The Strategikon of Maurikios, Part I

February 20, 2019, 1:24 pm

≫ Next: Byzantine Hand Grenades

≪ Previous: Siege of Trebizond (1461) - The End of Byzantium

$

0

0

Beautiful Late Roman-Byzantine creation. (Sara Parkes - Facebook)

The Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire produced a large number of treatises on military science.

The Empire maintained its highly sophisticated military system from antiquity, which relied on discipline, training, knowledge of tactics and a well-organized support system. A crucial element in the maintenance and spreading of this military know-how, along with traditional histories, were the various treatises and practical manuals. These continued a tradition that stretched back to Xenophon and Aeneas the Tactician, and many Eastern Roman military manuals excerpt or adapt the works of ancient authors, especially Aelian and Onasander.

Byzantine manuals were first produced in the sixth century. They greatly proliferated in the tenth century, when the Byzantines embarked on their conquests in the East and the Balkans

The Strategikon attributed to the Emperor Maurice (r. 582–602) was compiled in the late sixth century. It is a large twelve-book compendium treating all aspects of contemporary land warfare. 

The author is especially concerned to clarify procedures for the deployment and tactics of cavalry, particularly in response to Avar victories in the 580s-590s. He favors indirect forms of combat - ambushes, ruses, nocturnal raids and skirmishing on difficult terrain - and he also exhibits a good understanding of military psychology and morale. 

Book XI offers an innovative analysis of the fighting methods, customs and habitat of the Empire's most significant enemies, as well as recommendations for campaigning north of the Danube against the Slavs, another strategic concern of the 590s. The Strategikon exercised a profound influence upon the subsequent Byzantine genre.

Emperor Maurice (r582 to 602 AD) by Emilian Stankev from "Rulers of the Byzantine Empire". The court of Maurice still used Latin as the official language. k A prominent general, Maurice fought with success against the Sasanian Empire. After he became Emperor, he brought the war with Sasanian Persia to a victorious conclusion. Under him the Empire's eastern border in the South Caucasus was vastly expanded and, for the first time in nearly two centuries, the Romans were no longer obliged to pay the Persians thousands of pounds of gold annually for peace. Maurice campaigned extensively in the Balkans against the Avars – pushing them back across the Danube by 599. He also conducted campaigns across the Danube, the first Roman Emperor to do so in over two centuries. In the west, he established two large semi-autonomous provinces called exarchates, ruled by exarchs, or viceroys of the emperor. In Italy Maurice established the Exarchate of Italy in 584, the first real effort by the Empire to halt the advance of the Lombards. With the creation of the Exarchate of Africa in 590 he further solidified the power of Constantinople in the western Mediterranean.

The Strategikon of Maurikios
Excerpts from The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire by Edward Luttwak


The Strategikon attributed to the emperor Maurikios (ca. 582–602) remained largely unknown until recent times. This fundamental field manual and military handbook, much copied, paraphrased, emulated by subsequent Byzantine military writers, and much used by warring emperors and their commanders over the centuries, was simply not available when the classics of ancient warfare were rediscovered and mined for useful ideas by Europe’s military innovators from the fifteenth century onward.

The author modestly claimed only a limited combat experience, but he was evidently a highly competent military officer. In the preface, he promises to write succinctly and simply, “with an eye more to practical utility than to fine words,” and keeps his promise. The work was written at the end of the sixth century or very soon thereafter—the modern editor of the text has convincingly shown that it was completed after 592 and before 610.

The Strategikon depicts an army radically different in structure from the classic Roman model, most obviously because of a fundamental shift from infantry to cavalry as the primary combat arm. That was no mere tactical change; it was caused by a veritable strategic revolution in the very purpose of waging war, which compelled the adoption of new operational methods and new tactics

It is interesting to note that there was no such radical change in the language of the army, which had been partly Latinspeaking even in the eastern half of the Roman empire. From the time of Justinian, there was instead a very gradual transition from Latin to Greek, though many of the Greek terms in the Strategikon are still Latin words with Greek endings added and pronounced in a Greek way. 

Sassanid Persian Armored Cataphract The late Roman and Eastern Empires copied their main enemy: the Persian armored horse archer. These units provided the Romans with the mobility and firepower to be able to react rapidly in battle.

The Strategikon of Maurikios is the most complete Byzantine field manual in spite of its brevity. To describe the training and tactics that could allow one man to defeat three . . .

. . . the aim in the Strategikon, whose primary type of soldier was neither an infantryman nor a cavalryman but rather both, and a bowman first of all. He therefore required training in both foot and mounted archery with powerful bows, in using the lance for thrusting and stabbing while mounted—with unit training for the charge—and in wielding the sword in close combat. The old term “mounted infantry” does not apply, because in most cases it was nothing more than infantry with cheap horses that could not fight on horseback, let alone with the bow; the even older term “dragoon” is suggestive insofar as the better class of dragoons were equipped with rifles for accuracy and range rather than muskets. Under the heading “The Training and Drilling of the Individual Soldier” we read: 

• He should be trained to shoot [the bow] rapidly on foot, either in the Roman [thumb and forefinger] or the Persian [three middle finger] manner. Speed is important in shaking the arrow loose [from the quiver] and discharging it with force. This is essential and should also be practiced while mounted. In fact, even when the arrow is well aimed, firing slowly is useless. 

The tactical effectiveness of bowmen is obviously a function of their rate of fire, accuracy, and lethality, but there is no homogeneous tradeoff between the three, because enemies will normally either withdraw beyond the useful range of accurate and lethal arrows, or else to the contrary seek to charge and overrun the bowmen, either way making the rate of fire the dominant variable. “He should also shoot rapidly mounted on his horse at a run [galloping], to the front, the rear, the right, the left.”

According to Prokopios, that was an established skill for the Byzantine horsemen he saw in action not long before the Strategikon was written: 

• They are expert horsemen, and are able without difficulty to direct their bows to either side while riding at full speed, and to shoot an opponent whether in pursuit or in flight [the rearward “Parthian shot”]. They draw the bowstring along by the forehead about opposite the right ear, thereby charging the arrow with such impetus as to kill whoever stands in the way, shield and corselet alike having no power to check its force. 

Mounted and dismounted archery had its specific roles in every stage of battle, from initial sniping at long range to the rapid volleys of all-out engagements, to the pursuit of retreating enemies with forward bowshots, or defensively, to provide rearguard covering shots against advancing enemies.

6th Century Eastern Roman Cavalry

By the sixth century, Byzantine archers were armed with the composite reflex bow, the most powerful personal weapon of antiquity. Well before the Strategikon was written, when the Byzantines were fighting the Goths in Italy in the mid-sixth century they were already doing so with the tactical edge of mounted archery. The Strategikon provides the specifics of the required training:

• On horseback at a run (gallop) he should fire one or two arrows rapidly and put the strung bow in its case, if it is wide enough, or in a half-case designed for the purpose, and then he should grab the [kontarion = lance] which he has been carrying on his back. With the strung bow in its case, he should hold the [lance] in his hand, then quickly replace it on his back, and grab the bow. It is a good idea for the soldiers to practice all this while mounted. 

Compound bows, held together by animal-bone glues and powered mostly by dried tendons, had to be protected from the rain by special cases, broad enough to hold the bow when already strung for battle and not just when unstrung.

In addition, the Strategikon recommends “an extra-large cloak or hooded mantle of felt... large enough to wear over... [body armor and] the bow” to protect it “in case it should rain or be damp from the dew.”

. . . when the Strategikon was written, the Byzantines believed in containing but not destroying their enemies—potentially tomorrow’s allies. Therefore for them the cavalry was the more important arm because its engagements did not have to be decisive, but could instead end with a quick withdrawal, or a cautious pursuit that would leave both sides not too badly damaged. Still, even at the height of the cavalry era there was a need for some infantry, both light and heavy. The Strategikon accordingly offers its advice for the training of both while admitting that the subject had long been neglected. 

Under the heading “Training of the Individual Heavy-Armed Infantryman” there are only a few words: 

• They should be trained in single combat against each other, armed with shield and staff [a real shield and a simulated spear], also, in throwing the short javelin and the lead-pointed dart at a long distance. 

There was more on “Training of the Light-Armed Infantryman or Archer”: 

• They should be trained in rapid shooting with a bow . . . in either the Roman or the Persian manner. They should be trained in shooting rapidly while carrying a shield, in throwing the small javelin a long distance, in using the sling, and in jumping and running. 

The equipment specified in the Strategikon for each type of infantry clarifies its character, with armored coats for at least the first two men in the file of heavy infantry, so that the front rank and the one behind it were both protected against enemy arrows, as well as cutting weapons, if not maces and such; helmets with cheek plates for all, greaves of iron or wood to protect the legs below the knees, and shields of unspecified type but of full size—elsewhere small shields or “targets” are mentioned. An exhaustive if not excessively insightful modern study contains a long list of different equipment types or perhaps of equipment names, and although there are illustrations, they are insecurely related to the names.

Byzantine Infantry

What is certain is that the function of the heavy infantry at the time and for centuries later, indeed until the introduction of firearms, was to seize and hold ground.

In the Strategikon, as in all other Byzantine texts, the light infantry is chiefly a missile force, equipped with quivers holding up to forty arrows for its composite reflex bows, though it is specified that for “men who might not have bows or are not experienced archers” small javelins, Slavic [light] spears, lead-pointed darts, and slings were to be provided.

There was also a more recondite and much misunderstood item of equipment, the solenarion, not a small crossbow with short arrows as was once believed, but rather “tubes” . . . wooden launch tubes for small arrows. . . short arrows that can fly farther than full-size arrows are inserted in a tube with a central slit; . . . these short arrows were useful for harassing volleys against the enemy when still out of range of full length arrows, which were of course more lethal because they could penetrate thick coverings and armor as the myas could not.

In the Strategikon the primary type of soldier is undoubtedly the mounted lancer-archer, and naturally there is more detail about its equipment. The author recommends hooded coats of sewn-on scale armor (lorica squamata), or interlinked lamellar armor, or chain mail (lorica hamata), down to the ankles . . .

There were also carrying cases for them covered in water-resistant leather, for armor was expensive and it would rust; it was further specified that light wicker cases for body armor should also be carried behind the saddle over the loins, because “in the case of a reversal, if the [servants] with the spare horses [and ancillary equipment] are missing for a day, the coats of armor will not be left unprotected and ruined.” 

Helmets, swords, iron breastplates, and head armor for horses are mentioned, but special attention is devoted to the primary weapon: “Bows suited to the strength of each man, and not above it, more in fact on the weaker side.”

The composite reflex bow was effective because it accumulated much energy but was equally resistant, so it was a good idea to choose a bow whose string could be pulled back quickly and confidently even on the thirtieth arrow, and not just the first. Cases wide enough for combatready strung bows are specified, as mentioned above, as are spare bowstrings in the soldier’s own saddlebag and not just in unit stores, quivers with rain covers for thirty or forty arrows—more were in unit stores— and small files and awls for field repairs.

The author specifies that cavalry lances with leather thongs and pennons, round neck pieces, breast and neck coverings, broad tunics, and tents (round leather yurts) are to be of the “Avar type.” The Byzantine mounted archers that featured so largely in Prokopios a half century before were patterned on the Huns, but by the time the Strategikon was written, the Byzantines had been repeatedly attacked by the Avars, the first of the Turkic mounted archers to reach the west, who had the same composite reflex bow as the Huns . . . 

. . . a most famous item of equipment first mentioned in the Strategikon: the skala. Literally “stair,” the term is used to mean “stirrup”—“attached to the saddles should be two iron [stirrups]”

When they first encountered them in the searing summer heat of Mesopotamia, the Romans mocked the Persian cavalry in plate armor as clibanarii, from cliba, “bread oven.” Yet they still imitated this heaviest form of armored cavalry, expensive and easily exhausted as it was (especially in hot weather), for the very good reason that in suitable terrain it could offer “escalation dominance” in short, sharp, charging actions.

Late Roman Empire Cavalry

There was also another category of heavy cavalry listed in the Notitia that was destined to endure much longer, the catafractarii (Greek kataphraktoi, from kataphrasso, “cover up”). They too were well protected to confront close combat, and they too were trained to charge with the lance, but originally at any rate they were not as heavily armored as the clibanarii. Instead of heavier plate or lamellar armor, they had sewn-on scale armor or chain mail coats as mentioned in the Strategikon, or body armor of boiled leather or thick, dense cloth— which, if tightly woven to begin with, could be sewn and knotted in multiple layers to function as a sort of proto-Kevlar.

Along with the light missile infantry and the ground-holding and ground-seizing heavy infantry, three other categories of soldiers are mentioned in the Strategikon. The first are the bucellarii, “biscuit-eaters,” named for the twice-baked dehydrated bread issued to ship crews and soldiers on campaign; originally they were raised and paid privately by field commanders as their personal guard and assault force, but evidently they evolved into a state-paid elite force, for we find that special attention is devoted to their appearance: 

• It is not a bad idea for the [bucellarii] to make use of iron gauntlets and small tassels hanging from the back straps and the breast straps of their horses, as well as small pennons hanging from their own shoulders over coats of mail. For the more handsome the soldier is in his armament, the more confidence he gains in himself and the more fear he inspires in the enemy.

That would have been just as true of other categories of troops, but it is revealing of their status that the point is made about the bucellarii specifically. The latter, incidentally, would soon evolve further into a territorial army corps that was in turn given a fixed military district, or theme, to both govern and defend, when that emergency response to defeat and retreat became an administrative system in the later seventh century.

The second category of troops mentioned as such or simply as “foreigners” were the federati, originally “treaty” (foedus) troops supplied to the empire as complete units under their own chiefs by tribes too poor to pay taxes, or too strong to be taxed; later they could simply be units serving under contract. Unlike today’s mercenaries provided by security contractors, who often cost much more than even well-paid soldiers, units of federati were much cheaper than an equivalent number of legionary troops, because the citizen-soldiers of the legions received good salaries, well-built barracks, careful medical care, and substantia retirement allowances.

Roughly half the army of the Principate was cheaper because it consisted of lower-pay, noncitizen auxiliary troopsserving under Roman officers—they provided almost all the cavalry of what was still an infantry-centered army; but because they did not have expensive Roman officers, the federati were even cheaper. That is the reason, no doubt, why they continued to serve in the Byzantine forces till the end in one form or another, most often as more expendable light troops, as in the “javeliners, whether Rhos (early Russians) or any other foreigners” of the Praecepta Militaria, a tenth-century work.

Finally, the Strategikon refers to some kind of citizen militia, or at least to a general preparedness to serve in that capacity: 

• All the younger Romans up to the age of forty must definitely be required to possess bow and quiver, whether they be expert archers or just average. They should posses two [spears] so as to have a spare at hand in case the first one misses. Unskilled men should use lighter bows. Given enough time, even those who do not know how to shoot will learn, for it is essential that they do. 

Given all the incursions that penetrated right through imperial territory to reach Constantinople itself, one can understand why the author of the Strategikon would favor universal military training, so that all of the able-bodied could help defend their own localities, supplementing professional imperial forces.

We hear, for example, of the valiant role of the population of Edessa (ùanlÕurfa, Urfa) in fighting off the Sasanian Persians in 544:

• Now those who were of military age together with the soldiers were repelling the enemy most vigorously, and many of the rustics [akgroikon polloi] made a remarkable show of valorous deeds against the barbarians.

But Roman and Byzantine law prohibited private weapons, while organized militias were rarely sanctioned by the Byzantine authorities. That is not surprising. Their potential and episodic military contribution, in the event of enemy incursions that reached their particular part of the empire, was outweighed by their actual and continuing political threat to the imperial authorities in place, and indeed the stability of the empire. 

Late Roman cohort reenactment group (www.twcenter.net) kk The Eastern Roman military machine was highly complex with many moving parts.  See these stories for more detail. kk Byzantine Heavy Artillery kk The Byzantine Infantry Square kk Byzantine Militia kk Byzantine Testudo and Shield Wall kk Roman and Byzantine Marching Camps kk Roman and Byzantine Military & General Medicine

(Military manuals)      (Grand strategy)

---

Byzantine Hand Grenades

March 21, 2019, 8:27 pm

≫ Next: The Fall of Damascus - Battle for the Middle East

≪ Previous: The Strategikon of Maurikios, Part I

$

0

0

Photo credit: Amir Gorzalczany, Israel Antiquities Authority

(Vintage News)  -  In Israel, a Crusades-era hand grenade was found and retrieved from the sea. The family that found the old relic has handed it over to the Israeli Antiquities Authority. It was found in 2016 and is a unique find.

Nothing like the ones made today, this grenade was made from heavy clay and is beautifully embossed, it does not explode with shrapnel like the hand grenades of this generation, but it is more like a Molotov cocktail or incendiary grenade. It was filled with naphtha, a flammable sticky liquid known as Greek fire, then sealed and thrown at enemies.

Diego Barkan, an archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority said ‘These hand grenades were being used in the Byzantine and early Islamic period right up until the Ottomans and it is made of a heavy clay and would have been used much like a Molotov cocktail.  He went on to say:  ‘Inside they would have put alcohol and lit a fuse poked in a hole in the top before throwing it towards the enemy ships.’

It was mostly known to be used in naval battles where the fire would easily destroy enemies’ ships and was an effective weapon. The IAA stated that the grenades were very popular in Israel during the crusades, which took place between the 11^th to 13^th century, and they were used until the Mamluk era, between the 13^th and 16^th century.

The late Marcel Mazliah, a worker at the Hadera power plant in northern Israel, found the grenade. But this wasn’t the only item that was in Mazliah’s collection. Archaeologists were very surprised to find ancient artifacts that date back 3,500 years.

Marcel’s family told them that he found most of these treasures while working at the power plant that was near the sea, he collected them for many years.

Some of his other finds were the head of a knife which dated back to the Bronze Age, along with candlesticks, two mortars and two pestles dating back to the 11^th century.

“The items were apparently manufactured in Syria and were brought to Israel,” Ayala Lester, a curator with the Israel Antiquities Authority, said in a statement.

Archaeologists believe that the metal objects fell overboard while on a metal merchant’s ship in the Islamic period (638-1099).

Byzantine Superweapons

In 717, Arab prince and general Maslamah ibn Abd al-Malik oversaw the Islamic Empire’s campaign to claim Constantinople and led his army straight for the capital. There, Maslamah tried to blockade the city with his navy, but this gave the prepared Byzantines an opportunity to unleash their secret weapon.

“Leo III Defends Constantinople with Greek Fire.” Milestone Events Throughout History, 2014, s.v. 

The fire that was spout out from this hose started to incinerate the entire Arabs’ fleet. The Muslim soldiers started to throw buckets of water to subdue the flames but quickly realized that this was not regular fire. This was a special kind of fire that could not be put out with water. Seeing as how stopping the fire was futile, the soldiers quickly took off their cumbersome armor and leaped out into the water while the ones that stayed got lit on fire. Some unlucky soldiers who impulsively jumped overboard were still wearing their full set of armor and as a result, immediately drowned to the bottom of the sea. 

The fire that had been burning the ship started to spread out onto the water as if it was gasoline. These flames stretched out and the surrounding ships were also caught on fire. Some of the soldiers tried to swim away frantically, for the fire floated across the sea and burned those that were closest. From a distance, the surviving Muslim soldiers were witnessing their own comrades burning, screaming in agony from the top of their scorched lungs. No matter what they did, there was nothing that could be done to put out the flames that were covering their melting bodies. Even some of the spectating Byzantine soldiers shivered at the thought of being burnt alive while being completely surrounded by water. Once the Arabs realized that a significant portion of their ships had been engulfed in flames, they signaled a retreat. As the Arabs fled the scene to lick their wounds, the Byzantine soldiers cheered with victory.

Arabs Start Using Greek Fire

Sometime in the mid-tenth century, the armies of the Islamic Caliphate also began using a similar pump/siphon device that was handheld, in the fashion of the Byzantine device. Whether this was a result of reverse engineering of the Byzantine invention or the outright acquisition is not known. Incendiaries were devastatingly effective against Crusader siege engines. 

Saladin's use of naffata troops is well documented. Saladin sent troops armed with Naphta grenades against houses and civilians during an uprising in Egypt led by African troops. The Christian defenders of Jerusalem noted his use of incendiaries in catapults used to attack the city walls. During the Third Crusade, Swimmers smuggled containers of the fuel into Acre during the Crusader's siege of that city. 

While the Greek Fire of the Byzantines was a closely guarded secrets, Arab alchemists were more ready to commit their recipe to paper. One of Saladin's chroniclers describers the burning substance as a mixture of tar, resin, sulphur, dolphin fat and goat fat.

Pots filled with Greek fire were thrown like hand grenades | Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

(thevintagenews)      (stmuhistorymedia.org)      (seakingsaga.blogspot.com)

(seakingsaga.blogspot.com)

The Fall of Damascus - Battle for the Middle East

April 19, 2019, 12:27 pm

≫ Next: The Roman Fortress of Ksar Lemsa

≪ Previous: Byzantine Hand Grenades

$

0

0

Members of the Bedouin camel cavalry near Damascus, Syria, 1940. Margaret Bourke-White—The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Image. The Arab forces facing the Romans might have looked much like these soldiers.

The Fall of Damascus

Battle for the Middle East Part VI

Here we are at Part VI of the titanic Battle for the Middle East.

Where Eastern Roman military history is addressed at all there are casual references to the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 AD. "Historians" effectively say the Arabs just magically showed up one day at Yarmouk and defeated a weak Roman Empire.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  This series details a Roman-Muslim slug fest taking place over many years and many battles over a huge geographical area.

In 629 AD the Roman Empire was enjoying a much deserved period of peace after a brutal 26 year long war of all wars with the Persian Empire.  Finally there was peace.  No one in Constantinople had any idea that a fresh invasion from the southern deserts would happen in a matter of months.

Part I  -  In Part I of this series we saw the first military contact between Romans and Muslim Arabs at the Battle of Mota (Mu'tah) in the Roman province of Palaestina Salutaris.  In 629 AD a force of Romans and their Christian Arab allies mauled the invading Muslim army forcing them to return to Medina.

Part II  -  In Part II we saw the Muslims turn their attention to a weakened Persian Empire. Muslims defeated the Persians in a series of battles. In 634 the Muslims marched up the Euphrates River through Persian Mesopotamia finally coming within 100 miles of the Roman frontier at Firaz. Firaz was at the outermost edge of the Persian Empire but it still contained an undefeated Persian garrison. There the Persians joined forces with the local Roman garrison and with Christian Arabs to take on the invaders. They were soundly defeated.

Part III  -  In Part III we have the Emperor Heraclius organizing the defense of Palaestina Salutaris.  A Muslims made a wide flanking movement of hundreds of miles through waterless deserts to threaten Damascus.  

The Romans held their own in eastern Syria against this attack and effectively defeated the Arabs at the Battle of Marj Rahit in 634. They drove the Arabs south away from Damascus. The Romans had also dug in at the Daraa Gap fortifications in eastern Palestine and held their positions against Arab attacks. 

But the Romans were defeated in southwest Palestine allowing Muslim forces to fan out reaching as far north as Lydda and Jaffa.

Part IV  -  Battle of Ajnadayn 634. The Romans were dug in at Daraa in Syria and were successfully holding off the invading Muslim army. Emperor Heraclius sent a second army down coastal Palestine with the support of the Roman Navy. The goal was to defeat the smaller Muslim army at Beersheeba and then block the lines of communications to Mecca of the Muslim army at Daraa forcing them to retreat back to Arabia.

Part V  -  1st Battle of Yarmouk (634 AD).  In a huge multi-day battle the Roman Army is pushed out of their prepared defenses at the Daraa Gap. The Romans began to withdraw and made an orderly retreat north to Damascus and other walled cities. 

The door to Syria had been forced open.

The Muslims may have opened the door to Syria, but victory was a long way off. There were Roman armies operating all over Palestine and Syria and holding walled cities such as Jerusalem, Caesarea, Tyre, Tripoli and Damascus. The coastal cities could also be resupplied and reinforced by the Roman Navy.

The Emperor Heraclius had not given up. More troops were being raised for yet another counter attack.

Late Roman-Byzantine Cavalry

The Battle of Pella (January, 635)

The Muslims had over run the Roman defensive positions at Yarmouk in September, 634. This was a defeat but not a total disaster. The Roman forces retreated in an orderly manner to Damascus, Jerusalem, Caesarea and other walled cities.

With multiple Roman armies at their rear the Muslims could not just march straight to Damascus. They needed to protect their lines of communication to the south.

The Fortress of Pella in modern Jordan was of particular importance. It had been a Greek city since the days of Alexander the Great. Under Alexander and later in the seventh century Pella stood on the main military road from Damascus south to Palestine going through Deraa, Pella and Beisan. The road was blocked by the Yarmouk position.

To slow down the Arab operations the Romans partly flooded the Jordan Valley near Pella.

The Arabs met the Romans outside the city, perhaps in the flooded areas, and defeated them. Some Byzantine soldiers fled to Beisan.

A siege of the fortress-city itself was begun. I suspect the city was short on manpower or supplies. Feeling a new Roman Army was not going to show up anytime soon the inhabitants negotiated their surrender.  The agreed to pay a poll-tax and a land-tax to the Muslims.  In return the Muslims guaranteed their lives, property and agreed not to demolish the city or its walls.

With their lines of communications more secure the Muslims starting moving north.

The Battle of Marj As Suffar (February, 635)

Historian and Lieutenant-General John Bagot Glubb, known as Glubb Pasha, commanded the British Arab Legion and campaigned over the very ground where these battles were fought.

He says after Pella the Arabs moved north towards Damascus and that the Romans sent out yet another force to stop their advance.

The two armies met at Marj as Suffar about 20 miles south of Damascus. Glubb states this was approximately the same location where in 1941 the Vichy French offer battle against the invading British. He says there is a natural defensive position there that was used by both the French and earlier by the Romans.

Again an important battle takes place and we have no detail at all of events.

Glubb says the two sides met in February, 635. We have no idea of the size of either force. There was a hard fought and costly battle. The Romans withdrew.  Not a slaughter, but withdrew. There was no boasting by Arab histories of a huge Roman loss. We can assume the Romans again retreated to Damascus or other walled cities.

By mid-March 635 the Muslims had finally arrived at Damascus.

Maps from The Great Arab Conquests (1964) As the Muslims moved north into Syria they were still leaving active Roman armies behind them in Jerusalem and in coastal cities like Caesarea, Tyre, Sidon, Beirut and Tripoli.

