rinceau pattern of the gilded shell is inhabited by birds, including an eagle; animals, including a lamb and a rabbit; and twelve human figures holding scrolls and seated in high-backed chairs. Two of the figures are thought to be images of Christ. 

The other ten figures have been variously identified as ten of the twelve apostles, or philosophers of the classical age, who, like the prophets of the Old Testament, had foretold the coming of Christ. The sixth-century chronicler Malalas of Antioch was among those who sought to make such links between Christianity and classical philosophy.



Pair of Jeweled Bracelets, 500–700
Byzantine; Probably made in Constantinople
Gold, silver, pearl, amethyst, sapphire, glass, quartz, and emerald plasma; Diam. 3 1/4 in. (8.2 cm)
Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917 (17.190.1670, 1671)

These elaborately decorated bracelets have richly jeweled exteriors and finely detailed opus interassile (openwork) patterns on their interiors. The luminous beauty of pearls was highly prized in the Byzantine world. These bracelets are only two of thirty-four pieces of gold jewelry from Egypt said to have been found near Lycopolis (now Assiut) or Antinoopolis (Antinoe, now Sheik Ibada) in Egypt at the turn of the century. 

Whether discovered together, or later assembled, they represent the standard of luxury common among the elite in Egypt during the period of Byzantine rule and the close connections between the wealthy province and the capital in Constantinople. Multicolored, or polychrome, jewelry was very popular in the Early Byzantine world.




Portrait Bust of a Woman with a Scroll, late 4th–early 5th century
Early Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire)
Marble; H. 20 7/8 in. (53 cm)
The Cloisters Collection, 1966 (66.25)


This superbly carved portrait bust presents a pensive woman with a compelling gaze. She holds a scroll, the symbol of an educated person. 

The delicate, sensitive carving and the highly polished finish suggest that it was carved in Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine empire, perhaps as the funerary monument of a leading member of the imperial aristocracy. Her long fingers draw attention to the scroll in her hand, indicating her pride in being recognized as among the educated elite in an era that prized learning for both men and women.




Icon with the Deesis, mid–900s
Byzantine; Probably made in Constantinople
Ivory; 6 1/8 x 5 1/8 in. (15.6 x 13 cm)
Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917 (17.190.133)


In the Deesis, Christ appears in glory between the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist. Traditionally the first witnesses to Christ's divinity, the Virgin and Saint John came to be seen as intercessors with Christ on behalf of humanity. 

This plaque was probably the central panel of a triptych, a deluxe portable icon for personal devotion. Later, in western Europe, the panel may have been used as a cover for a gospel book.






Solidus of Justinian I (r. 527–565), 538–565
Byzantine; Minted in Constantinople
Gold; Diam. 3/4 in. (1.9 cm)
Bequest of Joseph H. Durkee, 1898 (99.35.7406)



Coins connected an emperor to his subjects. Through inscriptions and images, they conveyed imperial ideals and commemorated auspicious events. The emperor paid the army and received taxes in coins, and he was responsible for maintaining their weight and purity. 

This coin was minted under Justinian, whose preference for a completely frontal portrait—rather than the traditional profile—would set a standard for the rest of Byzantine history.



Caftan, 8th–10th century
Caucasus Mountain regions
Silk, linen, and fur; Coat: H. 56 in. (142.2 cm), W. 60 in. (152.4 cm); Leggings: H. 32 in. (81.3 cm)
Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 1996 (1996.78.1)

The original linen coat (caftan), preserved in part from the neck to the bottom of the hem, is made of finely woven linen. A decorative strip of large-patterned silk is sewn along the exterior and interior edges of the caftan. A minute fragment of lambskin preserved as the caftan's interior attests to its fur lining. 

The woven patterns on the silk borders of the caftan include motifs such as the rosettes and stylized animal patterns enclosed within beaded roundels, which were widespread in Iranian and Central Asian textiles of the sixth to ninth century. 

The colors used in the textile include a now-faded dark blue, yellow, red, and white on a dark brown ground. The decorated silk fabrics are a compound twill weave (samit in modern classification) and the body of the garment is plain-weave linen. Two slits running up the back of the caftan make it particularly suitable as a riding costume.

See more at
Met Museum.org

Roman Infantry (Roman-Empire.net)

Lajjun reconstruction. Reproduced from: Campbell DB, Roman Roman Legionary fortresses 27 BC - AD 378. Fortress Series 43. Osprey Military Publishing, 2007. P. 63.

Legio - Camp of the 6th Roman Legion

Lajjun was established after the Bar Kochba Revolt—a Jewish uprising against the Romans—had been suppressed in 135 CE. 

The Roman Emperor Hadrian ordered a second Roman legion, Legio VI Ferrata, ("Ironclad"), to be stationed in the north of the country to guard the Wadi Ara region, a crucial line of communication between the coastal plain of Judea and the Jezreel Valley. 

The place where it established its camp was known as Legio. 

Then in the 3rd century CE, when the army was removed, Legio became a city and its name was augmented with the adjectival Maximianopolis.