A War on Two Fronts As the Muslims advanced into Syria they were at the same time fighting armies of the Persian Empire to the east.

In Part V of my series the Muslims overran the Roman defensive positions at the Daraa Gap and pushed north to Damascus.

A view of Damascus, Syria, 1940. Margaret Bourke-White—The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Image

Siege of Damascus (March - September 635)

The fortifications of Damascus matched its importance to the Empire. The main part of the city was enclosed by a massive 11 m (36 ft) high wall. The fortified city was approximately 1,500 m (4,900 ft) long and 800 m (2,600 ft) wide.

At the time of the Syrian campaign, the Roman Commander of Damascus was Thomas, son-in-law of Emperor Heraclius. A devout Christian, he was known for his courage and skill at command, and also for his intelligence and learning.

The Roman garrison in the city might have numbered 15,000 troops. There would normally be no reason for so many soldiers to be stationed in the city. So I suspect most of the troops fled there from Palestine and from the Roman retreat from Yarmouk.

The Muslims showed up in March with about 20,000 men under assorted commanders and began the siege.

Seventh-century Muslim armies had no siege equipment, and typically employed siege tactics only when there were no other options. Without the necessary siege equipment, armies of the early Muslim expansion would surround a city, denying it supplies until the city's defenders surrendered.

To isolate Damascus, Muslim commander Khalid ibn al-Walid cut the lines of transportation and communication to northern Syria.

Meanwhile Muslim commanders were instructed to repel any Roman attack from the respective gates, and to seek assistance in the case of heavy attack. A corps of 2,000 horsemen formed a mobile guard to patrol in the empty areas between the gates at night and to reinforce any corps attacked by the Romans.

Roman Relief Column

Due to a lack of any real histories written at the time the dates of events are all over the map. I have chosen to follow Lieutenant-General Glubb's dates and timeline.  Glubb has the siege lasting about six months from March to September 635.

The very hands on Roman Emperor Heraclius had established his headquarters in Syria itself at Homs to personally direct operations. Heraclius had spent time in Palestine and Syria and knew the provinces.

At some point during the siege (early? middle?) the Emperor gathered an an army to relieve Damascus. Some accounts claim the army was 12,000 strong. Maybe. Damascus was certainly an important city and deserved a serious effort. But the force could have been smaller and hoped to join with the troops inside Damascus to then outnumber the Muslims.

Scouts posted on the road from Emesa to Damascus reported the approach of a Roman army. Upon hearing this news, Khalid sent Rafay bin Umayr with 5,000 troops. They met 20 miles north of Damascus at Uqab Pass (Eagle Pass) on the Damascus-Emesa road. That force proved insufficient and soon surrounded by the Roman troops. However before the Roman could defeat the Muslim detachment, Khalid arrived with another column of 4,000 men and routed them.

The Muslim siege forces had been weakened by the withdrawal of 9,000 men to repel the relief force. If the Roman garrison had sallied out against the Muslim army, historians suspect the defenders would have broken through the Muslim lines and lifted the siege. Understanding the danger of the situation, Khalid hurriedly returned to Damascus.

Eastern Roman Reenactors

Roman Attack

Word reached Thomas, commander of Damascus, that the relief column had been turned back. Realizing that no reinforcements would not be coming soon he decided to launch a counter offensive.

We must be impressed by Thomas’ skillful handling of such a difficult situation. Typically, the defeat of the relief army is enough to force a besieged city to surrender but Thomas was able to scrape up enough morale from the city’s garrison to sally out, nearly defeat the Arabs and break the siege.

So perhaps in September 634 Thomas drew men from all sectors of the city to form a force strong enough to break through the Gate of Thomas. He was there faced by a corps of about 5,000 Muslims. The Roman attack began with a concentrated shower of arrows against the Muslims. The Roman infantry, covered by the archers on the wall, rushed through the gate and fanned out into battle formation. Thomas himself led the assault. During this action, Thomas was struck in his right eye by an arrow. 

Unsuccessful in breaking the Muslim lines, the Romans retreated back to the fortress. The wounded Thomas is said to have sworn to take a thousand eyes in return. He ordered another great sortie for that night.

Wall of Damascus at the Thomas Gate.

2nd Roman Attack

This time Thomas planned to launch simultaneous sorties from four gates. The main sector was to be again the Thomas gate, to take full advantage of the exhausted Muslim corps stationed there. The attacks from the other gates—Jabiya Gate, the Small Gate and the Eastern Gate—were intended to tie down the other Muslim corps so that they could not aid the corps at the Thomas gate.

At the Eastern Gate, Thomas assembled more forces than at the other gates, so that Khalid would be unable to move to assist in the decisive sector. Thomas' attack at several gates also gave more flexibility to the operation: if success were achieved in any sector other than the Gate of Thomas, such success could be exploited by sending troops to that sector to achieve the breakthrough. Thomas ordered Khalid to be taken alive.

After some hard fighting at the Jabiya Gate, commander Abu Ubaidah and his men, repulsed the sally and the Romans hastened back to the city. The battle was intense at the Small Gate, which was guarded by fewer troops but the 2,000 cavalry of the Mobile Guard came to help. The cavalry attacked the flank of the Roman sortie force and repulsed the sally.

At the East Gate, the situation also became serious, for a larger Roman force had been assigned to this sector. The Muslims were unable to withstand their attacks. The timely arrival of Khalid with his reserve of 400 veteran cavalry and his subsequent attack on the Roman flank, marked the turning point in the sally at the Eastern Gate.

The heaviest fighting occurred at the Thomas gate, where Thomas again commanded the sally in person. After intense fighting, Thomas, seeing that there was no weakening in the Muslim front, decided that continuing the attack would be fruitless and would lead to even heavier casualties among his men. He ordered a withdrawal and the Romans moved back at a steady pace, during which they were subjected to a concentrated shower of arrows by the Muslims. This was the last attempt by Thomas to break the siege. The attempt had failed. 

He had lost thousands of men in these sallies, and could no longer afford to fight outside the walls of the city.

Remains of the Eastern Gate. Khalid's troops entered Damascus through this gate.

The Fall of Damascus - Traitors Within The Walls

What records there are do not talk about starvation in Damascus.  In fact on September 18th the Romans were holding a festival - - - no doubt food and drink would be provided. Knowing the Muslims were coming Thomas may have stripped the countryside around the city of everything not nailed down to lay in supplies for the siege.

There also appeared to be no serious problems for Muslim Arabs outside the walls. But if the surrounding lands had been cleaned out then as winter approached the Arabs might not be able to feed a large army this far from their home base.

The Emperor was forming a new army in northern Syria to march south.  So if the walls held then time could be on the side of the Romans.

But then there are the traitors from within.

It appears that during the summer Khalid began a correspondence with the Christian Bishop of the city. The Bishop was almost certainly a Monophysite who would have opposed the Orthodox central government in Constantinople.

The reports of the fall of Damascus differ in details. According to the most generally accepted, the Bishop sent a messenger to Khalid telling him of the coming night of celebration in the city. He said the Eastern Gate would be left virtually unguarded. There was a monastery outside the Eastern Gate presumably under the jurisdiction of the Bishop. The monastery supplied the Arabs with two ladders and a little before dawn these were placed against the wall near the Eastern Gate.

A Special Observation - Ladders???? This one act shows how totally and completely unprepared the Muslims were to attack any major walled city. After months of laying "siege" to the city they had to be given two ladders by traitorous Christians to get into the city. One has to wonder. During the entire siege there are no reports of any meaningful attacks on the walls. So we can assume the Arabs spent all of their time sitting on their back sides doing nothing, watching the walls and eating up limited supplies. As long as food inside the city would hold out the Romans could have waited for the Emperor's new army to arrive.

Now with ladders in hand a number of Arabs crept silently up. Two men left on guard were quickly overpowered and the gate was opened from the inside. Just before sunrise the Arabs poured into the city, manned the walls, raising the cry of Allahu Akbar, laid on with sword and dagger.

Thomas saw that the rest of the Arab army did not move from the other gates, he assumed that the other corps commanders were unaware of this sudden attack. The Governor dispatched a messenger through southwest gate directly to the overall Muslim commander Abu Ubaida offering to surrender the city on terms.

The commander-in-chief appears to have been unaware that Khalid war already inside the city. If true that shows a lack of co-operation between different corps commanders. The Governor threw open the southwest gate to Abu Ubaida.

Abu Ubaida marched peacefully with his corps, accompanied by Thomas, several dignitaries, and the bishops of Damascus, toward the center of city. From the East Gate, Khalid and his men fought their way towards the center of Damascus, killing all who resisted. The commanders met at the Mariamite Cathedral of Damascus in the center of the city.

Khalid argued that he had conquered the city by force. Abu Ubaidah maintained the city had capitulated, through the peace agreement between him and Thomas.The corps commanders discussed the situation, and reportedly told Khalid that the peace agreement must be honored, which Khalid agreed to although reluctantly.

The terms of the peace agreement were that no one would be enslaved, no harm would be done to the temples, nothing would be taken as booty, every non-Muslim would pay a poll-tax of one dinar and one measure of wheat.  Some accounts say that certain houses and churches were to be divided in half between Muslims and non-Muslims. The great church of St. John was so divided by such a wall - it was now half church and half mosque.   

In addition that safe passage was given to Thomas and every citizen of Damascus who was not willing to live under Muslim rule. The peace agreement also stated that the peace would end after three days and that the Muslims could attack after these three days without violating the agreement.

Afterwards

Trust issues - it appears Khalid had no interest in the agreement or peace.

Leading a cavalry regiment, Khalid caught up with a convoy of Roman refugees from Damascus at the sea, near Antioch. The three-day truce had passed; Khalid's cavalry attacked the convoy during a heavy rain. In the subsequent battle, Khalid reportedly killed Thomas in a duel. All the Roman possessions and a large number of captives, both male and female, were taken by the Muslims as slaves.

Damascus was sort of a great victory.  After months of a siege the Muslims could not carry the city's defenses and needed Christian traitors to win the day.

In addition as the map above shows there were active Roman Armies behind the Arabs in the fortified cities of Jerusalem, Tyre, Sidon, Beirut and Tripoli. The coastal cities could easily be resupplied and reinforced by the Roman Navy.

Finally there was the Emperor Heraclius.  The Emperor's preparations began in late 635 and by May 636 Heraclius had a large force concentrated at Antioch in Northern Syria. He had assembled yet another Roman army consisting of Slavs, Franks, Georgians, Armenians and Christian Arabs ready to march south and drive out the Muslin invaders.

But more of this in Part VII.

Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb, KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC kk As far as I am concerned Glubb Pasha's 1964 book The Great Arab Conquests is the Holy Grail on the Arab invasions. Glubb was fluent in Arabic and able to read the original documents. In addition he was commander of the British Arab Legion and personally campaigned on the very ground the Romans and Muslims fought over. Because the "history" of the early invasions is a jumbled mess I am using Glubb Pasha's dates and timeline for events.

Limitanei static frontier guard troops existed  through the Persian Wars and the Arab Conquest. kk The Battle for the Middle East . Read More: . Part I - Roman Empire vs Islam - First Contact . Part II - A Persian-Roman Army Fights Muslim Invaderskk Part III - Muslims Invade Roman Palestinem . Part IV - Battle of Ajnadayn kk Part V - The 1st Battle of Yarmouk

(Damascus)    (theartofbattle.com)    (Great Arab conquests)

(themaparchive.com)    (Battle of Fahl)

The Roman Fortress of Ksar Lemsa

May 21, 2019, 11:05 am

≫ Next: Barbarians at the Gates - The Roman Balkans

≪ Previous: The Fall of Damascus - Battle for the Middle East

$

0

0

Protecting Roman North Africa

Limisa is a town and archaeological site in Kairouan Governorate, Tunisia.

Little is known of the ancient Roman city of Limisa. A few excavations have been carried out and only the Byzantine citadel and the small Roman theater are known. The municipal organization is also only slightly understood. 

The city had the status of civitas at least until the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Septimius Severus then as a Municipium sometime before 208.

From an architectural point of view, epigraphy mentions an arch and the restoration of thermal baths built under Constantine at the end of the 4th century.

According to Victor of Vita the basilicas of Lemsa had been burned in 305.

This fine Byzantine 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 the Emperor 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.

Ksar Lemsa (pinterest)

Byzacena was a Late Roman province in the central part of Roman North Africa, which is now roughly Tunisia, split off from Africa Proconsularis. The town of Limisa was a Roman-Berber civitas in the province of Byzacena.

Ksar Lemsa was one of many North African fortifications that protected coastal Roman cities from desert raiders. A number of the forts were built by the Patrician Solomon.

The Roman Re-Conquest of Africa

Following the defeat of the Vandals by Belisarius (533-534 AD) Roman fortifications were built throughout North Africa.

The fortifications not only protected against raiders from the desert, but also helped protect against any revolt by local forces.

The fortified towns stretched from Septum at the Pillars of Hercules in Morocco to Egypt. 

The larger forts acted as both military stations and as a refuge for the population in times of invasion. The smaller forts were isolated but kept watch at strategic locations such as guarding a narrow defile or an important agricultural center.

The Romans developed a coded signaling system. Beacons from station to station would signal the composition, character and numbers of an invading force.

The fortresses were often rectangular. The thickness of the walls raged from 7 feet to 9 feet thick. Surviving walls range from 26 feet to 32 feet high.

The fort towers were of varying shapes. They were usually two story. The basement opened to the courtyard and the top story to the walk along the wall. Sometimes they have no doorway to the wall-walk and were capable of being held independently as a place to make a last stand.

By Procopius    
The Buildings of Justinian
Written in the 550s AD

These things, then, were done by Justinian at modern Carthage. In the surrounding region, which is called Proconsularis, there was an unwalled city, Vaga by name, which could be captured not only by a planned attack of the barbarians, but even if they merely chanced to be passing that way.  This place the Emperor Justinian surrounded with very strong defenses and made it worthy to be called a city, and capable of affording safe protection to its inhabitants.  And they, having received this favour, now call the city Theodorias in honour of the Empress.  He also built in this district a fortress which they call Tucca. 

In Byzacium there is a city on the coast, Adramytus by name, which has been large and flourishing from ancient times, and for this reason it won the name and rank of metropolis of the region, since it chances to be first in point of size and, in general, of prosperity.

The Vandals had torn the circuit-wall of this city down to the ground, so that the Romans might not be able to use it against them. And it lay conveniently exposed to the Moors when they overran that region.  Nevertheless, the Libyans who lived there tried to make provision, so far as they could, for their own safety, and so they made a barricade out of the ruins of the walls and joined their houses together;  and from these they would fight against their assailants and try to defend themselves, though their hope was slight and their position precarious.  So their safety always hung by a hair and they were kept standing on one leg, being exposed to the attacks of the Moors and to the neglect of the Vandals.

Tower of Ksar Lemsa

However, when the Emperor Justinian became master of Libya by conquest, he put an exceedingly massive wall about the city and stationed there an adequate garrison of troops, thus giving the inhabitants assurance of safety and enabling them to disdain all enemies.  For this reason they now call the place Justinianê, thus repaying the Emperor for their deliverance and displaying their gratitude simply by the adoption of the name, since they had no other means by which they could requite the Emperor's beneficence, nor did he himself wish other requital. 

There was also a certain other town on the coast of Byzacium which the inhabitants used to call Caputvada. At that point the Emperor's fleet landed and there the troops first set foot on the land of Libya, when they made the expedition against Gelimer and the Vandals.  In that place also God revealed that marvellous and indescribable gift to the Emperor which I have described in the Books on the Wars. For although the locality was exceedingly arid, so that the Roman army was very hard pressed by lack of water, the ground, which previously had been completely dry, sent up a spring at the place where the soldiers were building their stockade,  for as they dug, the water began to gush forth. 

So the earth threw off the drought which prevailed there, and transforming its own character became saturated with drinking-water.  Because of this circumstance they built a satisfactory camp in that place and spent that night there; and on the next day they prepared for battle and, to omit what intervened, took possession of Libya.  So the Emperor Justinian, by way of bearing witness to the gift of God by means of a permanent testimony — for the most difficult task easily yields to his wish — conceived the desire to transform this place forthwith into a city which should be made strong by a wall and distinguished by its other appointments as worthy to be counted an impressive and prosperous city; and the purpose of the Emperor has been realized.

Emperor Justinian

For a wall has been brought to completion and with it a city, and the condition of a farm land is being suddenly changed.  And the rustics have thrown aside the plough and lead the existence of a community, no longer going the round of country tasks but living a city life.  They pass their days in the market-place and hold assemblies to deliberate on questions which concern them; and they traffic with one another, and conduct all the other affairs which pertain to the dignity of a city. 

This then was done in Byzacium on the sea. In the interior of this land and to its farther parts, where barbarian Moors live hard by, he built very powerful outposts against them, because of which they are no longer able to overrun the Roman dominion.  He surrounded each one of the cities with very strong walls, since they stand on the rim of the territory; these bear the names Mammes, Teleptê and Cululis. He also constructed a fort which the natives call Aumetra, and in these places he stationed trustworthy garrisons of troops. 

In the same way he assured the safety of the land of Numidia by means of fortifications and garrisons of soldiers, each one of which I shall now mention.  There is a mountain in Numidia which is called Aurasius, such as chances to be found nowhere else at all in the civilized world.  For this mountain rises steeply to a towering height and its perimeter extends to a distance of about three days' journey. It offers no path as one approaches it, having no ascent except over cliffs.

The Emperor Justinian, however, expelled from there the Moors, and Iaudas who ruled over them, and added this mountain to the rest of the Roman Empire.  As a precaution in order that the barbarians might not again make trouble by getting a foothold there, he fortified cities about the mountain which he found deserted and altogether unwalled. I refer to Pentebagae and Florentianae and Badê and Meleum and Tamugadê, as well as two forts, Dabusis and Gaeana; also he established there sufficient garrisons of soldiers, thus leaving to the barbarians there no hope of attacking Aurasius.

And at Gadira, at one side of the Pillars of Heracles, on the right side of the strait, there had been at one time a fortress on the Libyan shore named Septum; this was built by the Romans in early times, but being neglected by the Vandals, it had been destroyed by time.  Our Emperor Justinian made it strong by means of a wall and strengthened its safety by means of a garrison.  There too he consecrated to the Mother of God a noteworthy church, thus dedicating to her the threshold of the Empire, and making this fortress impregnable for the whole race of mankind. 

So much for these things. There can be no dispute, but it is abundantly clear to all mankind, that the Emperor Justinian has strengthened the Empire, not with fortresses alone, but also by means of garrisons of soldiers, from the bounds of the East to the very setting of the sun, these being the limits of the Roman dominion.

Sleeping chambers inside the fort of Ksar Lemsa.

(Ksar Lemsa)      (commons.wikimedia)      (Limisa)

(lonelyplanet.com)      (looklex.com)      (Lemsa)      (History of Fortifications)     

Barbarians at the Gates - The Roman Balkans

June 15, 2019, 8:49 pm

≫ Next: Did Roman Legionaries Wear Red Tunics?

≪ Previous: The Roman Fortress of Ksar Lemsa

$

0

0

Roman Reenactor Marco le Méro Photographie is with Gwendal Lazzara at Funkenburg Westgreußen

The Coming of - Just About Everyone

In the centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire it is hard to believe that there were any people at all left in Central Asia - - - just about every tribe imaginable marched southwest and invaded the Eastern Roman Empire.

By the year 500AD the entire northern bank of the Danube from Belgrade to the Black Sea was occupied by one Slavic tribe or another. Why these tribes showed up no one knows. But in their desire for loot, slaves or land they put mounting pressure on the Roman frontier. Two of the earliest Slavic tribes were the Antes and the Sclaveni.

The history of the Eastern Empire in the 500s is dominated by the re-conquest of Roman lands by the Emperor Justinian (r. 527-565). All of Italy, North Africa, Southern Spain, Sicily and Sardinia once again were part of the Empire. But these new lands brought a serious military strain to the country: endless wars in all directions from invaders.

While the Roman armies were fighting in Italy, North Africa and against the Persian Empire the Slavs were crossing the Danube into the heart of the Roman Balkans.

The earliest inroads by the Slavs came under Justin I (518-527). But under Justinian the floodgates began to open. As powerful a threat as the Persians were, it was on the Danube, not the Euphrates, that the fate of the Empire was decided.

• Contemporary historian Procopius:  "Illyricum and all of Thrace, that is, from the Ionian Gulf to the suburbs of Constantinople, including Greece and the Chersonese (the Gallipoli peninsula) were overrun by the Huns (the Bulgars), Sclavini and Antes almost every year, from the time when Justinian took over the Roman Empire; and intolerable things they did to the inhabitants."

At first these annual raids were for loot, after which the barbarians retired over the Danube.

Then in 540 the Kutrigurs delivered a shattering attack capturing 32 fortresses in Illyriccum on the west coast and plundering the countryside all the way to the suburbs of Constantinople. In 545 the Slavs plundered Thrace. Repulsed by Justinian's famous general Narses. they returned five years later coming within 40 miles of Constantinople, defeated a Roman army at Adrainople until finally being turned by at the walls of Constantinople itself.

By 550 things began to change. The raids became longer and the Slavs started to capture cities and fortresses often holding them for several years.

In 559 a Kutrigur-Slavic army crossed the frozen Danube and marched into Thrace. There it divided into sections. One marched into Thessaly where they were turned back by the Roman defenses at the defile of Thermopylae. A second attacked and was defeated at Gallipoli.

The third attacked the walls of Constantinople and laid waste to the suburbs. The Emperor recalled an aged General Belisarius. He forced the barbarians to retire beyond the Long Wall. A Roman fleet was simultaneously reinforced on the Danube cutting off the retreat of Slavs. Caught between two fires the Kutrigus sued for peace and returned to the steppes. This strategy would be used by the Romans many times over the years.

Map of Slavic peoples of the 6th century

Roman – Persian War of 572–591 Roman Wars on Four Fronts The Roman armies faced a major war with the Persian Empire in the east.  At the same time they face invasion in the Balkans by the Avars, the invasion of Italy by the Lombards and a North African war against the Berbers.

Central and Eastern Europe about 650AD The first appearance of the Slavs in the Eastern Roman Empire can be dated no earlier than the 6th century. Throughout this century, beginning with the reign of Justinian, Slavs repeatedly invaded the Balkan possessions of the Empire. Not until the reign of Maurice, however, did any Slavs settle in these territories. Between the years 579-587 there took place the irruption of several barbarian waves led by the Avars, but consisting mostly of Slavs. The latter came in great numbers, and, as the troops of the Empire were engaged in the war with Persia, they roamed the country at will. Slavs devastated Illyricum and Thrace, penetrated deep into Greece and the Peloponnesus, helped the Avars to take numerous cities, including Singidunum, Viminacium (Kostolac), Durostorum (Silistria), Marcianopolis, Anchialus, and Corinth, and in 586 laid siege to the city of Thessalonica, the first of a series of great sieges which that city was destined to undergo at their hands What is more, they came to stay.

The Balkan Limes

The extent to which the Emperor Justinian neglected the Balkan Limes should not be exaggerated. The historian Procopius lists over 600 fortresses that were either built or restored by the Emperor.

Some of these were no doubt little more than fortified watch towers. Others may have never gotten beyond the planning stages. Even allowing for this the building was impressive. The old Roman limes were built along the Danube. Justinian's defenses formed a system of three fortified parallel belts - more of a defense in depth.

The first belt followed the natural barrier of the Danube River. Roman cities on the south bank such as Singidunum and Novae were strengthened to withstand invasions.

The second fortified line was just to the south. It stretched west to east in Roman provinces like Upper Moesia and Dacia Ripensis.  Some 107 strongholds were built or re-build. This zone also helped guard passes over Balkan mountains.

The third fortified zone was deep in the interior. It guarded the provinces of Haemimontus and Thrace, along with areas of eastern Serbia and western Bulgaria. A network of fortifications was strengthened or built.

It is believed that in many cases Justinian's fortifications were not built to last. As the tempo of barbarian invasions picked up in the last half of the 500s the Emperor's fortresses were obliterated and forgotten to such a degree that historians have problems with their locations.

In many ways Justinian cannot be blamed. From any point of view defending the massive Roman Empire stretching from Spain and Morocco to Switzerland to the Sahara Desert to the Balkans and the Euphrates was close to impossible. The manpower and money were just not there.

Reconstruction of a UNESCO limes fortress in Germany. Due no doubt to budgets, most of the Roman limes defenses along the Danube were much weaker - often little more than watchtowers like the one below.

Roman forts along the Danube limes - theoretical reconstruction (artstation)

The Empire might not have been able to turn back many of the invading Slavic armies, but then there was the old standby of using money and diplomacy.

To relieve pressure on the Danube, Justinian used a combination of military pressure, economic cajolery and religious propaganda to divide and control the different tribes.

For example in 530 a certain Slavic chief of great ability named Chilbudius was enticed into Roman service. He was appointed supreme commander on the Danube which he successfully defended for several years against the Kutrigurs, Antes and Sclavini. In 535 Justinian offered the Antes money and lands on the northern bank of the lower Danube. The tribe was granted the status of Foederati on condition they would hold the river against the Bulgars.

This policy worked for for and against the Empire. The Romans had gained allies to defend the frontier but at a great drain on the Imperial Treasury and widespread discontent among the people. Also paying out money to barbarians just attracted more barbarians.

• Procopius:  "For these barbarians, having once tasted Roman wealth, never forgot the road that led to it . . . . Thus all the barbarians became masters of all the wealth of the Romans, either being presented with it by the emperor, or by ravaging the Roman Empire, selling their prisoners for ransom, and bartering for truces."

The Coming of the Avars

In the last years of Justinian's rule the Central Asian Avars appeared in Constantinople. Their leaders were placated with presents of gold chains, saddles and silk robes. A treaty was concluded where the Avars would defend the Empire. But as foederati they did their job too well defeating enemies everywhere.

Tired of paying out money in 565 the new Emperor Justin II haughtily rejected an Avar delegation's request for tribute. Shortly thereafter began a 58 year long series of wars with the Avars.

The Avars usually raided the Balkans when the Roman Empire was distracted elsewhere, typically in its frequent wars with the Sassanid Empire in the East. As a result, they often raided with impunity for long periods of time, before Roman troops could be freed from other fronts to be sent on punitive expeditions. This happened during in the 580s and 590s, where Byzantium was initially distracted in the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 572–591, but then followed up by a series of successful campaigns that pushed the Avars back.

The Avars almost launched a massive attack on Sirmium in 568, but were repulsed.

The Romans paid them 80,000 gold solidi a year. Except for a raid on Sirmium in 574, they did not threaten Byzantine territory until 579, after Tiberius II stopped the payments. The Avars retaliated with another siege of Sirmium. The city fell in c. 581, or possibly 582. After the capture of Sirmium, the Avars demanded 100,000 solidi a year. Refused, they began pillaging the northern and eastern Balkans, which only ended after the Avars were pushed back by the Byzantines from 597 to 602.

Avar mounted archer

Avar warriors (pinterest)

Charge of the Avars taken May, 2011. (flickr.com)

The flavor of the times, the helplessness of the Empire to defend the Balkans, is captured by Syriac historian John of Ephesus in 584.

• "That same year, being the third year after the death of King Justin, was famous also for the invasion of an accursed people, called the Slavonians, who overran the whole of Greece, and the country of the Thessalonians, and all Thrace, and captured the cities, and took numerous forts, and devastated and burnt, and reduced the people to slavery, and made themselves masters of the whole country, and settles it by main force, and dwelt there in it as though it had been their own without fear. And four years have now elapsed, and still, because the king is engaged in a war with the Persians, and has sent all his forces to the East, they live in the land, and dwell in it, and spread themselves far and wide as God permits them, and ravage and burn and take captive. And to such an extent do they carry their ravages, that they have even ridden up to the outer walls of the city (i.e. the Long Wall of Constantinople), and driven away all the king's herds of horses, many thousands in number, and whatever else they could find.  And even to this day . . . . (584) they still camp and dwell there, and live in peace in the Roman territories, free from anxiety and fear, lead captive and slay and burn: and they have grown rich in gold and silver, and herds of horses, and arms, and have learnt to fight better than the Romans . . . . "

After the end of the Roman war with the Persians in 591, Emperor Maurice shifted his focus to the Balkans. Maurice deployed veteran troops to the Balkans, allowing the Byzantines to shift from a reactive strategy to a pre-emptive one. The general Priscus was tasked with stopping the Slavs from crossing the Danube in spring 593. He routed several raiding parties, before he crossed the Danube and fought the Slavs in what is now Wallachia.

After years of offensive warfare the Romans pacified the Balkans for the first time since the reign of Anastasius I (r. 491–518). Maurice planned to repopulate the devastated lands which the Byzantines had recovered by settling Armenian peasants, as well as Romanizing the Slav settlers already in the area. Maurice also planned to lead further campaigns against the Avar Khaganate, so as to either destroy them or force them into submission. However, Maurice was overthrown in 602 by Phocas, as his army rebelled at the endless Balkan campaigning. Phocas promptly scrapped those plans.

The Avars, who were likely encouraged by their successful campaigns against the Lombards in 610 and the Franks in 611, resumed their incursions some time after 612. By 614, with the Persian capture of Jerusalem, it became clear to the Avars and their Slav subjects that retaliation from the Byzantines was extremely unlikely. Chronicles of the 610s record wholesale pillaging, with cities such as Justiniana Prima and Salona succumbing. The cities of Naissus and Serdica were captured in 615, and the cities of Novae and Justiniana Prima were destroyed in 613 and 615, respectively. 

The Slavs also raided in the Aegean, as far as Crete, in 623. During this time period, there were three separate sieges of Thessalonica: in 604, 615, and 617. In 623 the Byzantine emperor Heraclius journeyed into Thrace in an attempt to agree peace with the Avar Khagan face to face. Instead the Byzantines were ambushed, with Heraclius narrowly escaping and most of his bodyguard and retainers being killed or captured. 

Avar power peaked culminating in the Siege of Constantinople in 626.

The Persian king Khosrau II, after suffering reverses through Heraclius' campaigns in the Persian rear, resolved to launch a decisive strike. While general Shahin Vahmanzadegan was sent to stop Heraclius with 50,000 men, Shahrbaraz was given command of a smaller army and ordered to slip by Heraclius' flank, and march for Chalcedon, a Persian base across the Bosporus from Constantinople. Khosrau II also made contact with the Khagan of the Avars to allow for a coordinated attack on Constantinople, the Persians on the Asiatic side, and the Avars from the European side.

The Avar army approached Constantinople from Thrace and destroyed the Aqueduct of Valens. Because the Byzantine navy controlled the Bosporus strait, the Persians could not send troops to the European side to aid the Avars, which deprived the Avars of the Persian expertise in siege warfare. Byzantine naval superiority also made communication between the two forces difficult.

The Byzantine defenders had 12,000 well-trained cavalry troops, who were likely dismounted, facing roughly 80,000 Avars and Sclaveni (Slavs whose land was controlled by the Avars). Because the Persian base in Chalcedon had been established for many years, it was not immediately obvious that a siege would take place. It only became obvious to the Byzantines after the Avars began to move heavy siege equipment towards the Theodosian Walls.

On August 7, a fleet of Persian rafts ferrying troops across the Bosporus to the European side were surrounded and destroyed by the Byzantine fleet. The Sclaveni then attempted to attack the Sea Walls from across the Golden Horn, while the Avars attacked the land walls. However, the Sclaveni boats were rammed and destroyed by the galleys of Bonus, and the Avar land assaults on August 6th and 7th were repelled.

Even though the Persian army of Shahrbaraz still remained at Chalcedon, the threat to Constantinople was over, as the Persians could not use artillery from their side of the Bosporus.

After failing to capture Constantinople, the Avar nation rapidly began to decline before disintegrating entirely.

Roman Reenactor

The "De-Romanization" of the Balkans

The permanent colonization of Greece and other provinces by pagan Slavic tribes basically shattered the old Roman Balkans nearly beyond repair.

Latin and Greek were largely replaced by assorted barbarian languages. Christianity was replaced by pagan faiths.

In the West the German foederati looked to have a legitimate place and land within the Empire. The invading Slavic tribes destroyed nearly everything they came in contact with.

• Cities were sacked. 
• Large areas of the countryside were laid waste and were turned, in the words of Procopius, into a "Scythian wilderness". 
• The Roman governmental machinery totally collapsed.
• The network of bishoprics established in the 300s were almost wholly uprooted. Christianity was virtually extinguished for several centuries.
• Entire stretches of the countryside were emptied of their inhabitants. Those who survived the slaughter were deported north of the Danube.

Long Term Military Impact - For centuries the Prefecture of Illyricum had produced some of the best soldiers for the Roman Army. With the massive genocide Illyricum was all but eliminated as a source of conscripts. The generals in Constantinople turned to Armenia and the Caucasus to fill the ranks.

By turning east for new officers and soldiers the Empire became more and more Asian in politics and orientation and less European. The late sixth century marks the rise of Armenians in government and the military.

From Magister Militum  Heavy infantryman of the Ioviani Seniores, equipped with a long thrusting spear, lenticular shield and a heavy mail shirt alongside his helmet and thick, military belt.

The Slow Roman Re-Conquest of the Balkans

To say the generals and Emperors had their hands full is an understatement.

No sooner was the Avar siege of Constantinople defeated and the Persian Empire totally crushed that they saw the rise of militant Islam.

Within a few decades the Roman provinces in North Africa, Egypt, Palestine and Syria fell to the Muslims. Trying to regain control of the Balkans was about as low on their list as it could get.

But re-conquer the Balkans they did - slowly, inch by inch.

The military theme system first appeared in the early 7th century, during the reign of the Emperor Heraclius, and as the Roman Empire recovered, it was imposed on all areas that came under Byzantine control. 

In their origin, 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. 

The first Balkan theme created was that in Thrace, in 680 AD. By 695, a second theme, that of "Hellas" (or "Helladikoi"), was established, probably in eastern central Greece.

It was not until 100 years later that a third theme would be established. 

In 782–784, the eunuch general Staurakios campaigned from Thessaloniki, south to Thessaly and into the Peloponnese. He captured many Slavs and transferred them elsewhere, mostly Anatolia. However it is not known whether any territory was restored to imperial authority as result of this campaign, though it is likely some was. 

Sometime between 790 and 802, the theme of Macedonia was created, centered on Adrianople. A serious and successful recovery began under Nicephorus I (802–811). In 805, the theme of the Peloponnese was created.

In the 9th century, new themes continued to arise, although many were small and were carved out of original, larger themes. New themes in the 9th century included those of Thessalonica, Dyrrhachium, Strymon, and Nicopolis. From these themes, Byzantine laws and culture flowed into the interior. 

By the end of the 9th century most of Greece was culturally and administratively Greek again. But above Greece when the Emperor reconquered a province he would be ruling over Slavs - - - not Romans.

The re-Hellenization process begun under Nicephorus I involved (often forcible) transfer of peoples. Many Slavs were moved to other parts of the empire, such as Anatolia and made to serve in the military. In return, many Greeks from Sicily and Asia Minor were brought to the interior of Greece, to increase the number of defenders at the Emperor's disposal and dilute the concentration of Slavs. 

Hanging on by its fingernails the Roman Empire had survived the horrors of the Slavic, Persian and Muslim invasions of the 500s to the 700s. Latin vanished and Greek became the official language.

Moving forward the Empire was more of a fusion Greek-Armenian state than Roman.

Photo From Magister Militum Roman reenactor

The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1453 by Dimitri Obolensky

(Avar-Byzantine wars)

Did Roman Legionaries Wear Red Tunics?

July 15, 2019, 8:53 pm

≫ Next: Crest of an Emperor

≪ Previous: Barbarians at the Gates - The Roman Balkans

$

0

0

Classic Roman Red Uniforms

Roman and Byzantine Uniforms

• What we know about Roman and then Eastern Roman uniforms is minimal and perhaps mostly wrong. As for the use of the color "red", it may not have been used too much more than other colors.
• If red was a dominant color in a united Roman Army I doubt that it continued too long once the East broke off from Rome. Over time an independent East would have started to establish its own military traditions.

Hollywood costume departments have perhaps poisoned our history.  The "classic" red Roman uniform used in so many movies may have never existed. Instead the "uniforms" might have been mix of whatever happened to be available.

We have more evidence about uniforms for the purely Roman period, still even that is limited.

But on January 17, 395 Theodosius I (r. 379-95), the last Emperor of a united Roman Empire died.  The day before on January 16th, Emperor Theodosius commanded Roman troops stationed from Mesopotamia to Morocco to England to Bulgaria.  But at some point on the 17th a sole commander-in-chief of the Roman military machine died.

The death of the Emperor led to the final split of the Empire into two political entities, the West (Occidentale) and the East (Orientale). 

For many decades to come the Eastern Roman Army would not have looked or acted much different from its Western counterpart.  Any changes in uniforms, unit structure and tactics would have been very gradual.  

The early American Republic shows how rapidly uniforms can change. Between 1776 and World War I the U.S. Army had six distinct uniform styles - Revolution, 1812, Mexican War, Civil War-Indian Wars, Spanish-Philippine Wars and the WWI.

If American uniforms could change so rapidly in basically a 150 year period, the possible changes in Roman and Byzantine uniforms over centuries could be considerable and perhaps mostly undocumented.

Where the color red fit in is anybody's guess.

Military of the Roman Republic and Empire wore loosely regulated dress and armor. The contemporary concept of uniforms was not part of Roman culture and there were considerable differences in detail. Armor was not standardized and even that produced in state factories varied according to the province of origin. 

Likewise the Romans had no concept of obsolescence. Provided it remained serviceable, soldiers were free to use armor handed down by family members, buy armor from soldiers who had completed their service or wear discontinued styles of armor if they preferred it to (or could not afford) the latest issue. Thus it was common for legions to wear a mix of various styles that could cover a considerable time period.

Fragments of surviving clothing and wall paintings indicate that the basic tunic of the Roman soldier was of red or undyed off-white wool. 

Senior commanders are known to have worn white cloaks and plumes. The centurions who made up the long serving backbone of the legions were distinguished by transverse crests on their helmets, chest ornaments corresponding to modern medals and the long cudgels that they carried.

Ever changing uniforms Eastern Empire troops about 530 AD.  The great General Belisarius directs his soldiers.  The painting is the artist's view. It could be dead on or far from the mark. Were the uniforms more "Roman" with red cloth? or had the army totally changed? No one knows for sure.  . We do have the historian Procopius discussing weapons, armor and tactics in the 500s. The troops being clad in red (or in any other color) is not brought up.

A reenactor dressed as a Roman soldier in lorica segmentata - a type of personal armor used by soldiers of the Roman Empire, consisting of metal strips ("girth hoops" fashioned into circular bands), fastened to internal leather straps.

(From Imperium Romanum) - In films, historical reconstructions and illustrations, Roman legionaries are dressed in red tunics. But in reality, did the ancient Romans in the army have a unified dress, which was mainly made up of red?

At the beginning, it should be noted what was symbolized by the red color. In the Romans’ sense, it was the color and symbol of Mars – the god of war and the mythological father of twins Romulus and Remus. Thus, red was of great importance in the public sphere of the Romans, who considered themselves a warlike people, coming directly from Mars.

On the battlefield the red tunic worn under the armor represented blood and strength. Certainly, the compact line of Roman infantry, dressed in red, had a psychological impact on the enemy army, which perceived it as strong and valiant.

Fresco from the Doctor’s House in Pompeii showing three Roman soldiers: two in white tunics and one in red tunic.

We do not have any hard evidence that the legionaries were wearing only red (as we commonly see). You need to know that the soldiers themselves took care of their wardrobe and often, for example, received parcels from their families, including with tunics. Thus, they certainly had more than one. What’s more, there was no requirement for unified weapons and clothing. And yes, soldiers had different types of armor (depending on what they could afford) and different colors of tunics.

It also happened that the generals confiscated the fabrics in a given area and assigned them to the attire for soldiers. There was no top-down command to use only red. In addition, one should also take into account the fact that there were various access to individual dyes at different latitudes. The cheap color in Egypt did not necessarily have to cost as much as Britain.

The price itself was also a big barrier. Legionnaires did not earn much money, and the tunic during service was easy to get dirty and destroyed. Probably the tunic was losing its color after many washes, and gray-bure colors predominated. It is certain that tunic in natural colors was worn, i.e. from white, through shades of gray, browns to black. During the ceremony, specially prepared snow-white tunics were set up.

The proof that the soldiers were serving in various colors of tunics is a fresco from one of the houses in Pompeii. We can see there two legionaries in white tunics, and one in red clothes.

It can certainly be said, however, that red was the most popular because of the cheapness of its production. White and dark colors (i.e. dark brown) probably predominated. Among the higher command of the legion appeared more expensive – “red scarlet”. The most expensive purple, in turn, was reserved for generals, and later only for emperors.

When it comes to Roman soldiers and rowers serving in the sea fleet, we know that they had blue tunics thanks to a Vegetius (writer from the 4th century CE).

Late Roman Reenactors All colors are represented

Postings from the Quora website

Tim O'Neill, Head Inquisitor against bad history.

Answered Aug 18, 2014 · Upvoted by Humphrey Clarke, MA in Modern History - University of St Andrews · Author has 666 answers and 8.6m answer views

Our evidence for the colour of tunics worn by Roman soldiers is scanty and not absolutely certain.  Judging from traces of paint on some funerary monuments, some wall paintings, references in Roman historians and literature and archaeological finds, the most common colour for legionary tunics was off-white - i.e. undyed and untreated wool.  The second most common colour seems to have been a deep brownish red.  The latter was not the result of any expensive dye and was made using dried madder root: one of the cheapest and most common dyes of the time.  Parade dress seems to have required a special dress tunic made of bleached wool.

We have some other evidence of officers wearing blue tunics, as well as some evidence of green and mustard yellow.  But in the Late Republican and Early Imperial Periods, off-white and then madder red would have been the most common colours.

For more details see Graham Sumner, Roman Military Clothing Vol. 1 - 100 BC - AD 200 (Osprey: 2002).  Sumner gathers all the evidence we have on the subject and makes the most reasonable assessment we can come to on the subject.

Soldiers wearing blue. www.RomanArmy.net

Hu Jinqin

Answered May 20, 2019 · Author has 2.8k answers and 623.4k answer views

The basis for the idea of red as a uniform colour is archaeological- we have evidence that some soldiers wore red-dyed coloured clothes.

The problem with the idea of a uniform colour however is rather obvious:

1. Just because you find evidence of one colour in one instance does not mean everyone, everywhere that served as a Roman soldier wore the same colour, certainly not the same shade. We have no evidence pointing either direction- it’s possible it was a uniform colour, but it’s also possible it is not.
2. Roman soldiers would wear armour over the red clothes, so the effectiveness of a uniform would not be very useful.
3. Colours and clothes fade, whereas banners and shields are much more practical uses for visually identifying who was friendly or not. There are accounts where soldiers took up shields to confuse the enemy.
4. As another user pointed out, higher ranking officers would have wanted more distinctive clothing and armour, so there would have been resistance to some sort of institutional uniform colour.

As for the movies, this is clearly done for dramatic and simplified purposes- it is easy to make sure everyone knows who is a Roman when you just have them dressed in segmental armour and red tunics. In reality though, for much of Rome’s republican history they looked very much like Gauls, especially given that their equipment were ripoffs of Celtic gear.

The economic costs is also another interesting subject- because Roman troops in the republican period were citizen levies (they brought and paid for their own gear), they would likely skimp on the issue of colour dye as part of their budget- the stipends they received for service was incredibly small. We’re talking money allowance of ten bucks to cover for your lunch, when your lunch is like 9 bucks. If you or I was a Roman soldier we wouldn’t even bother with the red dye since it’s not even effective.

Another user pointed out parade dress, this is a more likely answer. Flashy red dye would make for a nice scene when you march in a triumph, and of course you’d want to make yourself look good for the crowd. In all other circumstances you’d likely not care.

There is debate on whether legionaries among centuries or maniples would outfit themselves with different colours to assist in identification; so that group of men next to yours might wear green whereas the guys behind wear yellow, etc. This is entirely plausible, but there is still the economic part- you have to make sure you got all the colours for everyone, which explains why many people find this unlikely.

Scotts Photo Art

Jason Almendra, Most Viewed Writer History 6Feb19/14May19 392k views

Answered May 19, 2019 · Author has 7.2k answers and 3m answer views

Actually I get the impression from all the material I've seen or read that the Roman Legions looked somewhat ragtag. Armor was non-standard. If a legionaire brought his grandpa's old armor & sword he wore it. So some guys wore lorica segmentata & some wore lorica hamata. There was a fresco that showed that only the officer like the tribunii & the legates wore red tunics. Like the British army they used a red dye from the madder plant. The soldiers also wore a red cloak in bad weather called the sagum. Their civilian togas were plain white with a stripe from the murex snail dye. Broad for the senatorial class & thin for the equites class.

Christian Wenzel

Answered Mar 17, 2017 · Author has 786 answers and 1.4m answer views

Uniform was not a concept at that time. So colors of the the tunics worn by different men in the same unit could vary. There were exceptions for special unit like palace guards (the candidati in Byzantium for example are thought to have worn all white tunics). 

I personally think that, while undyed wool was the cheapest choice (and therefore this wa probably what you would get from an imperial depot) madder-dyed tunics would have the great advantage of not showing the stains. I don't mean blood stains, but simply the rust stains produced by the armour rubbing against a sweated tunic, plus the stains from the oil used to keep the armour clean. Added to this, the famous Spartans were said to wear red, which would be an additional incentive so see red as martial. So I think (just out of my brain, without evidence) that red-brown could in fact be popular choice among soldiers.

"The last legionaries, The Late Roman Army" Tarraco Viva 2019 (storgram.com/tag/lateromanarmy)

Ian Miller, Independent physical scientist, author

Answered Jun 3, 2019 · Author has 3.2k answers and 2.4m answer views

The red dyes most readily come from madder when mordanted with alum. Weld mordants to give a very nice yellow, and they were the main dyes available. Indigo was imported from India, but was difficult to get. The Imperial purple came from thousands of shellfish and part of the reason it was reserved for the Imperial family was that it was so rare. Woad is much the same as indigo, and the indigo is a different sort of dye it is nor fixed by mordanting, so you can get a purple by lightly coating a red with indigo, and a green by overseeing weld with woad.

Th fact is that many plant dyes give reds or browns, so they would be the most commonly used. Part of the reason for dyeing wool with mordant dyeing is also that it lasts longer.

Stan Harris, Interested in ancient history.

Answered Aug 18, 2014 · Author has 1.6k answers and 1.4m answer views

The Roman armies spanned many centuries of the republic and empire, but I speculate that except for special units like bodyguards for the Consul, Emperor and suchlike, soldiers dress would've been rather drab and nondescript.

Soldiers back then didn't actually wear "uniform" in the sense that we use the word today.

A common legionnaire would've probably worn a simple tunic and cape (in colder weather) in a commonly available color.

(Ancient Roman military clothing)      (quora.com)

(imperiumromanum.edu)      (Byzantine army)

Crest of an Emperor

August 12, 2019, 5:09 pm

≫ Next: The Empress Theodora at the Colosseum

≪ Previous: Did Roman Legionaries Wear Red Tunics?

$

0

0

I Love Reenactors

They not only have an intense love for their subject, but often have a deep knowledge of strange and obscure areas of history.

This photo from Facebook is a beautiful recreation of might have been. This could very well be similar to the feathered helmet of the Emperor Justinian below.


Flavius Stilicho

July 31 at 4:04 PM

Really pleased with the new crest! Robert Pustelak is a master of course! Iconographic as well as textual sources give us a clear picture as to what kind of feathers would have been used for the crest of an emperor of the dominate.

Contemporary drawing of the equestrian  statue of Justinian (1430).

The Column of Justinian was a Roman triumphal column erected in Constantinople by the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I in honor of his victories in 543. It stood in the western side of the great square of the Augustaeum, between the Hagia Sophia and the Great Palace, and survived until the early 16th century, when it was demolished by the Ottomans.

The column of Justinian stood on the south-west of Hagia Sophia and was nearly as high as its dome. The column was built of brick and covered with a bronze sheating. On its top there was a statue of Emperor Justinian (527-565) on horseback, the left hand holding a globe, the right hand raised and pointing to the east. 

The column was made of brick, and covered with brass plaques. The column stood on a marble pedestal of seven steps, and was topped by a colossal bronze equestrian statue of the emperor in triumphal attire (the "dress of Achilles" as Procopius calls it), wearing an antique-style muscle cuirass, a plumed helmet of peacock feathers (the toupha), holding a globus cruciger on his left hand and stretching his right hand to the East. 

Read More . . . .

Computer recreation of the Column of Justinian

The Empress Theodora at the Colosseum

September 1, 2019, 2:00 pm

≫ Next: The Viking Siege of Constantinople

≪ Previous: Crest of an Emperor

$

0

0

The Empress Theodora at the Colosseum  oil painting (1889) by Jean-Joseph Benjamin-Constant

The Eastern Roman Empress Theodora (500AD - 548AD) has fascinated historians for over a thousand years.

The main historical sources for her life are the works of her contemporary Procopius. The historian offered three contradictory portrayals of the Empress.

• The Wars of Justinian, largely completed in 545, paints a picture of a courageous and influential empress who saved the throne for Justinian.
• Later he wrote the Secret History. The work has sometimes been interpreted as representing a deep disillusionment with the Emperor Justinian, the Empress, and even his patron Belisarius. Justinian is depicted as cruel, venal, prodigal and incompetent; as for Theodora, the reader is treated to a detailed and titillating portrayal of vulgarity and insatiable lust, combined with shrewish and calculating mean-spiritedness; Procopius even claims both are demons whose heads were seen to leave their bodies and roam the palace at night.
• Procopius' Buildings of Justinian paints Justinian and Theodora as a pious couple and presents particularly flattering portrayals of them. Besides her piety, her beauty is praised within the conventional language of the text's rhetorical form. Although Theodora was dead when this work was published, Justinian was alive, and perhaps commissioned the work.

(From Prisoners of Eternity)  Theodora was to become arguably the most powerful woman ever to emerge from the Roman Empire, 

She wasn’t born to such exalted status. Indeed, she was of no background whatsoever, neither was she from Rome nor Constantinople but from the remote village of Paphlagloria in Cyprus. Her mother, also Theodora, was an entertainer well vested in the art of seduction, a skill she passed on to her daughter. Her father, Acacius, was a bear trainer working for the Green Faction in the Hippodrome in Constantinople.

The Hippodrome was the entertainment center of Constantinople and the venue for the hugely popular chariot races, but much like the Colosseum in Rome it was never just about sport it was a place for deal making, political intrigue, and often a seething cauldron of social discontent, a place of violence and intimidation where fist fights were commonplace, where the great and the good needed to be seen but feared to tread, and where religious disputes were settled in the arena and not the cloister. It was about who ruled, and the Factions who dominated could make and break regimes.

The Circus Factions – Blue, Green, Red and White – operated as rival gangs which were little better than criminal enterprises running prostitution rings and extortion rackets within their own spheres of influence. The rivalry between the Factions was fierce and often political and it was into this world of violence and corruption that Theodora was raised.

Theodora, whose father died when she was aged three, was invested into the life of the Factions early when her mother now destitute needing the support of at least one or other of the Factions to survive brought her and her two sisters into the Hippodrome on the day of the chariot races adorned in blue ribbons and wearing blue garlands and dedicated her life and those of her daughters to the Blue Faction. Though she had previously been a Green she knew that the Blue Faction represented the lower class and was by far the most numerous and powerful. It was to prove an astute move.

While still just a girl Theodora was made to work in a brothel to pay her way and she was obviously very good at what she did for she soon moved from servicing the sexual requirements of low class clients for pennies most of which was taken by the pimp that had been provided by the Faction to the more lucrative role of circus entertainer as a dancer and mime artist. 

Here she provided sexually explicit shows for the social elite. Particularly popular was her notoriously lascivious portrayal of Leda and the Swan where she would be stripped naked, lie on her back, and have barley sprinkled over her breasts and nether regions to be pecked at by geese.

She soon became a star attraction for the great and good of Constantinople and it was during a performance of Leda and the Swan that she met Antonia, the wife of Belisarius who would go onto become the Empire’s leading General and the future Emperor Justinian’s right-hand man. It was a valuable contact and they were to remain lifelong friends.

At the age of sixteen Theodora traveled to Libya as the mistress of its new Governor Hecebolus. If she believed this proffered the opportunity of a better life then she was to be bitterly disappointed for Hecebolus treated her like the whore he obviously thought she was. After she became pregnant he lost all interest in her. 