The site of Legio (el-lajjun) is a vital geographical position making it a strategic crossroads for coastal, valley and hill country trade as well as the movement of troops from Egypt to Mesopotamia.

From the first to the seventh centuries the area was controlled by the Roman Empire.

Historical records show three settlements:  the Jewish village of Kefer Othnay, the Roman Sixth Legion Ferrata and the Roman-Byzantine city of Maximianopolis.

Research has discovered a Roman-Byzantine theater and fragments of Roman aqueducts.

Teams have been excavating Legio. Over the course of only ten full excavation days, with the assistance of American and European students working side-by-side with members of local youth and community service groups, the team dug test trenches measuring approximately 295 feet by 16.5 feet that revealed clear evidence of the camp. 

At the north end of this line, was found that the depressions evident in aerial photography were in fact part of a Roman camp’s typical defensive trenching earthworks, the fosse. Next to this 6.5-foot-deep ditch was the foundation of a great wall nearly 20 feet wide, evidently the main circumvallation rampart of the camp. 

Inside of that wall in the remaining 230 feet of test trenches, the team exposed rooms likely belonging to one of the barracks areas of the camp. Much of the architectural remains had long been stripped away, but within the rooms were numerous ceramic roof tiles with the legion’s mark, coins, fragments of scale armor, lead ingots and a stone table leg sculpted with the three-dimensional visage of a panther. Near the southern extent of our excavation, the putative barracks were bounded by a wide street carved in bedrock and flanked by drainage channels. 

Crossing the camp at about one-third of the length of the north-south walls, as estimated via aerial photography, this important street was probably the camp’s Via Principalis, “Main Street,” a typical feature of such castra. Considering the regular structure of Roman camps, the Porta Principalis Dextra, the main eastern gate of the camp, should lie just outside of our excavation area.

A Reflectance Transformation Image scan (RTI) in the center shows the legion's insignia.

The degree to which the fort was manned in the later period is not known. Palestine was considered a quiet sector with many Roman troops removed and frontier defenses largely given over to the allied Ghassanid Christian Arabs.

Even with the Ghassanids patrolling the frontier there would have been regular army Roman troops stationed in Palestine and units passing through to Egypt or to Mesopotamia.  Lajjun and the other limes fortresses, if not permanently manned, would have been used on and off for temporary shelter or as a local strong point for police actions. 

Information on the Roman legions and other units stationed in the area is also minimal.  

The area was conquered by the Arab Muslims under Caliph Umar in the 7th century: the Legio III Cyrenaica was destroyed defending Bosra in 630, ending the Roman presence in Arabia.

According to some Muslim historians, the site of the 634 AD Battle of Ajnadayn fought between the army of the Rashidun Caliphate under generals Khaled ibn al-Walid and Amr ibn al-'As, and the Byzantine Empire in 634 CE was at Lajjun. 

Following the Muslim Arab victory, Lajjun, along with most of Palestine, and southern Syria were incorporated into the Caliphate. According to 9th-century Persian geographer Estakhri, Lajjun was the northernmost town in Jund Filastin (District of Palestine). Arab geographer Ibn Hawqalsupports this claim in 977.

The Crusades

When the Crusaders invaded and conquered the Levant from the Fatimids in 1099, al-Lajjun's Roman name was restored and the town formed a part of the lordship of Caesarea. During this time, Christian settlement in Legio grew significantly. 

John of Ibelin records that the community "owed the service of 100 sergeants". Bernard, the archbishop of Nazareth granted some of the tithes of Legio to the hospital of the monastery of St. Mary in 1115, then in 1121, he extended the grant to include all of Legio, including its church as well as the nearby village of Ti'inik. 

By 1147, the de Lyon family controlled Legio, but by 1168, the town was held by Payen, the lord of Haifa. Legio had markets, a town oven and held other economic activities during this era. In 1182, the Ayyubids raided Legio, and in 1187, it was captured by them under the leadership of Saladin's nephew Husam ad-Din 'Amr and consequently its Arabic name was restored.

Lajjun Fortress Two hypothetical reconstructions of the legion camp based on ground penetrating radar.  The smaller option appears in white.  The larger option extends out in black. (Jezrel Valley Regional Project)

Map showing the location of Legio in the Jezreel Valley (Israel).  Hilly/mountainous regions in grey.

Aerial photo of Legio/Lajjun

Cut away of a Roman fortress wall.

In AD 106 the Romans under Emperor Trajan achieved control of the region east of the Jordan River, which was previously ruled by the Nabataeans. Until then, the Nabataean kingdom had provided a buffer between the Roman Empire and the threat of enemies to the east. Historians do not know how and why the Romans took direct control. Perhaps the lack of a legitimate successor to the deceased Nabataean king resulted in a power vacuum. The Romans annexed the area and called it Provincia Arabia. It was governed by a senatorial legate appointed by the emperor, and its capital was Bostra (or Bosra) in southern Syria.

(Academia.edu)      (Lajjun)      (Legionary Fortresses)      (Legio III Cyrenaica)

(Biblical Archaeology)      (Romans in Arabia)      (Livius.org)

(xlegio.ru)      (Ancient worlds)      (Limes Arabicus)