Abused, ill-treated and abandoned in AD 522 along with her young daughter she returned to Constantinople. She had no desire to return to her previous way of life and tried to make a living as a wool spinner but it was hard work and she barely made enough to maintain herself let alone her daughter.

The lure of the Circus Factions and the rewards on offer was to prove too greater a temptation and she was soon back to doing what she did best, seducing men for money.

A Rather Hot Empress Theodora  by Jean-Joseph Benjamin-Constant (1887) . Like Cleopatra, Theodora has been idealized as a smart and hot ruler. She was not just smart, but she was also a survivor.   . The odds are pretty good that Theodora really was hot.  A plain or ugly Theodora would not have been taken as the mistress of the Governor of Libya or appeared on stage nude before very demanding audiences.

A rather plain and stern version of the Empress at Ravenna done during her lifetime and completed in 547 the year before her death. If an artist knows what is good for him he will make his subject look better in art than in real life. So it is safe to say that we are not dealing with an idealized "hot" or "sexy" Theodora at this latter stage of her life.

The future Emperor Justinian, like Theodora was of humble origin. He had been born Petrus Sabbiatus in the town of Traeserium in Thrace, or modern day Serbia in AD 483. 

It appeared that his life was destined to be one of poverty and back-breaking toil in the fields but his mother, Virgiliana, was the sister of Justin the Commander of the Excubitors, or Imperial Guard in Constantinople. She was unable to cope raising her children on her own and appealed to her brother to allow the young Petrus to visit and remain with his uncle in the city. Justin, who had no children of his own, was happy to oblige.

Justin was to provide for the boys education and secure him a commission in the Imperial Guard. Petrus in turn took his uncle’s name calling himself Justinian and was to prove himself a capable, energetic, and ambitious young man. Justin was impressed by his nephew and he was promoted rapidly through the ranks of the Guard.

Emperor Justinian

In AD 518, the Emperor Anastasius died without an heir and the hard-working and ever loyal Justin became the obvious choice to succeed him. Suddenly and unexpectedly, Justinian, the rough peasant boy from Thrace was in-line to the throne of the Eastern Roman Empire.

As the nephew of the Emperor it was only proper that Flavius Justinianus, as he was now known, be provided with the title and honours that fitted his new exalted status, and he was appointed a Senator. 

He was described at this time as being: “Short in stature, with a good chest, fair skinned, curly haired, round faced and handsome.”

It was around this time that he met Theodora though as a supporter of the Blue Faction he would almost certainly have been already aware of her. He fell hopelessly in love with the undoubtedly beautiful young woman so well-schooled in the arts of seduction who was also highly intelligent, witty, straight talking and who could swear with the best of men, all traits considered unseemly in a woman but which appealed greatly to the equally roughly hewn Justinian. As far as he was concerned it was love at first sight.

Justinian was determined to make Theodora his wife but it was illegal for a Senator to marry beneath himself and a circus entertainer was about as low as it could possibly get so he petitioned his uncle Justin for a change in the law. The Empress Euphemia however despite being personally fond of Justinian and disinclined to deny him anything would not countenance any such thing and it wasn’t until after her death in AD 525 that he again approached Justin who had always been more malleable on the issue. He agreed to his nephews request and changed the law.

Justinian and Theodora were wed soon after but to little acclaim or public rejoicing. The elite of Constantinople were appalled believing he had brought the aristocracy into disrepute by marrying someone who was little better than a common whore. They were also offended that he had rejected many more suitable candidates from amongst themselves.

On 1 August AD 527, the elderly Emperor Justin died. In his declining years he had been displaying the signs of senility and had become increasingly reliant upon his nephew Justinian to run the Empire for him. He was the obvious choice to replace him.

Upon becoming Emperor it soon became apparent that he was no longer the amiable and approachable young man that he had once been but had become distant and aloof. He had always been deeply conscious of his humble background and lowly status at Court. Now both he, and in particular Theodora, became sticklers for Court ceremony. Government officials and even the most venerable of Senators were made to prostrate themselves in the Imperial couple’s presence.

If Justinian’s need to compensate for his poor Thracian background by forcing those who considered themselves his better into petty acts of obeisance wasn’t humiliation enough he now began to interfere in areas of governance that had previously been the fiefdom of others. But it was to be upon his wife that the greatest opprobrium would fall.

Procopius in his Secret History wrote of Theodora:

“Often she would attend a dinner party with ten young men or more all at the peak of their physical powers and with fornication as their chief object in life; and she would remain with her fellow diners all night long reducing them to state of physical exhaustion.”

He further went onto describe how:

“To her bodily needs she devoted quite unnecessary attention. She was always in a hurry to get into her bath, and was very reluctant to get out of it.”

The rumours of her insatiable sexual appetite and love of luxury were to persist throughout her life. It was said that Justinian was aware of her behaviour but turned a blind eye to it, that he was willing to indulge her in almost anything. Indeed, many people believed that it was Theodora who was running the Empire. It wasn’t true but her influence was undoubted and in time Justinian was to take the unprecedented step of making her co-Regent and they were to go on to form one of the most remarkable working partnerships in world history.

Circa 1890: French actress Sarah Bernhardt in costume as 'Theodora'.

Sarah Bernhardt

Many of the acts of Justinian’s reign were taken at the prompting of Theodora at a time when a woman was expected to be decorous and obedient and little else. To many people this was either a sign of weakness and unfitness to rule on his part or that she was a witch and had cast a spell over him.

Justinian focused on the law, Theodora turned her attention to civil and religious matters.

Both Justinian and Theodora were Christians, as were many of the political and social elite, but many of the common people still worshiped the old Gods. Under pressure from Theodora, Justinian legislated against pagan belief. Those civil servants who held onto their pagan beliefs were removed from their posts. Those who publicly converted to Christianity but continued to worship the old religion in private were liable to execution for heresy. Theodora was also instrumental in forcing through anti-Jewish legislation and many of Constantinople’s Synagogues were torn down.

Theodora was also responsible for encouraging a moral crackdown. Homosexuality was publicly condemned, brothels were closed down, and those caught committing a homosexual act were publicly castrated encouraging vigilantes to roam the streets inflicting their own form of rough justice. Gambling was also banned and the punishment for doing so was to have your hands severed. 

Both Justinian and Theodora were playing a dangerous game for both prostitution and gambling provided a substantial source of income for the Factions and in curtailing their activities the Imperial couple were inviting their wrath.

On 10 January AD 532, the City Prefect Eudaemon arrested a number of hooligans following a riot at the chariot races that had resulted in the murder of a man. Most of the culprits were executed in short order but two escaped when the scaffold they were standing on whilst waiting to be hanged collapsed.

The two men, one from the Blue Faction and the other from the Green were soon recaptured but escaped once more this time fleeing to a nearby Church where they sought sanctuary. The Church was soon surrounded by supporters of both the Factions demanding that the men be permitted to go free.

A nervous Justinian, aware that he had already stretched the patience of the Factions to breaking point and not wanting to inflame the situation further announced that the men’s sentence had been commuted from death to life imprisonment and to try and placate them further announced that there would be chariot races held the following day. Both the Blue and the Green Faction remained adamant that their men be released without charge.

Lady Randolph Churchill as Theodora

On 13 January, a large crowd converged on the Hippodrome to watch the chariot races that had been promised and the tension was palpable. As Justinian viewed proceedings from his royal box in the Imperial Palace overlooking the vast arena he could hear the murmurings, the jeers, and the abusive chants being leveled at both him and in particular his wife. As the day began to draw to its close and following Race 22 the crowd many of whom were by this time clearly intoxicated began to chant in unison Nika! Nika! ( Victory! Victory! ). 

Justinian tried to address the crowd but was shouted down. They then tried to storm the Imperial Palace and the guards were hard-pressed to keep them out, but they did not go away and for the next five days the Emperor was effectively besieged in his own Palace as the mob rampaged through the streets of Constantinople looting shops and setting much of it alight, and he was forced to watch in impotent rage as they torched his beloved Church of Hagia Sophia. In a further attempt to placate the mob he fired a number of unpopular Ministers but rather than calm the situation this just seemed to embolden them even further.

It seems unlikely that the Nika Riots as they became known were entirely spontaneous. Many leading members of the aristocracy, most of whom had connections to the Factions, had long been offended by Justinian’s humble origins, his arrogant manner, and his overbearing whore of a wife. That the mob was being manipulated by leading politicians and opponents of Justinian’s reign is borne out by the specific political demands they now began to make. They demanded that the Chief Tax Collector John of Cappadoaccia be removed along with the Magistrate Tribonian who had been pivotal in helping Justinian rewrite the legal code. Justinian indicated that he might be willing to do so but a furious Theodora refused to contemplate any such thing and demanded that not only should they remain but he should stand firm. As a result, the Factions now declared for Hypatius the nephew of a former Emperor Anastasius I.

Justinian was at a loss what to do and was all for fleeing the city. He still had access to the sea and boats had been prepared for a swift evacuation but Theodora was not going anywhere. She may have been born in obscurity but she would die an Empress. She told her husband in no uncertain terms:

“May I never be separated from the purple. If now it is your wish to save yourself Emperor, then it is no problem, for we have much money and here is the sea, the boats. However, having saved yourself consider the day when you would not have exchanged your security for death. Those who have worn the crown should never survive its loss. Never will I see the day when I am not saluted as Empress. Purple makes a fine funeral shroud.”

Justinian was both shamed and emboldened by his wife’s steadfastness and courage. Having regained his composure he would after all fight for his crown.

A plan was devised for the recapture of the city and it was a cunning and audacious plan that carried the stamp of Theodora upon it. A popular eunuch by the name of Narses would approach the Factions still populating the Hippodrome to address them on behalf of the Emperor. In the meantime, the General’s Bellisarius and Mundus would ready the Imperial Army to retake the streets.

Narses entered the Hippodrome alone. It was a brave thing to do, hundreds had already been killed and anyone associated with the Emperor was liable to be swiftly dispatched. Carrying a bag of gold he walked directly over to where the Blue Faction were gathered and reminded them that both the Emperor and the Empress were Blues and that their intended replacement Hypatius was a supporter of their deadly rivals the Green Faction. He then began to distribute the gold amongst the leading members of the Blue Faction telling them that the friends of the Emperor would always be well rewarded. Following a brief discussion the members of the Blue Faction began to leave the Hippodrome en masse. 

It left those remaining stunned but they had little time to vent their anger for as the Blue Faction left, the Imperial troops moved in. A bloody massacre ensued as the much diminished and lightly armed demonstrators were brutally cut down. The troops then stormed onto the streets and over the next three days as many as 30,000 people were killed as the Nika Riots reached their bloody denouement. Order had been restored and Hypatius and many of those who had supported him were rounded up and executed.

In his Secret History Procopius tells us of an Empress consumed by vulgarity and insatiable lust. Procopius even claims that both the evil Emperor and Empress took on demon forms to roam the palace at night.  Read More . . . .

In the wake of the Nika Riots Justinian and Theodora rebuilt Constantinople, grand bridges and aqueducts soon adorned the city, spectacular Churches were constructed, and Hagia Sophia restored to its former glory. Together they were to transform it into the most splendid city in the world, but in truth it was just papering over the cracks. Justinian had barely survived the greatest crisis of his reign. He was living on borrowed time and like many bankrupt regimes before and since he looked to war abroad to restore his authority at home. In AD 534 his great General Bellisarius brought to heel the Vandals in North Africa returning to parade their leader Gelimer and vast amounts of plunder around the Hippodrome to cheering crowds. Five years later in AD 539 he invaded and recaptured much of Italy.

These were the golden years of his reign but he knew more than anyone just how overstretched the Empire was and how close to economic collapse.

Whilst Justinian gloried in the success of his Generals and fretted over the paucity of his treasury, Theodora dictated domestic policy becoming the great social reformer and her overriding concern was always the position of women. She passed laws that permitted women to divorce and retain control over their own property, she provided mother’s with guardianship rights over their children and banned the exposure of unwanted infants. She also abolished the death penalty for women convicted of adultery and instigated it for men convicted of rape.

Theodora also banned forced prostitution and closed the brothels which caused a great deal of antipathy towards her not only from those who made their fortunes from it but also the many rich and powerful men who were their regular customers. She was accused of hypocrisy not only because of her own rumoured behaviour but because she had made her own name performing sexually explicit shows in the very places she was now closing.

Women could still prostitute themselves voluntarily if they chose but she did not expect them to and her punishments could be harsh for those who did not comply with her wishes. She had a convent built supposedly for women who wanted to escape the brothels which was in reality a prison for those who refused to mend their ways. Here they were kept under lock and key, made to do hard labour, and were neglected and half-starved. Indeed, such was the stigma attached to prostitution that many women who became the subject of abuse were afraid to report it to the Authorities in case they fell into Theodora’s net.

Theodora could be harsh and unforgiving and was utterly ruthless but the reforms she instigated were to be significant and lasting. She took the rights of women seriously and was to raise their status in Byzantine society to unprecedented levels. Indeed, to the point where they were almost the equal of men making her one of the earliest great feminist icons. Even Procopius felt compelled to write “She was inclined to help women in hardship,” though it remains doubtful if this was intended as a compliment.

On 28 June AD 548, Theodora who had been ill for some time, died, aged 48. The likely cause was breast cancer. Justinian was utterly distraught. At her funeral he wept uncontrollably and had to be steadied and led away. It was perceived as unseemly for an Emperor to display such raw emotion in public.

Without Theodora things were never the same. In AD 550 Rome was recaptured briefly uniting the Western and Eastern Empires for the last time earning Justinian the title of the Last Great Roman. It was to be a last hurrah.

The latter years of his reign saw the Empire in the grip of plague. A devastating famine had seen taxation rise to punitive levels and following the death of Bellisarius, Justinian had been reduced to buying off the Empire’s enemies. It seemed to many that the Empire was teetering on the brink of collapse.

In his final few years Justinian who had always been renowned as a bundle of energy and was said to be the Emperor Who Never Sleeps could often be found in the early hours wandering the vast corridors of the Imperial Palace alone muttering to himself. Now he could no longer sleep tormented by his loss. His distress gained him little sympathy, many still sought to vent their anger on the peasant Emperor who had married a whore whereas others just thought him senile.

Justinian, the last great Emperor of Rome died neglected, alone and little mourned on 14 November AD 565, aged 83.

(Pinterest.com) For Theodora, marriage was the the "holiest of all institutions", as Diehl (1979) highlights. Her convictions were fully supported thanks to a range of laws that expanded the rights of women. A first big step was taken thanks to the legitimization of marriages between men and women of different social classes. With regards to this, a marriage between a citizen and an ex-slave woman, or one who has been an actress, was to remain intact, even if the husband was made a senator. A similar reform allowed senators to marry the daughters of tavern-keepers or pimps. Dowry, in addition, was described as “strictly unnecessary” and being rejected on the basis of not having one was strictly prohibited. As the law stated: “mutual affection is what creates a marriage”. In other words, the main prerequisite for a marriage has been defined as the consent from both the woman and the man.

(Empress Theodora)     (diggitmagazine.com)     (Theodora)

---

The Viking Siege of Constantinople

September 29, 2019, 2:09 pm

≫ Next: Uniforms of the Eastern Roman Army

≪ Previous: The Empress Theodora at the Colosseum

$

0

0

Vikings!  -  Thank Odin for violent programming

The Siege of Constantinople of 860 was the only major military expedition of the Rus' Khaganate recorded in Byzantine and Western European sources.  But who the Rus' were is confusing at best.

In 838 two Rus' ambassadors arrived unexpectedly at Constantinople from the Black Sea. They were greeted warmly by the Emperor Theophilos who sent them on to the German Emperor Ludwig for safe passage home. Ludwig discovered the men were Swedes and was rightfully suspicious as Scandinavian Vikings had started to raid his empire.

This event marked the first appearance in the Roman East of Swedish Vikings also known as Varangians whom the Greeks called Rus. Commercial relations followed, and the Romans had no reason to suspect any hostility.

The Rus' Khaganate is the name applied to the Viking "state" in the poorly documented period in the history of Eastern Europe, roughly the late 8th and early-to-mid-9th centuries AD. How organized this state was in anyone's guess.

The Rus are described in all contemporary sources as being Norsemen, somewhere in what is today European Russia. The region was also a place of operations for Varangians, eastern Scandinavian adventurers, merchants, and pirates.

The possible cause of the siege was the construction of the fortress Sarkel by Roman engineers, restricting the Rus' trade route along the Don River in favor of the Khazars.

The Rus' under the walls of Constantinople.

A Viking ship is approached by Byzantines at Constantinople. (Credit: Michael Hampshire/National Geographic/Getty Images)

Background

The Vikings’ opportunity came in 860 when Theophilus’ successor, Emperor Michael III, was away campaigning against the Arabs along the Syrian border, where he suffered a severe defeat due to his military incompetence (no doubt aided by his constant drunkenness).

The Empire was struggling to repel the Muslim Abbasid advance in Asia Minor. In March 860, the garrison of the key fortress Loulon unexpectedly surrendered to the Arabs. In April or May, both sides exchanged captives, and the hostilities briefly ceased; however, in the beginning of June, Emperor Michael III left Constantinople for Asia Minor to invade the Abbasid Caliphate.

Michael took with him all the elite Imperial Tagmata regiments normally stationed in and around Constantinople, leaving behind only the normal city garrison under the command of Urban Prefect Nicetas Oryphas. The capital’s extensive suburbs and the thickly settled shores and islands of the Sea of Marmara were therefore left defenseless. 

The much feared Roman Navy was also absent, having sailed in support of operations against the Normans and Arabs in the eastern Mediterranean and farther west against Danish Viking raids that had penetrated as far as Italy.

An Arab-Viking Coordinated Attack?

Rus' merchants having gone as far south as Baghdad passed along a great deal of intelligence to their lords in Russia.

I find it hard to believe that a large Viking naval strike force just happened to show up at Constantinople at the exact moment Emperor Michael had left with his army for the Syrian border. It is very possible that the Muslims in Baghdad and the Rus' merchants had worked out an agreement  for the Arabs to attack the Syrian border and draw the Roman army away from the city.

As for the Roman Navy, it was not a factor being already spread thin in many directions to the west far from Constantinople.

So suddenly at sunset on June 18, 860, “like a swarm of wasps,” according to Photios, the Archbishop of Constantinople, the Viking fleet of 200 ships emerged from the Bosporus, the narrow strait connecting the Sea of Marmara to the Black Sea, to assault Constantinople. 

An army of 5,000 to 20,000 Vikings surged ashore, but Prefect Oryphas was an able man and shut the gates of the capital just in time. 

Here is where an Arab-Viking alliance seems likely. The amount of money, time and work needed to assemble a fleet of 200 ships and load them with an army is considerable.

Rus' merchants and spies would have known about the Tagmata regiments being permanently stationed around Constantinople. With those Imperial troops in place an attack on the city would have been a bloody battle with little loot.

So it is reasonable to assume that a Viking fleet would not have set sail on such a long voyage unless they knew the Emperor and his troops were being drawn away by the Arab attacks to the south.

Modern reconstruction of 6th century urban militiaman. His blue tunic marks him as a member of the “Blues Circus Fraction”. The double head eagle though appeared after the 14th century. Once the Vikings appeared the Urban Prefect of Constantinople Niketas Ooryphas would have called out the city militia to help man the walls.

The Vikings may indeed had been planning to rush the gates of the city at sunset in hopes of overpowering the limited number of city garrison troops on duty.  If that was the plan they failed.

The city was saved from falling to the Vikings' bold rush. At that point the Viking leaders, like so many invaders before and after, stood looking helplessly at the powerful walls and moat of Constantinople.

There was little the Vikings could do except burn and loot the unprotected suburbs and kill or enslave the inhabitants.

Having devastated the suburbs, the Rus' passed into the Sea of Marmora and fell upon the Isles of the Princes, where the former Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople was in exile at the time. The Rus' plundered the dwellings and the monasteries, slaughtering the captives. They took twenty-two of the patriarch's servants aboard ship and cut them into pieces with axes.

Constantinople was far from helpless. The inhabitants of the Empire’s urban areas were organized in groups along the lines of the Circus Fractions. These groups were called “Deimoi” and were headed by leaders called “Democrats”. 

These groups were organized as paramilitary formations with policing and military tasks. Among their tasks were keeping the city clean, performing fire service and the burial of the dead from the epidemics or war. Because they were not considered reliable in open battle, their main role during wartime, was the defense of the city walls in case of siege.

With the city garrison supplemented by militia the Viking hordes outside the walls could do little since they had no siege equipment.

Meanwhile military signal system would have alerted the Emperor and surrounding military units in Anatolia of the Viking attack.

The invasion continued until August 4. So after about a six week siege the Vikings packed up and left for home.

There was little point in the Vikings staying. Constantinople was easily holding off the Viking army and whatever loot there was outside the city walls was long ago collected. Add in that every day the Vikings stayed in place saw the Emperor and his army, and perhaps the Roman Navy, getting closer and closer.

A Long Trip For Nothing Viking invaders meet the walls of Constantinople and come up short.

The Theodosian Walls

(Siege of Constantinople)    (archive.org)    (historynet.com)

(history.com)    (Siege of Constantinople)    (Kievan Rus)

Uniforms of the Eastern Roman Army

November 1, 2019, 9:06 pm

≫ Next: The Swaying Struggle - Battle for the Middle East Part VII

≪ Previous: The Viking Siege of Constantinople

$

0

0

From the Facebook page: Fectio Fectio is the only Dutch Late Roman Re-enactment Society, founded on Saturday May 31st, 1997. Our main aim is education about the Late Roman army by show and tell, focusing on Late Roman society during the 4th to 5th century.

How Did The Eastern Army Dress?

The East Roman Army was a direct continuation of the eastern portion of the Roman Army, from before the division of the empire. The East Roman Army started with the same basic organization as the late Roman Army and its West Roman counterpart, but between the 5th and 7th centuries, the cavalry grew more important, the field armies took on more tasks, and the border armies were transformed into local militias.

How the Eastern Roman soldiers dressed we know almost nothing.

The surviving Byzantine frescos in churches and in important buildings give only a clue. These paintings were commissioned works of art. As such they would present an idealized view of politicians, saints or soldiers. The raw realistic view of war only came with the invention of modern photography.

Hollywood costume departments have poisoned our history.  The "classic" Roman uniform used in so many movies may have never existed. Instead the "uniforms" might have been mix of whatever happened to be available.

During the time of Diocletian ( 284 — 305), the department of the sacrae largitiones distributed shirt, tunic, and cloak to the soldiers while boots were being provided by the local communities as tax in kind. The state owned and managed a system of imperial arms factories (fabricae). The workshops were under the supervision of the Master of Offices (Magister Officiorum). The workers were civilian but served under a military organization.

During early Byzantine times, shields were recommended to be painted the same color in order to distinguish the troops. The term skoutarion was used for shields. Round shields could be domed or conical in section.

By the fifth century, soldiers were being paid in cash to purchase their own armor and equipment. A standard price for a gear was about six solidi. This meant that a high degree of uniformity in appearance must have been unlikely.

Shield insignia of regiments (see photo at the top of this page) under the command of the Magister Militum Praesentalis II of the East Roman army c. 395 AD. Page from the Notitia Dignitatum.

Beautiful Late Roman-Byzantine creation. (Sara Parkes - Facebook)

I think it is fair to say that Roman reenactors may have the dress of the troops down pretty well. But most of the reenactors look too formal, "too pretty" you might say. They want to look their best for the hobby. In real life the look of the troops would have been far rougher.

The Roman units may have looked somewhat ragtag. Armor was non-standard. A soldier might have brought his grandfather's old armor & sword. Also, uniforms themselves were not a concept at that time. So colors of the the tunics worn by different men in the same unit could vary.

I suspect that except for special units like bodyguards for the Consul or the Emperor, soldiers dress would've been rather drab and nondescript.

A Byzantine infantryman wore metal body armor and helmet. Iron mail or bronze scale was the most common body armor. But not everyone purchased such uniforms; some spent their allowance on a large shield, since it could offer sufficient protection. 

Soldiers were free to use armor handed down by family members, buy armor from soldiers who had completed their service or wear discontinued styles of armor if they preferred it to (or could not afford) the latest issue.

The basic dress was a loose-fitting long-sleeved tunic. Most tunics must have been made of undyed wool, linen or a mix of wool and linen. Soldiers that were wealthier purchased red dyed tunic as red was considered a military color. Less common colors were blue, yellow and green. 

As for legwear, it depended on the environment. In cold climate, long trousers or breeches were being worn. Knee high socks bound up with laces were also used. In warmer climate, soldiers wore lower leg coverings without trousers or breeches. To keep out wet and cold, soldiers had a thick wool cloak.

In the 600s both Heraclius and Constans II faced massive invasions by the Persians and then Arabs. The Emperors halved the military pay. In order for the army to function the state had to once again be the one to provide arms and equipment. What it looked like is unknown.

By the 840s there was a return to cash payments which resembled those of the sixth century. Soldiers once again purchased their own equipment. Requisition remained though a part of the system for major campaigns. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, aside from their salaries, soldiers were being provided with cash allowance for food and personal equipment.

From the seventh century on the influence of the steppe nomads began. The Eastern Romans adopted the lamellar armor that was crafted from leather, bone, or metal lamellae sewn together. From the tenth century onwards, this became the most frequently used type of armor in the army.

Many infantry soldiers also wore thick felt cap and turban. They also used leggings padded with wool. For footwear thigh boots were considered ideal for the infantry.

In the cavalry the lightest equipped were the horse archers. They were equipped with paramerion but the primary armament was the bow. They wore a padded coat made of cotton wadding (kavadion). Next were the koursores, medium troops with flexible role in combat. They had armor in order to have protection but not so heavy that it would be cumbersome to their flexibility. They wore mail shirt or shirt of scales.

Later years saw increased influence on military dress of the endless Arab and desert warfare on the eastern and southern fronts - no doubt with little uniformity in dress.

In the 12th to 15th centuries there was Turkish influence as well as input from the increasingly powerful Western European nations.

Late Roman Infantry (Pinterest)

Late Roman Cavalry

Eastern Roman Guard

From the Facebook site: Vicus Ultimus

Eastern Roman Varangian Guard A Hungarian reenactor's armor and comments . "The kit is mainly based on the Alexiad, most notably on the comments of Anna Komnena about the Varangian Guard. This character is of Scandinavian origin, in service of the Byzantine army, rather than the eastern rus contingent of 6000 warriors who formed the core of the Guard later in 988, if I recall correctly. Therefore I based most of the armour and clothing on the Gjermundbu, Birka and Valsgärde finds, with exception of the leather vest. It has a debated origin that byzantine troops used this type of vests along scale and lamellar armour. I refrained to acquire a lamellar armor as the Wisby find turned out to be a "hoax", well not a hoax, only it was originated centuries later. I also looked up on a large number of byzantine manuscripts about guardsmen, but they weren't really helpful aside from the clothing. . The kit is still incomplete, as I still miss a shield, a proper shoes (will be also based on Birka) and an authentic belt, but I'll have them as well soon enough.. A limb guards were based on the first misinterpreted Valsgärde find, it's not a complicated design, as you can see.. The gloves, well, those are of course a hoax as we don't have a find or manuscritp up to date about protective gloves from this era. But I'm not too keen to lose a finger or two, or my hand entirely, so I gotta wear something. Yeah, I too think the pale leather stands out, and I'm about to dye it darker if I'll have the time and proper materials for it. (deviantart)

Med-10th century Akritoi frontier officer based on church wall paintings. The Arab-desert influence is obvious.

A Byzantine kentekarkhes, or centurion. 13th century. (deviantart.com)

Byzantine warrior - Davd Mele wearing his construction of an 11th C klivanion. (Pinterest)

A Byzantine fresco of Saint Mercurius with a sword and helmet, dated 1295, from Ohrid, Macedonia.

Modern reconstruction of 15th century Byzantine archer based on contemporary icons of the Crucifixion. The helmet shows western (Italian) influence and it is based on findings from ”Chalcis Armory”. The double head eagle though is again unlikely as it was strictly an imperial family emblem and chroniclers talk about a double lion emblem. Armor courtesy of hellenicarmors.gr and boots courtesy living history association Koryvantes. Byzantine Militia

Byzantine crossbowman 1453 (pintower.com)

(medium.com)   (East Roman Army)

The Swaying Struggle - Battle for the Middle East Part VII

December 1, 2019, 9:56 am

≫ Next: General Belisarius in Sicily and Constantinople

≪ Previous: Uniforms of the Eastern Roman Army

$

0

0

Roman soldiers 6th and 7th century Facebook.com/Numerus Invictorum

The Muslims March North

Battle for the Middle East Part VII

Here we are at Part VII of the titanic Battle for the Middle East.

Where Eastern Roman military history is addressed at all there are casual references to the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 AD. "Historians" effectively say the Arabs just magically showed up one day at Yarmouk and defeated a weak Roman Empire.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  This series details a Roman-Muslim slug fest taking place over many years and many battles over a huge geographical area.

In 629 AD the Roman Empire was enjoying a much deserved period of peace after a brutal 26 year long war of all wars with the Persian Empire.  Finally there was peace.  No one in Constantinople had any idea that a fresh invasion from the southern deserts would happen in a matter of months.

Part I  -  In Part I of this series we saw the first military contact between Romans and Muslim Arabs at the Battle of Mota (Mu'tah) in the Roman province of Palaestina Salutaris.  In 629 AD a force of Romans and their Christian Arab allies mauled the invading Muslim army forcing them to return to Medina.

Part II  -  In Part II we saw the Muslims turn their attention to a weakened Persian Empire. Muslims defeated the Persians in a series of battles. In 634 the Muslims marched up the Euphrates River through Persian Mesopotamia finally coming within 100 miles of the Roman frontier at Firaz. Firaz was at the outermost edge of the Persian Empire but it still contained an undefeated Persian garrison. There the Persians joined forces with the local Roman garrison and with Christian Arabs to take on the invaders. They were soundly defeated.

Part III  -  In Part III we have the Emperor Heraclius organizing the defense of Palaestina Salutaris.  A Muslims made a wide flanking movement of hundreds of miles through waterless deserts to threaten Damascus.  

The Romans held their own in eastern Syria against this attack and effectively defeated the Arabs at the Battle of Marj Rahit in 634. They drove the Arabs south away from Damascus. The Romans had also dug in at the Daraa Gap fortifications in eastern Palestine and held their positions against Arab attacks. 

But the Romans were defeated in southwest Palestine allowing Muslim forces to fan out reaching as far north as Lydda and Jaffa.

Part IV  -  Battle of Ajnadayn 634. The Romans were dug in at Daraa in Syria and were successfully holding off the invading Muslim army. Emperor Heraclius sent a second army down coastal Palestine with the support of the Roman Navy. The goal was to defeat the smaller Muslim army at Beersheeba and then block the lines of communications to Mecca of the Muslim army at Daraa forcing them to retreat back to Arabia.

Part V  -  1st Battle of Yarmouk (634 AD).  In a huge multi-day battle the Roman Army is pushed out of their prepared defenses at the Daraa Gap. The Romans began to withdraw and made an orderly retreat north to Damascus and other walled cities. 

The door to Syria had been forced open.

Part VI  -  After a siege lasting for six months Damascus falls to Muslim invaders who lacked any siege equipment. Traitor Christians inside the city opened the gates and allowed the Muslim troops to enter the city. Damascus was sort of a great victory for the Arabs. After months of a siege the Muslims could not carry the city's defenses and needed Christian traitors within the walls to win the day.

The Muslims may have opened the door to Syria, but victory was a long way off. There were Roman armies operating all over Palestine and Syria and holding walled cities such as Jerusalem, Caesarea, Tyre and Tripoli. The coastal cities could also be resupplied and reinforced by the Roman Navy.

The Emperor Heraclius had not given up. More troops were being raised for yet another counter attack.

Bedouin Warrior. The Romans may have faced troops much like this man. (flickr.com)

Map from The Great Arab Conquests (1964) As the Muslims moved north into Syria they were leaving active Roman armies behind them in Jerusalem and in coastal cities like Caesarea, Tyre, Sidon, Beirut and Tripoli.

The Massacre at Maraj-al-Debj (September, 635)


Thomas, the Roman commander-in-chief and governor of Damascus and son in law of Emperor Heraclius, after hearing that Muslim troops had entered Damascus at the Eastern gate, wisely tricked the Muslim corps commanders at the other gates by suing for peace. The peace offer then was accepted by them. 

After the trick was unveiled the Muslim commanders advised Khalid ibn Walid that the peace agreement should be kept, because if the Romans in Syria heard that the Muslims had given a guarantee of safety and then slaughtered those whose safety had been guaranteed, no other city would ever surrender to the Muslims, and that would make the task of conquering Syria immeasurably more difficult. 

Khalid pretended that he agreed. But he immediately dressed his troops in the garb of local Arabs to hide their movements from any Romans they encountered and set out to attack the fleeing army.

The 10,000 fleeing Damascus Romans included soldiers, women, children and other civilians along with all their worldly possessions.

One historian says the Muslims caught up with the convoy a short distance from Antioch, not far from the Mediterranean Sea, on a plateau beyond a range of hills called Jabal Ansariya, in Northern Syria.

Due to a heavy downpour, the Roman convoy had dispersed on the plateau, seeking shelter from the weather, while their goods lay all over the place. So many bundles of brocade lay scattered on the ground that this plain became known as Marj-ud-Debaj, i.e. the Meadow of Brocade, and for this reason the action described has been named the Battle of Marj-ud-Debaj, or the Battle of Meadow of Brocade.

But it would be generous to call this a "battle". It was more of a massacre of helpless people in a quest for revenge and loot. 

There was a financial incentive. Each Roman captured as a slave was money in the bank for the Muslims plus there were all the personal possessions the refugees had with them. Attacking the Romans was about cold hard cash - - - with a dash of "religion" as a fig leaf.

Muslim scouts established the location of the convoy without being spotted and they brought back sufficient information for Khalid to plan his attack. Khalid arranged a skillful plan of attacking the Byzantines from four different sides. First a cavalry regiment of 1000 warriors would attack the Byzantines from their rear in the south, subsequently followed by an attack of a cavalry regiment 1000 warriors from the east, north (thereby blocking their retreat to Antioch) and finally from the west to encircle them completely.

The Romans received their first indication of the presence of the Muslim army when a regiment of 1000 cavalry came charging at them from the south, along the road from Damascus. Half an hour later another cavalry regiment of 1000 warriors led by Raafe bin Umair, appeared from the east and struck the Byzantine's right flank. Within the span of half an hour another cavalry regiment of 1000 warriors from the north, struck the Byzantines at the rear thus blocking their way to retreat north towards Antioch. After about another half an hour later the final Muslim cavalry of 1000 warriors led by Khalid ibn Walid appeared from the west and attacked the Byzantine's left flank.

The Romans were totally encircled by the Muslim's cavalry.

Khalid personally killed Thomas (Son in Law of Emperor Heraclius) in a duel. After some more fighting, Roman resistance collapsed. Since the Muslims were too few to completely surround the Roman army and the fighting had become confused as it increased in violence, thousands of  Romans were able to escape and make their way to safety. 

But all the booty and a large number of captives, both male and female, fell to the Muslims.

Maneuver of Muslim army (in red) against the Byzantine convoy (in blue). (Graphic Wikipedia)

Roman soldiers 6th and 7th century Facebook.com/Numerus Invictorum

Siege of Homs (December 635 - March 636)

The city of Homs was an important center of Eastern Christianity and Roman administration. Starting in 634 the Emperor Heracilus made Homs his forward command post to better direct operations against the invading Muslim armies.

Other Emperors would sent out orders from distant Constantinople without any first hand knowledge of events, of the people or of the geography. Heracilus was a front line commander who had spent considerable time in Syria and Palestine.

One has to wonder how events would have turned out if the Emperor's poor health had not prevented him from commanding Roman troops in person. The destroyer of the Persian Empire might have crushed the Muslim invasion way back in July 634 at the Battle of Ajnadayn.

But with Muslim troops moving on Homs the Emperor retired back just a bit to Antioch to set up his new command post.

After the fall of Damascus most of the Muslim corps returned to their original areas of operations. Amir ibn al Aasi marched back to Palestine and laid siege to Jerusalem which he was still unable to assault. Shurahbil ibn Hasana returned to Jordan and accepted the surrender of Beisan and Tiberias. Abu Ubaida moved north receiving the capitulation of Baalbek, Homs and Hama.

Only Jerusalem and Caesarea still held out in Palestine. Further north the coastal cities of Tyre, Sidon, Beirut and Tripoli were able to hold out because the Roman Navy could provide troops and supplies.

Roman Emperor Heraclius Crowned Caesar in 610. Latin was still the official language of the military and government. The Emperor faced invasions by Persians, Avars, Spanish Visigoths and Muslim Arabs. The Emperor personally commanded Roman troops in an invasion into the heart of Persia.  He crushed their Empire and forced Persian troops to evacuate the conquered Roman provinces of Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia.

In late 635 AD, Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah sent Khalid ibn Walid with his mobile guard to begin the siege of Homs and later joined him along the main body of the army. The Roman garrisons of Homs and Qinnasrin made a truce with the Muslim army. It was agreed that Homs would pay 10,000 dinars and deliver 100 robes of brocade and in return, the Muslim army would not attack Homs for one year. If, however, any Roman reinforcements arrived to strengthen Homs' garrisons, then the truce would become defunct. The gates of Homs were opened as soon as the truce was signed.

The governors of Homs and Qinnasrin made the truce for reasons of expediency. Both hoped that their garrisons would be reinforced by Emperor Heraclius, and as soon as that happened they would repudiate the extortion of the Muslims. Muslim armies raided many cities in northern Syria, as well as the major towns of Arethusa, Hama, Shaizar, Apamia. One by one, each city and town that fell to the Muslim army surrendered in peace and agreed to pay the jizya.

It was while the Muslims were at Shaizar that they heard of Roman reinforcements moving to Qinnasrin and Homs. This, naturally, led to the invalidation of the truce established by the city of Homs. The arrival of winter gave the Roman garrison a further assurance of success. In their forts they would be better protected from the cold than the Muslim Arabs, who were not used to intense cold, and with only their tents to give them shelter would suffer severely from the Syrian winter. 

Heraclius wrote to Harbees, the military governor of Homs, "The food of these people is the flesh of the camel and their drink its milk. They cannot stand the cold. Fight them on every cold day so that none of them is left till the spring."

The Roman garrison at Homs was perhaps 8,000 men. The coming Muslim armies had perhaps 15,000 men.

This sample photo of a fortress shows what the Muslims were up against. The Arabs were fast moving raiders who longed for battle in the wide open deserts. They were helpless when faced by the walled fortifications and moat of Homs. The Roman garrison should have stayed in safety inside the walls awaiting reinforcements.

Abu Ubaidah decided to take Homs first, and thus cleared his rear flank from the enemy before undertaking more operations in northern Syria. The Muslim army marched to Homs with Khalid's guard in the lead. On arrival at the city, a short battle was fought between Khalid and the Roman garrison. The Muslims drove the Roman guard back, which forced the Roman's to withdraw into the fort and close the gates.

Homs was a fortified circular-shaped city with a diameter of less than a mile, and it was surrounded by a moat. There was also a citadel atop a hillock inside the fort.

The winter siege continued and every day there was an exchange of archery, but no major action took place which could lead to a decision either way.

It was about the middle of March 636 when the worst of the winter was over, that Harbees decided to make a surprise sally and defeat the Muslims in battle outside the fort, as the Roman hope of the cold driving the Muslims away vanished. Supplies were running low, and with the coming of spring and better weather the Muslims would receive further reinforcements and would then be in an even stronger position.

Early one morning the Rastan Gate was flung open and Harbees led 5,000 men into a quick attack on the unsuspecting Muslim army facing that gate. The speed and violence of the attack took the Muslims by surprise, and although this was the largest of the four groups positioned at the four gates, it was driven back from the position where it had hastily formed up for battle. 

A short distance back the Muslims reformed their front and held the attack of the Romans, but the pressure became increasingly heavy and the danger of a break-through became clearly evident. 

Abu Ubaidah sent Khalid to restore the situation. Khalid moved forward with the mobile guard, took the hard pressed Muslims under his command and redeployed the Muslim army for battle. After all these defensive measures Khalid took the offensive and steadily pushed the Romans back, though it was not till near sunset that the Romans were finally driven back into the fort. The sally had proved unsuccessful.

Colorized photo of a Bedouin warrior holding a spear / lance, late 1800s to early 1900s. (pinterest.com)

The following morning Abu Ubaidah held a council of war and expressed his dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Muslims had given way before the Roman attack, whereupon Khalid remarked, "These Romans were the bravest I had ever met."

Abu Ubaidah asked Khalid for his advice and Khalid told him his plan. The next morning they would make a fake withdrawal of the army from Homs giving the Romans the impression that the Muslims were raising the siege and were withdrawing to the south. The Romans would surely attack the rearguard of the withdrawing Muslim army and at that moment the army would turn back, encircle the Roman army and annihilate them.

According to the plan, early the following morning, the Muslims raised the siege and withdrew to the south. Viewing it as a brilliant military opportunity, Harbees immediately collected 5,000 Byzantine warriors and led them out of the fort to chase the Muslims. He launched his mounted force into a fast pursuit to catch up with the retreating Muslim forces and strike them down as they fled.

The Roman army caught up with the Muslims a few miles from Homs. The leading elements of Roman cavalry were about to pounce upon the 'retreating Muslims', when the Muslims suddenly turned and struck at the Romans with ferocity.

As the Muslims turned on the Romans, Khalid shouted a command at which two mounted groups detached themselves from the Muslim army, galloped round the flanks of the surprised Byzantines and charged from the rear. Steadily and systematically the Muslims closed in from all sides.

At the time when the Muslims started their attack on the encircled Romans, a group of 500 horsemen had galloped back to Homs to see to it that no escaping Roman got into the fort. As these horsemen neared Homs, the terrified inhabitants and the remnants of the Roman garrison which had not joined the pursuit hastily withdrew into the fort and closed the gates. Muslim troops deployed in front of the gates to prevent the soldiers inside Homs from coming out and the Romans outside Homs from getting in.

As soon as this action was over the Muslims returned to Homs and resumed the siege. The local inhabitants offered to surrender on terms, and Abu Ubaidah accepted the offer. This happened around the middle of March, 636. The inhabitants paid the Jizya at the rate of one dinar per man, and peace returned to Homs.

It was said that only about a hundred Romans chasing the Muslim army got away. The Muslims claimed to have lost about 235 dead in the entire operation against Homs, from the beginning of the siege to the end of the last action. That very low number is highly doubtful. 

But no matter how the real numbers broke down this was a major victory for the Muslims with yet another large Roman army eliminated from the war.

Aftermath

Soon after the surrender of Homs, the Muslims set out once again for the north, intending to take the whole of Northern Syria this time, including Aleppo and Antioch. They went past Hama and arrived at Shaizar. 

Here a Roman convoy taking provisions to Qinnasrin and escorted by a small body of soldiers was intercepted and captured by Khalid. The prisoners were interrogated, and they provided the information regarding the plan of the Emperor Heraclius, and concentration of a large Roman army at Antioch. 

The Emperor had not been idle. Heraclius directed the Roman garrisons in Syria and Palestine to stand their ground.

While these units kept the Muslims busy, the Emperor was gathering troops in northern Syria from all over the Roman Empire for a major counter attack. Heraclius was bringing in Roman regiments from the Balkans and Asia Minor. In addition he collected a large force of Christian Arabs and Armenians to join in the march south.

But more of this in Part VIII.

Limitanei static frontier guard troops existed  through the Persian Wars and the Arab Conquest.

The Battle for the Middle East
.
Read More:
.
Part I - Roman Empire vs Islam - First Contact
.
Part II - A Persian-Roman Army Fights Muslim Invaderskk

Part III - Muslims Invade Roman Palestinem
.
Part IV - Battle of Ajnadayn
kk
Part V - The 1st Battle of Yarmouk

.

Part VI - The Fall of Damascus

(Great Arab Conquests)    (Maraj-al-Debaj)    (Conquest of the Levant)

(Emesa)

General Belisarius in Sicily and Constantinople

January 1, 2020, 7:09 pm

≫ Next: Archaeologists Unearth 2,200-Year-Old Mosaics

≪ Previous: The Swaying Struggle - Battle for the Middle East Part VII

$

0

0

General Belisarius in Syracuse, Sicily (Illustration of Mile Jakubiec, drawn for the book "Ancient Generals").

One of Rome's Greatest Generals

This beautiful painting of General Belisarius during his conquest of Sicily caught my eye.

Belisarius, December 31, 535

Procopius of Caesarea, "History of Wars"

(...) because, having received the dignity of the consulate because of his victory against the vandals, while he had that honor, and after having won all Sicily, on his last day of consulate, he marched to Syracuse, being applauded by The Army and the Sicilians and throwing gold coins to all of them. That coincidence, however, did not intentionally come out of him, but it was something happy for that man, who after having recovered the whole island for the Romans left to Syracuse on that particular day; and even though he was not in the Senate of Byzantium, as usual, delivered the mandate of the consuls and became ex-Consul. Therefore, that gave good fortune to Belisario ".


Belisarius then refused to accept the western imperial crown offered by the Ostrogoths in Italy. Not only that, but led to Constantinople the crown crown to offer it to Justinian.

Although it seems amazing, the history of Sicily was repeated 621 years later there and in Southern Italy when the imperial army was launched to the reconquest of Southern Italy and Sicily in 1156. The citizens of Bari opened their doors And they welcomed Emperor Manuel Komnenos as a liberator.

Thanks to Facebook: Life in the Eastern Roman Empire

Artist conception of Vandal and Alan warriors defeated by Belisarius in North Africa.

By Procopius of Caesarea
(AD 500 – c. AD 565)

After the re-conquest of North Africa, General Belisarius war given a Triumph in the Hippodrome of Constantinople where he was awarded the office of Consul.


A Triumph in Constantinople
January 1, 535 A.D.

Belisarius, upon reaching Byzantium with Gelimer and the Vandals, was counted worthy to receive such honours, as in former times were assigned to those generals of the Romans who had won the greatest and most noteworthy victories. And a period of about six hundred years had now passed since anyone had attained these honours, except, indeed, Titus and Trajan, and such other emperors as had led armies against some barbarian nation and had been victorious.

For he displayed the spoils and slaves from the war in the midst of the city and led a procession which the Romans call a "triumph," not, however, in the ancient manner, but going on foot from his own house to the hippodrome and then again from the barriers until he reached the place where the imperial throne is.

And there was booty,—first of all, whatever articles are wont to be set apart for the royal service,—thrones of gold and carriages in which it is customary for a king's consort to ride, and much jewelry made of precious stones, and golden drinking cups, and all the other things which are useful for the royal table.

And there was also silver weighing many thousands of talents and all the royal treasure amounting to an exceedingly great sum (for Gizeric had despoiled the Palatium in Rome, as has been said in the preceding narrative), and among these were the treasures of the Jews, which Titus, the son of Vespasian, together with certain others, had brought to Rome after the capture of Jerusalem.

The Hippodrome of Constantinople Image from Istanbul Life.org

And one of the Jews, seeing these things, approached one of those known to the emperor and said: "These treasures I think it inexpedient to carry into the palace in Byzantium. Indeed, it is not possible for them to be elsewhere than in the place where Solomon, the king of the Jews, formerly placed them. For it is because of these that Gizeric captured the palace of the Romans, and that now the Roman army has captured that the Vandals." When this had been brought to the ears of the Emperor, he became afraid and quickly sent everything to the sanctuaries of the Christians in Jerusalem.

And there were slaves in the triumph, among whom was Gelimer himself, wearing some sort of a purple garment upon his shoulders, and all his family, and as many of the Vandals as were very tall and fair of body.

And when Gelimer reached the hippodrome and saw the emperor sitting upon a lofty seat and the people standing on either side and realized as he looked about in what an evil plight he was, he neither wept nor cried out, but ceased not saying over in the words of the Hebrew scripture: "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." And when he came before the emperor's seat, they stripped off the purple garment, and compelled him to fall prone on the ground and do obeisance to the Emperor Justinian.

This also Belisarius did, as being a suppliant of the emperor along with him. And the Emperor Justinian and the Empress Theodora presented the children of Ilderic and his offspring and all those of the family of the Emperor Valentinian with sufficient sums of money, and to Gelimer they gave lands not to be despised in Galatia and permitted him to live there together with his family. However, Gelimer was by no means enrolled among the patricians, since he was unwilling to change from the faith of Arius.

A little later the triumph was celebrated by, Belisarius in the ancient manner also. For he had the fortune to be advanced to the office of consul, and therefore was borne aloft by the captives, and as he was thus carried in his curule chair, he threw to the populace those very spoils of the Vandalic war. For the people carried off the silver plate and golden girdles and a vast amount of the Vandals' wealth of other sorts as a result of Belisarius' consulship, and it seemed that after a long interval of disuse an old custom was being revived.

These things, then, took place in Byzantium in the manner described.

Belisarius and his Staff (Johnny Shumates Portfolio) kk Read More: kk Battle of Callinicum - Romans vs Persians

Archaeologists Unearth 2,200-Year-Old Mosaics

January 29, 2020, 5:24 pm

≫ Next: Emperor Basil II - Front Line General

≪ Previous: General Belisarius in Sicily and Constantinople

$

0

0

One of the most important cities in the Eastern Roman Empire was Zeugma: A once flourishing city home to 80,000 inhabitants situated in the present-day province of Gazientep in southern Turkey.

Now, researchers are digging up exciting ancient mosaics. Excavations began in 2007 and just seven years earlier, in 2000, the ancient city was completely submerged underwater.

To this day, 25 houses of the 2000-3000 discovered remain under water. Not only were the finding of the houses remarkable, but three incredibly well preserved colored glass mosaics that date back to 2nd century BC were also discovered.

The first mosaic depicts the nine Muses – the goddesses of the inspiration of literature, science and the arts.

The second mosaic depicts Ocean – the divine personification of the sea – and his sister Tethys. The third, smaller in size mosaic, depicts a young man.

“From now on, we will work on restoration and conservation. We plan to establish a temporary roof for long-term protection. We estimate that the ancient city has 2,000-3,000 houses. Twenty-five of them remain under water. Excavations will be finished in the Muzalar House next year,” said head of the excavations, Professor Kutalmış Görkay.  

--- from Can You Actually

Zeugma is an ancient city of Commagene; located in modern Gaziantep Province, Turkey. It was named for the bridge of boats, or zeugma, that crossed the Euphrates river at that location. Parts of Zeugma have become submerged in the Euphrates River since the construction of the Birecik Dam.

The use of mosaics was a practical, albeit expensive, means of creating a smooth, level floor; but they were also highly decorative, designed to impress with their beautiful and sophisticated use of decorative tesserae, which were carefully placed to create geometric patterns or scenes with mythological themes. 

More than 2,000m of mosaics were uncovered at Zeugma, and most are now exhibited over the three floors of this museum. While the majority of the mosaics come from Zeugma, there are also some examples recovered from other sites around Gaziantep, including some 6th century AD artworks from churches in the region.

The mosaics from Zeugma are displayed as they were found, positioned according to their original on-site locations: those uncovered closest to the Euphrates are the first on view inside the museum entrance; those from higher up the terrace above the river bank are laid out beyond and on the upper floors of the building. 

Visitors ‘enter’ Zeugma as if from the river level, then rise up as though climbing the terrace sets on a stroll through the city. The effect is of wandering through the villas, seeing how the people lived, their beliefs, their culture, and their daily life. Gigantic photographic displays of Zeugma on the walls add to the illusion, and those mosaics where part of the image has been damaged or lost have been ‘filled in’ by light projection.

The bathhouse is displayed on the lowest level of the museum, along with the magnificent statue of Mars, God of War. On the next level are the houses that once sat along the banks of the Euphrates, now given the names ‘Poseidon’, ‘Euphrates’, and ‘Dionysus’, according to the subject of their fine mosaics.

One of the most striking mosaics portrays the Titan Oceanus and his wife Tethys – mythological primordial sea deities, parents of the world’s rivers, fountains and lakes – with each of their 3,000 daughters, nymphs called Oceanids. But the most famous artwork is the haunting mosaic nicknamed ‘Gypsy Girl’. In fact, she is a Maenad – a follower of Dionysus – and her beautiful portrait, housed in a special room with labyrinth-themed decorations, has become the unofficial symbol of the Zeugma excavations.

--- from Turkey Cultural Tour

Mars, God of War

(canyouactually.com)    (Zeugma -Commagene)    (turkeyculturaltour.com)

Emperor Basil II - Front Line General

February 18, 2020, 11:50 am

≫ Next: The Empire Strikes Back - Battle for the Middle East Part VIII

≪ Previous: Archaeologists Unearth 2,200-Year-Old Mosaics

$

0

0

(Deviantart.com)

Basil II

"He crushed rebellions, subdued the feudal landowners, conquered the enemies of the Empire, notably in the Danubian provinces and the East. Everywhere the might of Roman arms was respected and feared. The treasury was overflowing with the accumulated plunder of Basil's campaigns. Even the lamp of learning, despite the emperor's known indifference, was burning still, if somewhat dimly. The lot of ordinary folk in Constantinople must have been pleasant enough. For most of them life was gay and colourful, and if the city's defensive fortifications were at some points in disrepair they had no cause to dread attacks."

Michael Psellos

Basil II, one of the best rulers of the empire. Emperor of the year 976 AD until 1025 AD the longest government of an emperor in Roman history.

He asked to be buried next to the training camp of the imperial cavalry tagmata in hebdomon, instead of the sumptuous place reserved to the emperors in the roundabout of the holy apostles of Constantinople. His contemporaries believed that so he could hear from heaven to his armies prepare for the fight for the empire. In 1204 his tomb was desecrated and plundered by the crusaders.

Epitaph of Basil II on his sarcophagus at the church of San Juan Evangelist in Hebdomon as recorded in late eastern Roman manuscripts:

Others of the old kings
An old man in the holy land,
But I, Basil, a child,
Hístēmi in the place of land
And the pain of pain
Whom in the name of a child, whom I have loved
For a spear did not see them,
Since the king of heaven, I am
The Land, great king;
But I have saved life time
The children of the new eryómēn
I'm going to go to the church,
I turn to them the people of the tribe,
Histō̂n trophies of the land of myría;
And this is what I am doing, and I am
With which you are born, Ishmael, áraps, íbēr;
And now, o, o, o, o, o,
We are looking forward to the future of the

Other past emperors
Previously they had designated for themselves other burial sites.
But I Basilio, born in the purple camera,
Placed my grave on the site of hebdomon
And I take the Saturday break from endless efforts
That I fulfilled in the wars I endured.
Because no one saw my spear in rest
When the emperor of heaven called me
To the government of this great empire on earth,
But I stayed vigilant throughout my life
Taking care of the children of new Rome
Marching bravely to the west,
And even the same borders of the east.
Persians and scythians bear witness to this
And along with them the abasgos, Ismaili, Arabs and iberians.
And now, good man, looking at this grave
You can make it up with prayers in exchange for my campaigns


From Facebook:  Bizancio Maravillosa - The Life in the Eastern Roman Empire

The historian Psellos describes a defeated enemy giving Basil the following advice: . "Cut down the governors who become over-proud. Let no generals on campaign have too many resources. Exhaust them with unjust exactions, to keep them busied with their own affairs. Admit no woman to the imperial councils. Be accessible to no-one. Share with few your most intimate plans."

Fighting Emperors

Is it good or bad to have a Head of State directing his troops and even fighting in the front lines?

One can say that in an age when there were endless military plots to overthrow the government it was good to have an Emperor embedded with his troops. He could keep an eye on his generals, build loyalty with the troops and create stability in the state - - - - stability if he was a successful general.

From ancient times on most Heads of State stayed home tending to civilian matters and directing the military in a general way from afar if at all.

The occasional Alexander, Heraclius, Fredrick the Great or Napoleon were the exceptions, not the rule. The debate is eternal if they actually helped their nations or after a point simply bled their countries white in endless wars.

Basil was a very successful soldier on horseback.

Basil II was praised by his army because he spent most of his reign campaigning with it rather than sending orders from Constantinople, as had most of his predecessors. This allowed his army to be largely supportive of him, often making his stance in political and church matters unquestionable. 

He lived the life of a soldier to the point of eating the same daily rations as the rest of the army. He also took the children of dead army officers under his protection and offered them shelter, food, and education. Many of these children became his soldiers and officers, taking the places of their fathers.

Basil oversaw the stabilization and expansion of the eastern frontier of the Empire and the complete subjugation of the First Bulgarian Empire, its foremost European foe, after a prolonged struggle. 

Although the Roman Empire had made a truce with the Fatimid Caliphate in 987–988, Basil led a campaign against the Caliphate that ended with another truce in 1000. He also conducted a campaign against the Khazar Khaganate that gained the Roman Empire part of Crimea and a series of successful campaigns against the Kingdom of Georgia.

Despite near-constant warfare, Basil distinguished himself as an administrator, reducing the power of the great land-owning families who dominated the Empire's administration and military, filling its treasury, and leaving it with its greatest expanse in four centuries.

On a side note, in the early years of his reign, administration remained in the hands of Basil Lekapenos, President of the Roman Senate.

Click to enlarge The Eastern Roman Empire at the death of Basil II in 1025

Basil's first expedition to Syria

Basil intervened personally in the East; with his army, he rode through Asia Minor to Aleppo in sixteen days, arriving in April 995. Basil's sudden arrival and the exaggeration of his army's strength circulating in the Fatimid camp caused panic in the Fatimid army, especially because Manjutakin, expecting no threat, had ordered his cavalry horses to be dispersed around the city for pasture. 

Despite having a considerably larger and well-rested army, Manjutakin was at a disadvantage. He burned his camp and retreated to Damascus without battle.

The Byzantines besieged Tripoli unsuccessfully and occupied Tartus, which they refortified and garrisoned with Armenian troops.

Conquest of Bulgaria

The Muslims were under control on the Eastern Front. That left the Bulgarian Empire as the major enemy in the field.

In 986 the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, won a decisive battle at the Trajan’s Gate. Almost the entire Roman army was destroyed in the battle, the entire convoy was lost, and the Emperor himself narrowly escaped capture.

Sharply in need of ships for the rapid transfer of troops to various parts of the empire, Basil entered into negotiations with the Venice. In 992, a large Venice embassy arrived in Constantinople, which achieved a seven-fold reduction in customs duties. A special order was issued which initiated the exclusive status of the Venetians in Constantinople. 

This was the beginning of the end for the Empire.

The Emperor got immediate help from Venice but at the cost of long term reduced income to the Imperial Treasury. This was the first of many concessions to neighbors that over time prevented the Empire from raising the money needed to defend itself.

Basil sought to restore former territories of the Roman Empire. Beginning in 1000, Basil was free to focus on a war of conquest against Bulgaria, which he fought with grinding persistence and strategic insight. In 1000, the Byzantine generals Nikephoros Xiphias and Theodorokanos took the former Bulgarian capital Great Preslav.

The Bulgarian wars went on and on for years.

On 29 July 1014, in the Battle of Kleidion, he and his general Nikephoros Xiphias outmaneuvered the Bulgarian army, which was defending one of the fortified passes. Samuel avoided capture through the valor of his son Gabriel. Having crushed the Bulgarians, Basil exacted his vengeance cruelly—he was said to have captured 15,000 prisoners and fully blinded 99 of every 100 men, leaving one one-eyed man in each cohort to lead the rest back to their ruler. Samuel was struck down by the sight of his blinded army and died two days later on 6 October 1014 after suffering a stroke.

Bulgaria fought on for four more years, but it submitted in 1018. The rulers of neighboring Croatia, who were previously allies of Bulgaria, accepted Basil's supremacy to avoid the same fate as Bulgaria; Basil warmly received their offers of vassalage and awarded them the honorary title of patrikios. Croatia remained a tributary state to Basil until his death in 1025.

Before returning to Constantinople, Basil celebrated his triumph in Athens. He showed considerable statesmanship in his treatment of the defeated Bulgarians, giving many former Bulgarian leaders court titles, positions in provincial administration, and high commands in the army. In this way, he sought to absorb the Bulgarian elite into Roman society.

Assessment

At the time of his death, the Empire stretched from southern Italy to the Caucasus and from the Danube to the Levant, which was its greatest territorial extent since the Muslim conquests four centuries earlier.

Basil was to be buried in the last sarcophagus available in the rotunda of Constantine I in the Church of the Holy Apostles but he later asked his brother and successor Constantine VIII to be buried in the Church of St. John the Theologian at the Hebdomon Palace complex outside the walls of Constantinople. 

The epitaph on Basil's tomb celebrated his campaigns and victories. During the pillage of 1204, Basil's grave was desecrated by the invading Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade.

Depiction of Basil II from the Menologion of Basil II

(about-history.com)      (Basil II)      (sourcebooks)

(Kleidion)      (Georgian wars)

The Empire Strikes Back - Battle for the Middle East Part VIII

March 20, 2020, 1:37 pm

≫ Next: Romans vs Turks in Anatolia - Anna Comnena

≪ Previous: Emperor Basil II - Front Line General

$

0

0

Late Empire Roman Cavalry Horse-Archer (pinterest)

The Roman Army Marches South

Battle for the Middle East Part VIII

Here we are at Part VIII of the titanic Battle for the Middle East.

Where Eastern Roman military history is addressed at all there are casual references to the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 AD. "Historians" effectively say the Arabs just magically showed up one day at Yarmouk and defeated a weak Roman Empire.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  This series details a Roman-Muslim slug fest taking place over many years and many battles over a huge geographical area.

In 629 AD the Roman Empire was enjoying a much deserved period of peace after a brutal 26 year long war of all wars with the Persian Empire.  Finally there was peace.  No one in Constantinople had any idea that a fresh invasion from the southern deserts would happen in a matter of months.

Part I  -  In Part I of this series we saw the first military contact between Romans and Muslim Arabs at the Battle of Mota (Mu'tah) in the Roman province of Palaestina Salutaris.  In 629 AD a force of Romans and their Christian Arab allies mauled the invading Muslim army forcing them to return to Medina.

Part II  -  In Part II we saw the Muslims turn their attention to a weakened Persian Empire. Muslims defeated the Persians in a series of battles. In 634 the Muslims marched up the Euphrates River through Persian Mesopotamia finally coming within 100 miles of the Roman frontier at Firaz. 

Firaz was at the outermost edge of the Persian Empire but it still contained an undefeated Persian garrison. There the Persians joined forces with the local Roman garrison and with Christian Arabs to take on the invaders. They were soundly defeated.

Byzantine cataphract (pinterest)

Part III  -  In Part III we have the Emperor Heraclius organizing the defense of Palaestina Salutaris.  Muslims made a wide flanking movement of hundreds of miles through waterless deserts to threaten Damascus.

The Romans held their own in eastern Syria against this attack and effectively defeated the Arabs at the Battle of Marj Rahit in 634. They drove the Arabs south away from Damascus. The Romans had also dug in at the Daraa Gap fortifications in eastern Palestine and held their positions against Arab attacks.

But the Romans were defeated in southwest Palestine allowing Muslim forces to fan out reaching as far north as Lydda and Jaffa.

Part IV  -  Battle of Ajnadayn 634. The Romans were dug in at Daraa in Syria and were successfully holding off the invading Muslim army. Emperor Heraclius sent a second army down coastal Palestine with the support of the Roman Navy. The goal was to defeat the smaller Muslim army at Beersheeba and then block the lines of communications to Mecca of the Muslim army at Daraa forcing them to retreat back to Arabia.

Part V  -  1st Battle of Yarmouk (634 AD).  In a huge multi-day battle the Roman Army is pushed out of their prepared defenses at the Daraa Gap. The Romans began to withdraw and made an orderly retreat north to Damascus and other walled cities.

The door to Syria had been forced open.

Part VI  -  After a siege lasting for six months Damascus falls to Muslim invaders who lacked any siege equipment. Traitor Christians inside the city opened the gates and allowed the Muslim troops to enter the city. Damascus was sort of a great victory for the Arabs. After months of a siege the Muslims could not carry the city's defenses and needed Christian traitors within the walls to win the day.

The Muslims may have opened the door to Syria, but victory was a long way off. There were Roman armies operating all over Palestine and Syria and holding walled cities such as Jerusalem, Caesarea, Tyre and Tripoli. The coastal cities could also be resupplied and reinforced by the Roman Navy.

Part VII  -  After the fall of Damascus, Syria Muslim forces started their move north. Escaping Roman civilians and soldiers were massacred at Maraj-al-Debj in September of 635. Many survivors were sold into slavery by the Muslims.

The Muslims went on to lay Siege to the city of Homs from December 635 to March 636. After the fall of Homs the Muslims set out once again for the north, intending to take the whole of Northern Syria this time, including Aleppo and Antioch. They went past Hama and arrived at Shaizar. 

There they stopped as they faced a new Roman army raised by the Emperor Heraclius.

Map from The Great Arab Conquests (1964) As the Muslims moved north into Syria they were leaving active Roman armies behind them in Jerusalem and in coastal cities like Caesarea, Tyre, Sidon, Beirut and Tripoli.

The Roman Army Gathers

By the winter of 635 AD the Muslim forces had conquered most of Syria.

The Muslims were just a march away from Aleppo, a Roman stronghold, and Antioch, where Heraclius resided. Seriously alarmed by the series of setbacks, Heraclius prepared for a counterattack to reacquire the lost regions.

In 635 Yazdegerd III, the Emperor of Persia, sought an alliance with the Roman Emperor. Heraclius married off his daughter Manyanh to Yazdegerd III, to cement the alliance. While Heraclius prepared for a major offensive in the Levant, Yazdegerd was to mount a simultaneous counterattack in Iraq, in what was meant to be a well-coordinated effort. 

The Emperor had not been idle on the southern front. Heraclius directed the Roman garrisons in Syria and Palestine to stand their ground.

After his past experiences, Heraclius now avoided pitched battle with the Muslim army. His plans were to send massive reinforcements to all the major cities, isolate the Muslim corps from each other, and then separately encircle and destroy the Muslim armies.

So as the Muslims moved north into Syria they were leaving active Roman armies behind them in Jerusalem and in coastal cities like Caesarea, Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, and Tripoli. The coastal cities could easily be resupplied by the Roman Navy. With Roman forces in their rear the Muslims were always looking over their shoulder. 

Muslim troops had to be pealed off from the northern invasion just to keep Roman garrisons bottled up in the cities.

With Roman garrisons in their rear, the somewhat smaller Muslim armies had advanced north into Syria about as far as they could go. While in a holding pattern word reached the Muslims of a new Roman army gathering around the Emperor based in Antioch.

Roman Emperor Heraclius Crowned Caesar Flavius Heraclius Augustus in 610. Latin was still the official language of the military and government. The Emperor faced invasions by Persians, Avars, Spanish Visigoths and Muslim Arabs. The Emperor personally commanded Roman troops in an invasion into the heart of Persia.  He crushed their Empire and forced Persian troops to evacuate the conquered Roman provinces of Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia.

The exact size and composition of the Roman Army and its units in the Yarmouk campaign is a matter of considerable debate due to the scantness and ambiguous nature of the primary sources.

I laugh out loud reading "modern estimates" of an army ranging from 100,000 to 150,000 men. Those kinds of numbers had not been seen in centuries of Roman warfare. By the 630s the entire Roman Army from Carthage to Italy to Egypt to the Danube may have been 109,000 men.

A typical Eastern Empire field army often numbered 15,000 to 20,000 men. It is possible that this being a major effort to recapture Syria and Palestine then all stops might have been pulled out. I would put my guess at an army of 30,000 plus.

The endless battles and defeats were beginning to take a serious toll on the Romans. This was partly due to financial setbacks resulting in the Empire's treasury failing to provide salaries for some of the troops.

To help solve this problem the Emperor appointed Theodore Trithyrius as perhaps Commander-in-Chief in the newly raised army. Trithyrius was a Greek Christian and Roman Treasurer working for Emperor Heraclius and extremely loyal to the Emperor himself. He enjoyed supremacy under his title of sacellarius, usually appointed to the state treasurer.

Trithyrius's role with the army served as a constant reassurance. A certain lassitude had filled the air because Heraclius had to disband many regiments for economy's sake. There was no enthusiasm towards joining the army, however the presence of the Imperial paymaster encouraged recruitment.

Symbol of Secunda Armeniaca Legio II Armeniaca (from Armenia) was a legion of the late Roman Empire. The Legion survived the fall of the Western Empire in 476 and went on to serve in the East. Armenian units were sent to fight the Muslims in Syria. Legio II Armeniaca may have been among them.

Many Imperial regiments had been destroyed or badly mauled in recent campaigns. So the Emperor looked east to Armenia for the bulk of his troops. With the Persians defeated Armenia would have been a quiet front well able to spare frontier troops for Syria. 

Thus perhaps two-thirds of the new army were Armenians. 

This does not mean the Armenians were mercenaries. Far from it. While some Armenians may have signed on just for this campaign the history of Armenian Legions in the Roman Army goes back centuries. It is possible many of the Armenian troops were trained professionals or maybe partly trained militia that were called into service.

The units in the other one-third of the army varied. Roman ally Jabalah ibn al-Aiham, King of the Ghassanid Arabs, commanded an exclusively Christian Arab force. Other army contingents consisted of Slavs, Franks and Georgians. Buccinator, a Slavic prince, commanded the Slavs. 

Byzantine sources mention Niketas the Persian, son of the Persian general Shahrbaraz, among the commanders. With Persia and Rome allied against the Muslims did Niketas bring with him a contingent of Persian troops? or did he command Romans? We do not know.

These different units coming together under one commander would not be new for the Romans. Foreign troops during the late Roman period were known as the Foederati ("allies") in Latin and often supplemented the regular army units.

There is little real historical information on just about anything. What kind of mix were the troops? What percent were cavalry, infantry or archers? Were they full timers or militia? Were there artillery units? etc.

The lack of meaningful information extends to the different commanders. 

The Commander-in-Chief in the army may have been Trithyrius. But Trithyrius was basically a bean counter from the Treasury. His level of military experience is unknown.  Vahan, an Armenian and the former garrison commander of Emesa, was in command of his Armenian units and may have had some command over the non-Armenian troops. . . . or perhaps command was partly shared with a somewhat joint council of the leaders of the different units.

Late Roman cohort reenactment group (www.twcenter.net)

The Romans March South

Word had spread among the Muslims of this large new army. Now in the early months of 636 the Empire stuck back.

We may not know the exact size or makeup of the Roman Army. All we can do is judge the reaction of the Muslim forces facing them.

Simply, the Muslims abandoned all their gains and ran south as fast as possible.

The great walled cities of Damascus and Homs captured with months of siege warfare and much blood were abandoned without a single arrow fired. The story was the same for all the other towns and villages. The Muslims ran.

That reaction tells us two things:

• 1) The Muslims were spread thin across Palestine and Syria and did not have the manpower to do open battle or even man the walls of the large cities. 
• 2) As untrained wild raiders from the desert the Muslims still feared the organized Roman Army.

Under their king the mobile and nimble Christian Arabs acted as an ideal cavalry screen in front of the main Roman Army and pushed the Muslims almost totally out of Syria.

The Muslims fell back to the Daraa Gap where in the 1st Battle of Yarmouk (September 634) they had forced the Romans to leave their prepared fortifications.

The Muslims passed through the Gap with the Romans hot on their heals. The Romans re-occupied their old defenses and slammed shut the Door to Syria.

Heraclius' policy was to stonewall.

Syria was safe as long as the Yarmouk-Daraa Maginot Line held firm.

The Arabs with their fear of close country and mountains would never invade Syria to the west through Tiberias. To the east there was the dry desert that nearly killed the Muslims two years earlier when they threatened and failed to capture Damascus.

This was a stunning, total and virtually bloodless Roman victory.

Heraclius must have heaved a sigh of relief when he heard that the Daraa Gap had been reoccupied and the Muslims had been pushed out into the desert beyond. Syria, he must have thought, was saved. Now he could concentrate on the recapture of Palestine.

Map from The Great Arab Conquests (1964) When faced with a new Roman Army the Muslim forces in northern Syria abandoned all their gains.  Without firing a shot they ran as fast as they could run far to the south through the Daraa Gap into the desert.

Limitanei static frontier guard troops existed  through the Persian Wars and the Arab Conquest.

Read More:
.
Part I - Roman Empire vs Islam - First Contact
.
Part II - A Persian-Roman Army Fights Muslim Invaderskk

Part III - Muslims Invade Roman Palestinem
.
Part IV - Battle of Ajnadayn
kk
Part V - The 1st Battle of Yarmouk

.

Part VI - The Fall of Damascus

Part VII - The Swaying Struggle

Bedouin Warrior. The Romans may have faced troops much like this man. (flickr.com)

(Great Arab Conquests)    (Levant)    (Yarmouk)

---

Romans vs Turks in Anatolia - Anna Comnena

April 20, 2020, 11:21 am

≫ Next: Latin Speaking Africa

≪ Previous: The Empire Strikes Back - Battle for the Middle East Part VIII

$

0

0

11th Century Eastern Roman Reenactor

Warfare on the Eastern Front

A contemporary historian's account

Military Reform

At the beginning of the Komnenian Dynasty period in 1081, the Eastern Roman Empire had been reduced to the smallest territorial extent in its history. Surrounded by enemies, and financially ruined by a long period of civil war, the empire's prospects had looked grim. 

Through a combination of determination, military reform, and years of campaigning, Alexios I Komnenos, John II Komnenos and Manuel I Komnenos managed to restore the power of the Empire.

During the reign of Alexios I, the field army may have numbered around 20,000 men. By 1143, the entire Roman Army has been estimated to have numbered about 50,000 men. The total number of mobile professional and mercenary forces that the Emperor could assemble was about 25,000 soldiers while the static garrisons and militias spread around the empire made up the remainder. 

During this period, the European provinces in the Balkans were able to provide more than 6,000 cavalry in total while the Eastern provinces of Anatolia provided about the same number. This amounted to more than 12,000 cavalry for the entire Empire, not including those from allied contingents.

The reconstructed Roman Army played an important role in providing the empire with a period of security that enabled Roman civilization to flourish.

The Alexiad of Anna Comnena
Book XV


EDITOR - The "Alexiad" of Anna Comnena is one of only two great histories of the Eastern Roman Empire - the other being "The History of the Wars" by Procopius. 

In Book XV below Anna goes into enormous detail about the battles against the Turks in Anatolia. I had great difficulty editing the content down to a more readable size for the casual military history reader. Those wanting the full chapter can click the link at the bottom. Enjoy.


The doings of the Emperor in Philippopolis and with regard to the Manichaeans were such as I have related; after that a fresh potion of troubles was brewed for him by the barbarians. For the Sultan Soliman was planning to devastate Asia again and assembled his forces from Chorosan and Chalep [*=Berroea (now Aleppo)] to see whether he might possibly be able to resist the Emperor successfully. As the whole of the Sultan Soliman's plan had already been reported to the Emperor, he contemplated advancing as far as Iconium. with his army and there forcing him into a closely contested battle. For that town formed the boundaries of the Sultanicium of Clitziasthlan. Therefore he solicited troops from foreign countries, and a large mercenary force, and called up his own army from all sides. 

Then, whilst these two generals were making preparations against each other, the old trouble in his feet attacked the Emperor. And forces kept coming in from all quarters, but only in driblets, not all together, because their countries were so far away, and the pain prevented the Emperor not merely from carrying out his projected plan, but even from walking at all. And he was vexed at being confined to his couch not so much because of the excessive pain in his feet, but by reason of the postponement of his expedition against the barbarians. The barbarian Clitziasthlan was well aware of this and consequently despoiled the whole of Asia at his leisure during this interval and made seven onslaughts upon the Christians.

After a short interval he was relieved from pain and commenced his projected journey. He ferried over to Damalis, then sailed across the straits between Cibotus and Aegiali, disembarked at Cibotus and went on to Lopadium to await the arrival of his armies and the mercenary army he had engaged. When they were all assembled he moved away from there with all his forces and occupied the fort of Lord George close to the lake outside Nicaea, and thence on to Nicaea. 

Then after three days he returned and encamped on this side of the bridge of Lopadium near the fountain of Caryx as it was called; for he thought best to send the army over the bridge first to pitch their tents in a suitable spot and then to cross himself by the same bridge and erect the imperial tent in company with all the army. 

But the wily Turks were devastating the plain lying at the foot of the Lentianian hills and the place called Cotoeraecia, and on hearing of the Emperor's advance against them, they were terrified and immediately lighted a number of beaconfires, thus giving beholders the illusion of a large army. And the sky was lighted up by these fires and frightened many of the inexperienced soldiers but nothing of all this troubled the Emperor. 

East Roman Reenactors -  (Twitter) kk Emperor Alexios I Komnenos & wife Empress Irene Doukaina kk I have no idea where this image came from. A movie perhaps. A historical festival. The picture gives us a good feel for the period.

Then the Turks collected all the booty and prisoners and went away; and at dawn the Emperor hastened after them to the plain (already mentioned] with the desire of overtaking them on the spot, but he missed his quarry. On the contrary he found a number of Romans still breathing, and many corpses, which naturally enraged him. But he was very anxious to pursue the Turks so as not to lose all his prey, and, as it was impossible for the whole army to follow up the fugitives quickly, he pitched his palisades on the spot near Poemanenum and selecting at once a detachment of brave light-armed soldiers, he entrusted them with the pursuit of the barbarians and told them which road to take after the wretches. 

These soldiers overtook the Turks with all their booty and captives at a place called Cellia by the natives and rushed upon them like fire and soon killed most of them but took a few alive and after collecting all the booty there they returned brilliantly victorious to the Emperor.

After welcoming them and learning of the total destruction of the enemy he returned to Lopadium. When he reached it he stayed in that town for three whole months partly because of the want of water in the districts he would have to pass through (for it was the summer-season and the heat was intolerable) and partly because he was waiting for part of the mercenary army which had not yet arrived. But when they had all assembled, he shifted his camp and quartered his army between the ridges of Olympus and of the mountains called Malagni and himself occupied Aër. 

The Empress meanwhile was lodging at Principus, as from there she could more easily have news of the Emperor after his return to Lopadium. Directly the Emperor went to Aër, he sent the imperial galley to fetch her, firstly because he was always dreading the pain in his feet, and secondly through fear of his bosom enemies who were accompanying him, and thus he wanted her both for the extreme care she took of him, and for her most vigilant eye.

Now my father, the Emperor, sometimes overcame his adversaries by prowess, and at others by his quick wit, for even during a battle he occasionally thought out some clever device and by daringly using it at once carried off the victory. By making use of stratagems on some occasions, and on others by hard fighting he often and unexpectedly set up trophies. If there ever was a man who was fond of danger, it was he, and dangers could be seen continually rising up in his path, and at times he would walk into them bare-headed and come to close quarters with the barbarians, and at others again he would pretend to decline battle, and act the frightened man, if the occasion demanded it and circumstances advised it. 

Eastern Roman Varangian Guard A Hungarian reenactor's armor and comments . "The kit is mainly based on the Alexiad, most notably on the comments of Anna Komnena about the Varangian Guard. This character is of Scandinavian origin, in service of the Byzantine army, rather than the eastern rus contingent of 6000 warriors who formed the core of the Guard later in 988, if I recall correctly. Therefore I based most of the armour and clothing on the Gjermundbu, Birka and Valsgärde finds, with exception of the leather vest. It has a debated origin that byzantine troops used this type of vests along scale and lamellar armour. I refrained to acquire a lamellar armor as the Wisby find turned out to be a "hoax", well not a hoax, only it was originated centuries later. I also looked up on a large number of byzantine manuscripts about guardsmen, but they weren't really helpful aside from the clothing. . The kit is still incomplete, as I still miss a shield, a proper shoes (will be also based on Birka) and an authentic belt, but I'll have them as well soon enough... A limb guards were based on the first misinterpreted Valsgärde find, it's not a complicated design, as you can see.. The gloves, well, those are of course a hoax as we don't have a find or manuscritp up to date about protective gloves from this era. But I'm not too keen to lose a finger or two, or my hand entirely, so I gotta wear something. Yeah, I too think the pale leather stands out, and I'm about to dye it darker if I'll have the time and proper materials for it. (deviantart)

Or to put the whole matter concisely, he prevailed when he fled, and conquered when he pursued, and falling he stood, and dropping down he was erect on the principle of caltrops which always stick upright however you throw them.

As long as the Emperor pitched his tent there (in Nicomedia) he had nothing else to do besides enrolling recruits in the army and training them carefully in the art of stretching the bow, wielding the spear, riding on horseback, and making various formations. 

He also taught the soldiers the new system of marshalling the lines which he had invented himself ; now and again he would ride with them and review the phalanxes and give seasonable suggestions. 

But the sun was now returning from its large circuits, and as the autumn equinox was passed, it was already inclining to the more southern circuits, this seemed a season well-adapted for taking the field, so with all his forces he marched straight for Iconium according to the plan he had originally proposed to himself. Then on reaching Nicaea he detached a body of light troops with experienced leaders from the rest of the army and ordered them to go on ahead and in separate divisions make sallies upon the Turks and go foraging. But, if God gave them the victory and they routed the enemy, he advised them in no case to continue their raid, but be satisfied with the victory given them and at once make an orderly retreat. 

So they all with the Emperor occupied a place situated . . . and locally called Gaita, and there the one lot went off, while he moved on from there with all his forces and held the bridge over the river Pithecas. Then in three days' march by way of Armenocastrum and the so-called Leucae he reached the plains of Doryleum. He saw that these were large enough for marshalling his troops and being anxious to review them all and find out exactly his military strength, he seized this opportune moment and drew up his soldiers, in very reality in the battle-order for which he had so long been yearning and so often described on paper when planning this arrangement (for he was well-versed in Aelian's tactics); and then he set up his camp in the plain. 

For he knew from very long experience that the Turkish battle-order did not agree at all with that of other nations, for with them "shield did not rest upon shield, and helmet upon helmet and man upon man " as Homer says, but the Turks' right and left wing, and centre were quite disconnected and the phalanxes stood as if severed from each other.  Consequently if you attacked the right or left wing, the centre would swoop down upon you and all the rest of the army posted behind it, and like whirlwinds throw the opposing body into confusion. 

Peltistes and Archers 11th Century Eastern Roman military The 4th and 7th ranks may contain an additional kontaratos, but often these positions and the 5th and 6th ranks are filled by peltistes ( lighter armed missle-throwing (javelin and slingers) or archery soldier). The javelin men also detached sometimes to act as skirmishers. (kismeta.com)

Now for their weapons of war:-they do not use spears much, as the Franks do, but surround the enemy completely and shoot at him with arrows, and they make this defence from a distance. When he pursues, he captures his man with the bow; when he is pursued he conquers with his darts ; he throws a dart and the flying dart hits either the horse or its rider, and as it has been dispatched with very great force it passes right through the body; so skilled are they in the use of the bow. 

Having noticed this from long experience the Emperor arranged his lines and phalanxes in such a way that the Turks should shoot from the right side, the side on which the shields were advanced, and that our men should shoot from the left, the side on which the Turks' bodies were unprotected. And he himself imagined that this order of battle would be invincible, and marvelled at its strength and looked upon it as an arrangement directly inspired by God and a marshalling due to the angels. And everybody else admired and rejoiced in it and took fresh courage from the Emperor's invention. And when he himself thought about his forces and the plains through which he was soon to pass and reflected that his battle-order was solid and not easily broken, his hopes rose high and he prayed to God to bring them to fulfilment.

. . . . some soldiers came to him and said there were an immense number of barbarians in the small towns situated quite near of the once celebrated hero, Burtzes. Directly the Emperor had heard their report, he repared for action. He instantly summoned a descendant of 1he famous Burtzes, Bardas by name, and George Lebunes, and a Scythian called Pitican in his native tongue, brought up the troops under them to a sufficiently strong force and dispatched them against the Turks, and gave them orders that when they got there they were to send out foragers to lay waste all the neighbouring villages, and then drive out all the natives from their homes and bring them to him. 

So these men at once started on the journey assigned them, but the Emperor, holding to his former purpose, hastened to reach Polybotum and thence hurry on as far as Iconium. With these intentions he was on the point of commencing his task when he received reliable information that the barbarians and the Sultan Soliman himself on hearing of his approach, had set fire to all tile crops and plains in Asia, so that there was no sustenance at all for man or beast. Another incursion of barbarians from the higher countries was heralded too, and the rumour flew quickly throughout Asia. So he was afraid for one thing that during his march to lconium his whole army might fall a prey to famine owing to the lack of food . . . .

As the Turks had not tasted water at all during the fight on the previous day, they now took possession of the banks of the river, and quenched their burning thirsts and then returned to the fight in batches. For while one party continued the battle, the other tired-out party refreshed itself by drinking the water. Burtzes seeing the barbarians' consummate boldness and worried to death by their numbers, felt quite helpless, and so did not send one of the common soldiers to carry news of his straits to the Emperor, but the George Lebunes I have already mentioned. 

Unarmored Skutatos Byzantine Infantry, 11th Century kk The file closer and the one in the 3rd rank may be armored only with a heavy padded coat (kavadion)and felt cap wrapped in a turban. He would likely be within the 3rd-7th rank of a foulhon, but may be front ranker is less well equipped units. This skutatos is also similarly attired to a peltistes (or lighter armed missile-throwing or archery soldier) while the first rank or two of the foulhon  might be hoplites in metal armor. With my shield I am well protected from the front, and the most likely danger to my side or rear - arrow strikes - are fairly well protected against by the padded coat. I might also be called a  kontaratos for my kontarion (or makron) - 16 foot pike, which is wielded 2-handed or one handed. (www.kismeta.com)

As Lebunes could see no path which was not held by a number of Turks, he threw himself recklessly into the midst of them, pushed his way through and got safely to the Emperor. When the latter heard the news about Burtzes and found out fairly accurately the number of Turks, he realized that Burtzes required a large number of reinforcements, so he speedily got under arms himself and ordered the army to do likewise. Then with the army drawn up in phalanxes he advanced against the barbarians in good order. The front wing was held by Prince [Michael], the right by Bryennius, the left by Gabras and the rear by Cecaumenus. 

As the Turks stood awaiting them at a distance, Nicephorus, the Empress' nephew, who was young and longing to fight, rode on ahead of the line and taking with him a few more devotees of Ares, engaged the first man who attacked him and received a wound in the knee, but struck the man who wounded him in the chest with his spear. And the Turk straightway fell from his horse and lay speechless on the ground, and the others behind him on seeing this at once turned their backs upon the Romans. The Emperor received the brave young man with delight and praised him highly and continued his march to Philomelium.

Next he selected various units from the whole army and placing them under brave leaders dispatched them to villages situated round about Iconium to despoil these and deliver the captives out of the Turks' hands. Accordingly they scattered themselves over the country like wild beasts, brought back the barbarians' prisoners in droves to the Emperor and then returned with the prisoners' baggage after freeing them all. 

EDITOR - This is a great description of a Roman infantry square. The role and power of the Late Roman infantry is at best downplayed and most of the time ignored by historians.

And the inhabitants of those regions who were Romans followed them of their own accord fleeing from servitude to the barbarians; there were women with babies, even men, and children, all rushing to the Emperor as if to a place of refuge. He then drew up his lines in the new formation with all the captives, women and children enclosed in the centre, and returned by the same road as he had come, and whatever places he approached, he passed through with perfect safety. And had you seen it, you would have said a living walled city was walking, when the army was marching in the new formation we have described.

But the Emperor rode before the line like a tower or pillar of fire or some divine and heavenly vision, exhorting his men and bidding them March on in the same formation and be of good cheer, and added that it was not for his own safety that he had undertaken this toilsome business but for the honour and glory of the Roman Empire, and moreover he was quite ready to die on behalf of them all. All took courage at his words and each kept his own place and went on marching at his ease; so much so that to the barbarians they did not even appear to be moving. 

Dekarklos- Skutatos hh My armor is complete and shield has a spike and the the 2nd ranker does not have a spike, for fairly obvious reasons.   Hey what's wrong with this picture? ( I am wearing the armor backwards.) 2nd rank might have somewhat lighter armor. (Kismeta.com)

Throughout the whole of the day the Turks kept attacking the Roman army without any success, for they were unable to break it up either entirely or even partially, so they ran back to the hills without accomplishing anything and lighted a great many bonfires and howled all through the night like wolves and occasionally made jeering remarks at the Romans; for there were some semi-barbarians among them who spoke Greek.

EDITOR - I found the highlighted sections above interesting. The Turkish cavalry tried over and over to break the Roman infantry square without success. 

When Nicephorus saw that the battle had become a hand-to-hand contest, he dreaded a defeat and therefore wheeled round with all his troops and hastened to their aid. Hereupon the barbarians turned their backs and with the Sultan Clitziasthlan himself they fled at full speed and hurried back to the hills. Many fell in the battle on that occasion, but more were captured; and the survivors all scattered. 

The Sultan himself in desperate fear escaped with only his cupbearer and climbed up to a chapel built on a mountain top, round which very tall cypresses stood in rows, as he was hard pressed by three Scythians and the son of Uzas who were pursuing him; there he turned off in another direction, and, as he was not known to his pursuers, he himself escaped, but the cupbearer was seized by the Scythians and offered to the Emperor as a great prize. 

The Emperor rejoiced at this signal victory and in having prevailed over his enemies, but was vexed that the Sultan himself had not fallen into their hands too and been captured, but was saved 'by the skin of his teeth,' as the proverb goes. Evening had now overtaken them so he encamped on the spot, and the barbarians who had survived again mounted to the hilltops, lighted exceedingly many fires and barked the whole night long at the Romans like dogs.

For the Sultan had again collected his forces and now encircled the army and attacked it from every side; yet he did not manage to break through the close ranks of the Romans at any point, but as though he had attacked walls of adamant he had to retire without accomplishing anything. Therefore all through that night in vexation of spirit and despair he took counsel with Monolycus and the rest of the satraps, and when the light of day appeared he sued the Emperor for terms of peace, as all the satraps thought this the best thing to do. 

The Emperor did not reject, but received, their petition and immediately gave the order for the sounding of the recall, but ordered that the men should keep quiet and halt as they were, and not get off their horses or unload the baggage from the sumpter beasts, but halt protected by shield, helmet and spear as they had been throughout the whole journey. This order was given by the Emperor for no other reason but this, that, if confusion [405] arose, the line might perhaps be broken and in that case all could easily be captured. For he feared the host of Turks which be saw was very great, and was afraid they might attack the Roman army from all sides.

(The Emperor and Sultan meet.)  After a short silence he made known to him all he had decided upon, saying, "If you are willing to submit to the Roman Empire and cease your onslaughts on the Christians, you shall enjoy favours and honour and live at peace for the rest of your life in the countries assigned you, where you formerly had your dwellings before Romanus Diogenes took over the reins of government and suffered that terrible defeat when he unfortunately joined battle with the Sultan and was captured by him. 

Therefore you ought to choose peace in preference to war, and keep your hands off the boundaries of the Roman Empire, and be content with your own. And if you listen to my words, who am giving you wise counsel, you will never repent, but even partake of many privileges -if you do not, then be assured that I shall be the destroyer of your race." The Sultan and his satraps readily agreed to these terms . . . .

The Varangian Guard An elite unit of the Byzantine Army, from the 10th to the 14th centuries, whose members served as personal bodyguards to the Byzantine Emperors. They are known for being primarily composed of Germanic peoples, specifically Norsemen (the Guard was formed approximately 200 years into the Viking Age) and Anglo-Saxons (after the Norman Conquest of England created an Anglo-Saxon diaspora, part of which found employment in Constantinople). The Rus' provided the earliest members of the Varangian Guard. (pinterest.com)

The Army Marching

Anyone hearing the word 'line of battle' and 'phalanx' or 'captives' and 'booty' or again 'general' and' captains,' will think he is hearing about the things which every historian and poet mentions in his writings. Bat this battle-formation was new and seemed very strange to everybody and was such as had never been seen before or handed down to posterity by any historian. 

For while advancing along the road to Iconium, the army marched in regular order and moved forward in time to the music of a flute. And if you had seen the whole phalanx you would have said it was remaining motionless when in motion and when halting that it was moving. For thanks to the close formation of the shields and the men standing in serried lines it looked like the immovable mountains, and when it changed its route it moved like a very great beast, for the whole phalanx walked and turned as if directed by one mind. 

But after it had reached Philomelium and rescued men on all sides from the hand of the barbarians, as we have related before somewhere, and enclosed all the captives and the women too and the children and the booty in the centre it marched slowly on its return and moved forward leisurely, as it were, and at an ant's pace. 

Moreover since many of the women were with child and many of the men afflicted with disease, whenever a woman's time for bringing forth came, a trumpet was sounded at a nod from the Emperor and made all the men stop and the whole army halted on the instant. And when he knew the child was born, a different call, not the usual one, but provocative of motion, was sounded and stirred them all up to continue the journey. 

And if anyone died, the same procedure took place, and the Emperor would be at the side of the dying man, and the priests were summoned to sing the hymns for the dying and administer the sacraments to the dying. And after the rites for the dead had been duly performed and not until the dead had been put in the earth and buried, was the army allowed to move even a step. 

And when it was the Emperor's time for lunch he invited the men and women who were labouring under illness or old-age and placed the greater part of the victuals before them and invited those who lunched with him to do the same. And the meal was like a complete banquet of the gods for there were no instruments, not even flutes or drums or any disturbing music at all.

The shrunken and battered Eastern Roman Empire at the accession of Alexios I Komnenos, c. 1081.

Map of the Eastern Roman Empire under Manuel Komnenos, c. 1170. By this time, the Empire was once again the most powerful state in the Mediterranean, with client states stretching from Hungary to the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

(From prezi.com) . Princess Anna Comnena Anna Comnena, was a Roman Princess, scholar, physician, hospital administrator, and historian. She was the daughter of the Emperor Alexios I and his wife Irene Doukaina. . .Regarding her history the Alexiad, Anna wrote, “My material ... has been gathered from insignificant writings, absolutely devoid of literary pretensions, and from old soldiers who were serving in the army at the time that my father seized the Roman sceptre ... I based the truth of my history on them by examining their narratives and comparing them with what I had written, and what they told me with what I had often heard, from my father in particular and from my uncles … From all these materials the whole fabric of my history – my true history – has been woven.”  .Beyond just eyewitness accounts from veterans or her male family members, scholars have also noted that Anna used the Imperial archives, which allowed her access to official documents.

(AnnaComnena-Alexiad)    (Komnenos dynasty)    (Komnenian Army)

(Anna Komnene)

Latin Speaking Africa

May 21, 2020, 5:13 pm

≫ Next: Battle For The Mediterranean - The Arab Conquest of Malta

≪ Previous: Romans vs Turks in Anatolia - Anna Comnena

$

0

0

Brutus and Cassius in HBO's Rome

Language Follows Military Power

It is rather simple, language follows military conquest and economic power.

We saw the Greek language take hold in much of Egypt with the conquest by Alexander the Great. The same is true in North Africa. With the fall of Carthage to Rome in 146 BC we saw Roman military colonies and economic activity spread the Latin language along coastal Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.

The populations of Roman North Africa that had a Romanized culture and used to speak their own variety of Latin as a result. Latin continued to be used for centuries after the fall of the Western Empire in 476 AD. 

The Latin speaking local population went on during the conquest by the Germanic Vandal tribes and on into the re-conquest period by the Eastern Roman Empire.

What happened to African Latin following the Arab conquest in 696-705 AD is difficult to trace, though it was soon replaced by Arabic as the primary administrative language. At the time of the conquest a the Latin language was probably spoken in the cities and Berber languages were also spoken in the region.

Romanization of Africa in 4th century CE Red Latin, Pink 60 to 90% Latin

North African Roman Provinces The province of Mauretania Caesariensis existed from 42 AD to the 7th Century. During and after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, most of the hinterland area was lost, first to the Vandal Kingdom and later to the Mauro-Roman Kingdom, with Roman administration limited to the capital of Caesarea. . The land was reconquered by Rome during the reign of Justinian. In the late 580s, under the emperor Maurice, all of the Maghreb was granted to the Exarchate of Africa, and Mauretania Caesariensis became part of a new province, Mauretania Prima. The Muslim conquest of the Maghreb in the late 600s brought an end to Roman rule. . Over time the use of Latin would have moved closer and closer to the coast.

Arch of Caracalla (Triumphal Arch) In Volubilis, Roman Morocco The city fell to local tribes around 285 and was never retaken by Rome because of its remoteness and indefensibility on the south-western border of the Roman Empire. It continued to be inhabited for at least another 700 years, as a Latinised Christian community.  The Eastern Empire retained a small island of control on the Moroccan coast until the Arab conquest.

Roman Military Colonies

Latin speaking Roman Africans lived in all the coastal cities of contemporary Tunisia, Western Libya, Algeria and Morocco.

The Roman Africans were generally local Berbers or Punics, but also the descendants of the populations that came directly from Rome itself or the diverse regions of the Empire as legionaries and senators.

The African province was 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 province. Large numbers of Roman Army veterans settled in Northwest Africa on farming plots promised for their military service.

Since the second half of the first century BC and as a result of increasing communities of Roman citizens living in the North African centers, Rome started to create colonies in North Africa.

1. The main reason was to control the area with Roman citizens, who had been legionaries in many cases. 
2. The second reason was to give land and urban properties to the Roman military troops who had fought for the Roman Empire and so decrease the demographic problem in the Italian peninsula. 
3. The third reason was to facilitate the Romanization of the area and so the integration of the local Berbers -through marriage and other relationships- in the Roman Empire's social and cultural world.

Emperor Septimius Severus From Leptis Magna in the Roman province of Africa. Septimius Severus grew up in Leptis Magna. He spoke the local Punic language fluently, but he was also educated in Latin and Greek, which he spoke with a slight accent.

Under Theodosius the area east of the Fossa regia was fully Romanized with one third of the population made of Italian colonists and their descendants. The other two thirds were Romanized Berbers, who were all Christians and nearly all Latin speaking.

Called the "Granary of the Empire", Romano-berber North Africa produced one million tons of cereals each year, one-quarter of which was exported. Additional crops included beans, figs, grapes, and other fruits. By the second century, olive oil rivaled cereals as an export item. In addition to the cultivation of slaves, and the capture and transporting of exotic wild animals, the principal production and exports included the textiles, marble, wine, timber, livestock, pottery such as African Red Slip, and wool.

Berber Africa -from northern Morocco to Tripolitania- had a population of more than 3 million inhabitants in the third century.

Nearly 40% were living in more than 500 cities. But in the sixth century -after the Byzantine reconquest- the population was reduced to less than 2.5 millions and after the Arab conquest in the eighth to tenth centuries there remained only one million.

There were 20 cities in the territory of actual Tunisia with the title and privileges of "Roman Coloniae" or similar, while in Algeria there was nearly the same amount and in Morocco and Libya only a few. 

The most important was the "capital" new Carthago, with more than 300,000 inhabitants during Septimius Severus times (who enhanced Leptis Magna -where he was born- to be the second city of Berber Africa with nearly 100,000 inhabitants).  

The verified "Roman Coloniae" in Africa were:

• in Africa Proconsularis: Assuras, Carpis, Carthago, Curubis, Neapolis, Simithu, Thuburnica, Madaure, Thubursicum Numidiae and Zama
• in Numidia: Cirta, Arsacal, Rusicae, Sigus, Tiddis, Verecunda, Cuicul, Masculla, Thamugadi and Theveste
• in Mauretania Caesariensis: Caesarea, Cartenna, Oppidum Novum and Rusguniae
• in Mauretania Tingitana: Volubilis, Lixus, Tingis, Banasa, Babba and Zilil
• in Mauretania Sitifensis: Auzia and Sitifis
• in Tripolitania: Leptis Magna

A mosaic on the floor ‘Labors of Hercules house’ in Volubilis, near Meknes, Morocco.

The End of Latin

The Muslim conquest of North Africa in the late 600s and early 700s did not end Latin. Local Latin speaking communities appear to have gone on for many centuries.

Spoken Latin is attested in the city of Gabès by Ibn Khordadbeh (died 912), in Béja, Biskra, Tlemcen and Niffis by al-Bakri (died 1094) and in Gafsa and Monastir by al-Idrisi (died 1165). 

The latter said of Gafsa that "its inhabitants are Berberised, and most of them speak the African Latin tongue."

The Normans, when they were acquiring their African kingdom in the 12th century, received help from the remaining Christian populations of Tunisia, and some historians argue that those Christians still spoke a Romance language.

The language existed until the arrival of the Banu Hilal Arabs in the 11th century and probably until the beginning of the fourteenth century. According to one historian, "Christian communities, generally labelled Afariqa or Ajam in the Arab sources and speaking a Latin dialect ... are known to have survived until the fourteenth century."

Virginie Prevost pinpointed that -between the Berbers of Afrikiya- the African Romance language was linked to Christianity, that survived in north Africa until the XIV century and according to the testimony of Mawlâ Aḥmad probably until the early XVIII century in Touzeur (south of Gafsa). 

The Arab Mawla Ahmad wrote that in 1709 "the inhabitants of Tazeur are what remains of the Christians who were once in Afrikiya, before the Arab conquest".

Click to enlarge Languages of the Eastern Roman Empire

Portrait of the Roman African poet Terentius Terentius may have been born in or near Carthage. He may have lived in the territory of the Libyan tribe called by the Romans Afri.

Roman Emperor Heraclius Heraclius brought an army from Latin speaking Carthage to Constantinople to overthrow the Emperor Phocas. He was crowned Caesar Flavius Heraclius Augustus in 610.

(Roman Africans)    (Languages)    (African Romance)

(Kingdom of Africa)    (Roman colonies)

Battle For The Mediterranean - The Arab Conquest of Malta

June 17, 2020, 7:08 pm

≫ Next: Byzantine Armor Reproductions

≪ Previous: Latin Speaking Africa

$

0

0

North African Arab Warriors (epicalm.com)

The Muslim Conquests

Starting in 639 AD the Muslims began their conquest of Roman North Africa by invading Egypt. After Egypt the Muslims moved across North Africa one by one taking the Roman provinces of Tripolitania and the lands controlled by the Exarchate of Africa.

In 708 AD the Roman fortress of Septem on the coast or Morocco and the surrounding territories were the last area of Roman Africa to be occupied by the Arabs.

With Africa under control the Muslims invaded Spain.

Then starting in the early-800s the semi-independent Emirs of Ifriqiya began a decades long battle for the control of Sicily and southern Italy.

These endless back and forth battles between the Muslims and Romans prove the historical nonsense of so-called "easy and rapid" Arab victories.

For over 200 years the Romans contested every inch of ground in Africa and Italy.  For example, after the fall of Carthage to the Muslims in 695 the Roman Navy in 697 staged an amphibious operation in North Africa, landed an army and re-captured Carthage.

And that brings us to Malta.

Battle For The Mediterranean Malta was a key Roman Fortress . By holding Malta the Eastern Romans could threaten Muslims in both Africa and well as when they crossed the sea and attacked Sicily and Italy. . This map shows the dates of the endless battles between both sides. Muslim attacks and victories are in green and Roman attacks and victories are in red.

Muslims Target Malta

Sicily was first invaded by the Arab forces of Caliph Uthman in 652. The Arabs failed to make any permanent gains, and returned to Syria after gathering some booty.

By the end of the 7th century, with the Umayyad conquest of North Africa, they had captured the nearby port city of Carthage, allowing the Arabs to build shipyards and a permanent base from which to make more sustained attacks.

Around 700, the island of Pantelleria was captured by Arabs. Attacks from Muslim fleets repeated in 703, 728, 729, 730, 731, 733 and 734, the last two times meeting with a substantial Roman resistance. The first true conquest expedition was launched in 740 and captured Syracuse but then returned to Africa.

The Muslim attacks and invasions went on and on into the 800s. 

It because obvious that Malta provided a naval base and staging area for the Romans to attack Muslim ships and soldiers making runs to Italy. That base had to be eliminated.

Roman Fortress of Melite A possible reconstruction of the Roman walls of Melite (model by Richard Azzopardi and Stephen C. Spiteri, displayed at the Fortifications Interpretation Centre)

The 868 Siege of Malta

Dates are all over the place and sometimes when events happened is just a guess.

The reason behind the attack can be better explained if one bears in mind that Malta was considered a threat to North Africa's security. The Island, with its good natural harbors, served as an important base from where to wage war on Africa. It was a well-known fact that the Romans, who were a strong maritime power in the Mediterranean by far superior to the Arabs at the time, were making use of Malta's harbors to strike against Africa.

The Aghlabid dynasty in Africa attacked Malta at least twice. Khalaf, a freed slave, masterminded the first attack in 868. Khalaf was known for his construction of mosques, bridges and wells. he had great difficulties to succeed in the campaign and met his death in the Siege of Malta.

This first attack was a complete failure. The Arab army suffered a crushing defeat.  The island and, in particular, its capital city were well fortified by the Romans to the extent that they could offer resistance to any invading army.

The Conquest of Malta in 870

Conquering Malta meant removing an obstacle which stood in the way of the Arab conquest of Syracuse in Sicily. In fact, the fall of Syracuse came eight years after that of Malta. No doubt Roman Malta had a strong political, economic and religious relationship with this important Roman city and she was offering help, through her maritime networks, to resist the onslaught of Arab attacks.

Taking into consideration the geographical situation of the times, it was impossible to keep an army in Malta for an entire winter period. While Malta had good harbors for the fleet, such a large army needed resources. Again, this possibility went against the military strategy adopted by the Aghlabids at the time. It was not their custom to set out on a two-year continuous siege.

The attack in 870 is recorded in the Chronicle of Cambridge and by an anonymous Arab geographer. Muslims laid siege to the ancient Roman city-fortress of Melite.

The city withstood the siege for some weeks or months, but it ultimately fell to the invaders, and its inhabitants were massacred and the city was sacked the local cathedral's marble columns were sent to Africa and its fortifications razed.

The events of 868 can perhaps help us to explain why the Arabs moved with such ferocity against Malta in 870, destroying everything they came across, thus rendering the Island barren for a number of years. One cannot fail to consider that such ruthless destruction was in fact a form of punishment. First of all, the Arabs wanted to avenge the death of Khalaf.

Secondly, they wanted to ensure that the Island could not be used as a base for Roman incursions against Ifriqiyya. This explains why one author described Malta as being a wasteland for many years.

The fall of Malta ended over 300 years of Eastern Roman rule.

The fall of Malta had important ramifications for the defense of what remained of Roman Sicily: with Reggio Calabria and now Malta in their hands, the Muslims completed their encirclement of Sicily, and could easily interdict any aid sent from the east.

19th Century North African Arab Warriors The Romans would have faced troops much like these soldiers. (epicalm.com)

Modern Malta  Malta fell to the Roman Republic in 218 BC, and it remained part of the Roman and later the Eastern Roman Empire until 870 AD, when it was captured and destroyed by the invading Aghlabids. Muslims.

(core.ac.uk)    (Melite)    (Malta)

Byzantine Armor Reproductions

July 20, 2020, 5:55 pm

≫ Next: The 2nd Battle of Yarmouk - Battle for the Middle East

≪ Previous: Battle For The Mediterranean - The Arab Conquest of Malta

$

0

0

Eastern Roman 10th century armor reproduction. The mural in  Agios Nestorios church below was used as a model by Agios Nikolaos.

From Byzantine Army Facebook

The armor of Eastern Romans are unknown to the general public largely because there are no sufficient archaeological findings to allow an easy and immediate reconstruction of their original form. 

The armor of Orthodox Military Saints reflect precisely the power of the Eastern Roman Emperors, the invincibility of the army, the grandeur of the Empire, the triumph of victories, the Roman military virtues (virtus invicta, virtus perpetua, auctoritas, dignitas, virtus, pietas), the Divine Protection and Welfare. So far there has not been found any manual that describes the exact detailed structure of Byzantine armors (also known as "Klivania"), so we are not able to know the exact method of construction.

The Byzantines had an innate preference for armors of composite construction, leather and metal being the two key elements of their Klivania. The main types of Klivanion armor of 10th and 11th centuries were the following:

• Scale armors (Klivanion)
• Chain mail
• Padded armors
• Plate armors (Muscle cuirass)
• Lamellar armors

The combination of these types of armor resulted in the production of a wide variety of defensive weapons. A heavily armed Byzantine Cataphract was almost immune to enemy attacks.

There were several military manuals written in the Eastern Roman Empire. Some of them list the pieces of armor worn by the different classes of infantry and cavalry soldiers. 

The hoplitai (‘heavy’ infantry) who formed the bulk of the foot soldiers were deployed en masse in pike blocks. Essentially a ‘mobile fortress’ for the offensive cavalry arm to sally from and retire to, they would engage in close combat only as a last resort. 

Relying mainly on their large shields and a forest of points for protection, they wore a coat (kabadion) padded with raw silk or cotton. In the first half of the 10th c. the sleeves of this coat extended to the wrist, providing some protection for the lower arm. Later, the sleeves were shortened toward elbow length. In both cases the sleeves were slit and buttoned so they could be folded back, presumably to prevent overheating on the march. 

They did not even have metal helmets - only a thick felt cap (kamelaukion) worn under a turban (phakiolion). The infantry wore boots, which could be supple and thigh-length, or thick (“doubled”) and knee-length, providing some leg protection.

Roman soldiers 6th and 7th century Facebook.com/Numerus Invictorum

6th Century Eastern Roman Cavalry

The 6th Century historian Procopius speaks in detail of the armored horse-archers of his time. They would use arrows to break up enemy formations and then charge in for the kill.


(Armies in the past) "were so indifferent in their practice of archery that they drew the bowstring only to the breast, so that the missile sent forth was naturally impotent and harmless to those whom it hit. Such, it is evident, was the archery of the past. 

But the bowmen of the present time go into battle wearing corselets and fitted out with greaves which extend up to the knee. From the right side hang their arrows, from the other the sword. And there are some who have a spear also attached to them and, at the shoulders, a sort of small shield without a grip, such as to cover the region of the face and neck."

"They are expert horsemen, and are able without difficulty to direct their bows to either side while riding at full speed, and to shoot an opponent whether in pursuit or in flight. They draw the bowstring along by the forehead about opposite the right ear, thereby charging the arrow with such an impetus as to kill whoever stands in the way, shield and corselet alike
 having no power to check its force. 

Still there are those who take into consideration none of these things, who reverence and worship the ancient times, and give no credit to modern improvements." 

Procopius

(500 to 560 AD)

History of the Wars

_________________________________

In later times the kaballarioi or ordinary cavalry wore helmets (kassidia) and a short klibanion (lamellar corslet) or lorikon (mail shirt), legs were unprotected except again by boots, and speculatively by padded hose (toubia). Mounted archers also had belted kabadia, padded coats with long and full skirts screening their legs (and the flanks of their horse), probably as they were not able to use their shield as cover from missiles while using the bow.

Around 950 a superheavy cavalry unit was formed - the klibanophori or kataphraktoi. Their entire body, and their horses as well were armored. Over their lamellar klibanion, which had elbow-length sleeves (manikia), they wore an epilorikon, which was a padded surcoat. Their iron helmets (kassidas sideras) had doubled or tripled zabai (‘screens’, of mail?) covering the whole face except the eyes. 

Both lower arms and thighs were protected by thickly padded silk or cotton guards, called manikelia for the arms, and kremasmata for the legs, but reinforced by zabai, here possibly meaning panels of mail or strips/plates of leather or horn (or possibly metal). On the lower leg greaves (chalkotoubai) were worn - their construction is not described and the term is a transference of an ancient one, originally referring to the solid bronze ones worn by classical Greek hoplites.

Byzantine Armor Manufactured by Dimitrios Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Equipment included a padded leather coat( peristhethidion) underneath that extended to the elbows and then a layer of steel Lamellar scales known as the Klivanion were put on over that. Other sources indicate that one or two layers of mail were put in between the jacket and Lamellar, but whether this was adopted before or after the is unknown.  On top of all this armor was a padded and highly decorated coat known as the Epilorikion. The Roman armor was so effective against lances and other piercing/slashing instruments that in the battle of Dyrrakhion the Emperor Alexius Commenus  sustained several lances to various parts of his body which only managed to slightly unseat him. When he finally fled he many of the lances were still stuck in him, giving him the appearance of a pincushion. (necromoprhvsfellowship)

(members.ozemail.com.au)    (hellenicarmors.gr)

The 2nd Battle of Yarmouk - Battle for the Middle East

September 1, 2020, 10:07 am

≫ Next: The Roman Limes in Armenia & Arabia - The Eastern Front

≪ Previous: Byzantine Armor Reproductions

$

0

0

Late Roman Reenactors

The Roman Middle East Ends

Battle for the Middle East Part IX

Here we are at Part IX of the titanic Battle for the Middle East.

Where Eastern Roman military history is addressed at all there are casual references to the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 AD. "Historians" effectively say the Arabs just magically showed up one day at Yarmouk and defeated a weak Roman Empire.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  This series details a Roman-Muslim slug fest taking place over many years and many battles over a huge geographical area.

In 629 AD the Roman Empire was enjoying a much deserved period of peace after a brutal 26 year long war of all wars with the Persian Empire.  Finally there was peace.  No one in Constantinople had any idea that a fresh invasion from the southern deserts would happen in a matter of months.

Part I  -  In Part I of this series we saw the first military contact between Romans and Muslim Arabs at the Battle of Mota (Mu'tah) in the Roman province of Palaestina Salutaris.  In 629 AD a force of Romans and their Christian Arab allies mauled the invading Muslim army forcing them to return to Medina.

Part II  -  In Part II we saw the Muslims turn their attention to a weakened Persian Empire. Muslims defeated the Persians in a series of battles. In 634 the Muslims marched up the Euphrates River through Persian Mesopotamia finally coming within 100 miles of the Roman frontier at Firaz. 

Firaz was at the outermost edge of the Persian Empire but it still contained an undefeated Persian garrison. There the Persians joined forces with the local Roman garrison and with Christian Arabs to take on the invaders. They were soundly defeated.

Part III  -  In Part III we have the Emperor Heraclius organizing the defense of Palaestina Salutaris.  Muslims made a wide flanking movement of hundreds of miles through waterless deserts to threaten Damascus.

The Romans held their own in eastern Syria against this attack and effectively defeated the Arabs at the Battle of Marj Rahit in 634. They drove the Arabs south away from Damascus. The Romans had also dug in at the Daraa Gap fortifications in eastern Palestine and held their positions against Arab attacks.

But the Romans were defeated in southwest Palestine allowing Muslim forces to fan out reaching as far north as Lydda and Jaffa.

Roman Archers

Part IV  -  Battle of Ajnadayn 634. The Romans were dug in at Daraa in Syria and were successfully holding off the invading Muslim army. Emperor Heraclius sent a second army down coastal Palestine with the support of the Roman Navy. The goal was to defeat the smaller Muslim army at Beersheeba and then block the lines of communications to Mecca of the Muslim army at Daraa forcing them to retreat back to Arabia.

Part V  -  1st Battle of Yarmouk (634 AD).  In a huge multi-day battle the Roman Army is pushed out of their prepared defenses at the Daraa Gap. The Romans began to withdraw and made an orderly retreat north to Damascus and other walled cities.

The door to Syria had been forced open.

Part VI  -  After a siege lasting for six months Damascus falls to Muslim invaders who lacked any siege equipment. Traitor Christians inside the city opened the gates and allowed the Muslim troops to enter the city. Damascus was sort of a great victory for the Arabs. After months of a siege the Muslims could not carry the city's defenses and needed Christian traitors within the walls to win the day.

The Muslims may have opened the door to Syria, but victory was a long way off. There were Roman armies operating all over Palestine and Syria and holding walled cities such as Jerusalem, Caesarea, Tyre and Tripoli. The coastal cities could also be resupplied and reinforced by the Roman Navy.

Part VII  -  After the fall of Damascus, Syria Muslim forces started their move north. Escaping Roman civilians and soldiers were massacred at Maraj-al-Debj in September of 635. Many survivors were sold into slavery by the Muslims.

The Muslims went on to lay Siege to the city of Homs from December 635 to March 636. After the fall of Homs the Muslims set out once again for the north, intending to take the whole of Northern Syria this time, including Aleppo and Antioch. They went past Hama and arrived at Shaizar. 

There they stopped as they faced a new Roman army raised by the Emperor Heraclius.

Part VIII  -  In the early months of 636 the Empire stuck back in Syria. Simply, the Muslims abandoned all their gains and ran south as fast as possible.

The great walled cities of Damascus and Homs captured with months of siege warfare and much blood were abandoned without a single arrow fired. The story was the same for all the other towns and villages. The Muslims ran.

The Muslims fell back to the Daraa Gap where in the 1st Battle of Yarmouk (September 634) they had forced the Romans to leave their prepared fortifications. The Muslims passed through the Gap with the Romans hot on their heals. The Romans re-occupied their old defenses and slammed shut the Door to Syria.

Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb, KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC

Explaining the 2nd Battle of Yarmouk

The fact that "historians" have no clue that there was ever a 1st Battle of Yarmouk two years earlier tells you a lot about their true knowledge of events.

As far as I am concerned Glubb Pasha's 1964 book The Great Arab Conquests is the Holy Grail on the Arab invasions. 

Glubb was fluent in Arabic and able to read the original documents. In addition he was commander of the British Arab Legion and personally campaigned on the very ground the Romans and Muslims fought over. Because the "history" of the early invasions is a jumbled mess I have been using Glubb Pasha's dates and timeline for events.

Glubb Pasha:  

"The records of the fighting which occurred between the Arabs and the Byzantine army in Syria are extremely confusing. Our sources are virtually restricted to the Arab historians who wrote more more than a century after the events . . . and who themselves were obviously ignorant of, or indifferent to, the course of the military operations. It was purely by accident that I discovered what appears to me now to be the key to the comprehension of the Arab campaigns in Syria, namely the narrow defile between the Yarmouk River and the Jebel Druze at Derra. . . .

In July 1941 . . . it was feared that the German army, which had seized the Balkans, would attack Turkey and move southwards through Syria and Palestine to Egypt. . . . It was important to discover all the available narrow defiles, where armoured mechanized forces would be at a disadvantage . . . . to hold up German mechanized columns. . . . I myself was employed to examine the area round Deraa.

The Yarmouk River . . . . has cut a deep gorge down which it falls into the Jordan valley . . . . This gorge begins near the town of Deraa. East and northeast of Deraa lies a large group of mountains formed by extinct volcanoes, all the slopes of which are strewn with large black boulders of lava. In place, movement in this area is difficult even to men on foot, while horses and camels are almost immobilized and wheels entirely so. The lava-strewn spurs run down into the plain very nearly to the point at which the Yarmouk becomes an impassable gorge. . . . In 1941, we named this narrow defile the "Deraa gap". We decided to dig an anti-tank ditch across it and to build an entrenched position for an infantry brigade to close the gap.

All the European historians of the Muslim conquest of Syria complain of the vagueness and inaccuracy of the Arab records. Again and again the rival armies are reported to be facing one another on the Yarmouk. Then they disperse again without result. Were there several encounters on the Yarmouk, and why does that name keep recurring? It was only when I myself reconnoitered the area for a military purpose that, all of a sudden, the veil fell, as it were, from my eyes. Useful as this defile would be to prevent a German attack from the north, it was obvious to me that it would be  of even great importance in resisting an army coming up from the south. In so far as invasion from Arabia was concerned, the Deraa gap would be the Thermopylae of Syria.

In 1941, the Germans were invincible at their lightning mechanical warfare. . . . The only way to oppose these mechanized-avalanche tactics was to fight in close country, in mountains, in passes in narrow gaps . . . .

The Muslims were extremely light and mobile, and their tactics consisted of a wild charge . . . retreat and turning movements, cutting communications and supplies. In the open plain, the heavy slow-moving Byzantine troops could not compete with this mobility. But the Arabs could not fight a close-order infantry battle, by push of pike as it were. They had not sufficient body-armour, they were not trained to fight in close, well disciplined ranks. More over they had no heavy support weapons. A cloud of arrows was their only covering fire. Thus they easily overran the deserts and plains of Trans-Jordan and southern Palestine but were afraid of the mountains and defiles.

Dreading the Arab blitzkrieg, the Byzantine army in 634 (the 1st Battle of Yarmouk), like the British army in 1941, established an entrenched camp near Deraa in the gap between the Yarmouk's gorge and the lava beds. The Arabs would sometimes skirmish in front of this camp and sometime withdraw, but their lack of military science made it difficult for them to assault it. Khalid's operations round Palmyra and Damascus would thus have the object of persuading the Byzantines to withdraw from Deraa, a result, however, which they failed to achieve."

The fact that "historians" have no clue that there was ever a 1st Battle of Yarmouk two years earlier tells you a lot about their true knowledge of events.

The prepared, fortified Roman positions in the Daraa Gap were protected on the left by the deep gorges created by the Yarmouk River above and on the right by the lava mountains of Jebel Hauran.

Roman Victory in Syria

In 636 the Emperor Heraclius assembled a large army to retake Syria from Muslim Control.

We may not know the exact size or makeup of the Roman Army. All we can do is judge the reaction of the Muslim forces facing them.

Simply, the Muslims abandoned all their gains and ran south as fast as possible.

The great walled cities of Damascus and Homs captured with months of siege warfare and much blood were abandoned without a single arrow fired. The story was the same for all the other towns and villages. The Muslims ran through the Daraa Gap and out into the desert beyond.

The Roman army moved in and re-occupied their old defenses slamming shut the Door to Syria.

Heraclius' policy was to stonewall and gain time to build up his forces to liberate Palestine..

The 2nd Battle of Yarmouk

The Yarmouk Defences

This is one of the greatest and most important battles in history, and yet we know next to nothing about events.

The Roman Army started their march south from Antioch in March or April of 636. The Muslims ran as fast as possible never giving battle. The Romans rapidly recaptured Syria and may have reoccupied their Daraa Gap defences around May or June.

As you can see from General Glubb's map above the Daraa Gap was not narrow. The Romans had to defend a front that was 15 miles wide. Not an easy task for any army.

So what were the "prepared defences" that Gen. Glubb spoke of? We can only guess.

Obviously there is no permanent 15 mile long Hadrian's Wall. There was no need. For centuries the enemy of Rome in the east was the Persian Empire not the Arabs so there was no need for major defences facing south.

So when the Muslims invaded the province of Palaestina Salutaris in 634 I believe the Emperor Heraclius ordered the erection of a string of the traditional fortified earthen Roman marching camps to help block the Daraa Gap. Earthen because I doubt any lumber was easily available to strengthen the walls, though the army may have brought some with them.

The Roman infantry would man the strong points and the cavalry units would patrol the gaps between the forts. Any Muslims pushing through between the forts would have Roman infantry behind them and could be caught in a vice of infantry and cavalry.

So the Roman line was anchored on the Yarmouk River on their right and the Lava fields on their left with forts and cavalry holding the center.

View of the remains of the Roman base camp when the 10th Roman Legion laid siege to Masada. With a lack of trees in the desert it is likely that the Romans erected a series of earthen forts in the Daraa Gap to block the Muslims. (pinterest.com)

The Opposing Forces

Troop numbers are all over the map and no one can really know the true numbers.

Muslim forces may have numbered between 15,000 and 40,000. I doubt the higher number based on the difficulty in supplying a large force in the desert. I select 25,000 because . . . . well, why not? It's as good a number as any and looks practical.

The Muslim army was commanded by Khalid ibn al-Walid.  Khalid organized the army into 36 infantry regiments and four cavalry regiments, with his cavalry elite, the mobile guard, held in reserve.

The exact size and composition of the Roman Army and its units in the Yarmouk campaign is a matter of considerable debate due to the scantness and ambiguous nature of the primary sources.

A typical Eastern Empire field army often numbered 15,000 to 20,000 men. It is possible that this being a major effort to recapture Syria and Palestine then all stops might have been pulled out. I would put my guess at an army of 30,000 plus.

The Emperor appointed Theodore Trithyrius as perhaps Commander-in-Chief in the newly raised army. Trithyrius was a Greek Christian and Roman Treasurer working for Emperor Heraclius and extremely loyal to the Emperor himself. He enjoyed supremacy under his title of sacellarius, usually appointed to the state treasurer.

Many Imperial regiments had been destroyed or badly mauled in recent campaigns. So the Emperor looked east to Armenia for the bulk of his troops. With the Persians defeated Armenia would have been a quiet front well able to spare frontier troops for Syria. 

This does not mean the Armenians were mercenaries. Far from it. While some Armenians may have signed on just for this campaign the history of Armenian Legions in the Roman Army goes back centuries. It is possible many of the Armenian troops were trained professionals or maybe partly trained militia that were called into service.

The units in the other one-third of the army varied. Roman ally Jabalah ibn al-Aiham, King of the Ghassanid Arabs, commanded an exclusively Christian Arab force. Other army contingents consisted of Slavs, Franks and Georgians. Buccinator, a Slavic prince, commanded the Slavs. 

Byzantine sources mention Niketas the Persian, son of the Persian general Shahrbaraz, among the commanders. With Persia and Rome allied against the Muslims did Niketas bring with him a contingent of Persian troops? or did he command Romans? We do not know.

Perhaps two-thirds of the new army were Armenians and Christian Arabs. 

These different units coming together under one commander would not be new for the Romans. Foreign troops during the late Roman period were known as the Foederati ("allies") in Latin and often supplemented the regular army units.

The Commander-in-Chief in the army may have been Trithyrius. But Trithyrius was basically a bean counter from the Treasury. His level of military experience is unknown.  Vahan, an Armenian and the former garrison commander of Emesa, was in command of his Armenian units and may have had some command over the non-Armenian troops. . . . or perhaps command was partly shared with a somewhat joint council of the leaders of the different units.

Colorized 1898 photo of a Bedouin warrior on horseback carrying a traditional Az-Zayah hunting spear. The Romans may have face soldiers much like this man. (dailymail.co.uk)

The Battle

Under their king the mobile and nimble Christian Arabs acted as an ideal cavalry screen in front of the main Roman Army and pushed the Muslims almost totally out of Syria.

With the Muslims pushed out beyond the Daraa Gap the main Roman Army reocuppied the fortifications they had abandoned 18 months earlier. No doubt a lot of work was needed to strengthen the old strong points.

This second deadlock at the Daraa Gap lasted about four months.

A four month standoff between armies is a far cry from the incorrect single "Battle of Yarmouk" that historians talk about.

The Muslims tried to lure the Romans out of their prepared positions to no avail. On the other hand the Muslims had no desire to directly attack the Roman line, and that showed their weakness.

The Muslims tried to break the deadlock by working around the flanks of the Romans. Small units of Muslims infiltrated to the west over the Yarmouk River and to the east over the lava beds. These small units could threaten Roman supply lines with attacks and even pick off small units of Roman foragers.

More important there was an atmosphere of mistrust between the Romans, Greeks, Armenians and Arabs. Command lines were not clear and there appears to have been a struggle for power between Trithyrius and the Armenia commander Vahan. The effect of the feud was a decrease in coordination and planning.

Some say the Romans should have attacked the Muslims at once when they arrived. That action had seen the defeat of other Roman forces in the past. The Emperor's plan was to hold firm at Yarmouk. But while the Romans held firm Muslim reinforcements from Arabia were coming.

With the added troops the Muslims became increasingly aggressive. It is confusing but it appears that the Arabs came close to surrounding the Romans - - - or at least they had cut the Roman's communications on three sides.

A massive desert dust storm blinded the Roman Army reducing visibility to near zero.

Some "Historians" claim the final conflict was a multi-day battle. General Glubb says it was all over in one day.

On August 20, 636 there was a massive sand storm. A hot wind was blowing clouds of sand and dust directly into the faces of the Romans.

• Gen. Glubb:  "Few experiences are more unpleasant than a really hot dust-storm in the desert. Tents are blown down, cooking is impossible, food and drink are full of grit and the blinding sand stings the face and closes the eyes. Visibility may be reduced to a few yards. To face such a wind is impossible. There is nothing to be done but to crouch on the ground, and wait miserably for the storm to blow itself out."

The Arab attack was planned. Glubb believes the dust storm started the day before on the 19th. Seeing an opportunity the Arabs appear to have early on seized the bridge over the Wadi al Ruqqad which was on the Roman's lines of communications.

• Gen. Glubb:  "While even bedouin scarcely enjoys a sand storm, it was to them a normal experience. Moreover the direction of the gale was from them to the enemy. Their vision was hampered, but with the wind behind them, they could attack with their eyes open, suffering little inconvenience. Such circumstances would obviously produce a soldier's battle. An army accustomed to fight in ranks by word of command would, under these conditions, be almost helpless." 

This was an impossible situation for any army. The Muslims could not break the Roman line - the sand storm did it for them.

• Gen. Glubb:  "Then a wild horde of screaming Arabs, suddenly appearing like ghosts through the driving sand, poured across the Byzantine fortifications. If the dust-storm was really thick, it is unlikely that the imperial army succeeded in giving battle at all. With the bridge in their rear already seized by the Muslims, an immense slaughter resulted, Theodorus himself being killed in the melee. By the next morning, the Byzantine army, which Heraclius had spent a year of immense exertion to collect, had entirely ceased to exist. There was no withdrawal, no rearguard action, no nucleus of survivors. There was nothing left."

Aftermath

Roman Syria and Palestine still existed. Roman garrisons still controlled Jerusalem and Damascus. The navy supported the garrisons holding out in coastal towns such as Carsarea, Trye, Sidon and Tripoli.

The Muslims had failed to break the Roman defensive line. One has to speculate what would history have been like if there had been no sand storm. With no storm the army at Daraa might have withdrawn to Damascus and reorganized to fight another day. The Muslims could have been stopped there while the Roman Navy supported the coastal cities. Interesting thoughts to ponder.

When the aged Emperor Heraclius in Antioch heard about Yarmouk he knew the decision was irrevocable. He would have tried to reconquer the province if he had the resources but now had neither the men nor the money to defend the province any more.

Heraclius took to the sea on a ship to Constantinople in the night. 

Tradition says as his ship set sail he bade a last farewell to Syria:

Farewell, a long farewell to Syria, my fair province. Thou art an infidel's (enemy's) now. Peace be with you, O Syria—what a beautiful land you will be for the enemy.

Heraclius abandoned Syria with the holy relic of the True Cross, which was, along with other relics held at Jerusalem, secretly boarded on ship by Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, just to protect it from the invading Arabs.

After abandoning Syria, he began to concentrate on his remaining forces for the defense of Anatolia,Egypt and Byzantine Armenia . Heraclius created a buffer zone in central Anatolia by ordering all the forts east of Tarsus to be evacuated.

But these stories are for Part X.

Limitanei static frontier guard troops existed  through the Persian Wars and the Arab Conquest.

Read More:
.
Part I - Roman Empire vs Islam - First Contact
.
Part II - A Persian-Roman Army Fights Muslim Invaderskk

Part III - Muslims Invade Roman Palestinem
.
Part IV - Battle of Ajnadayn
kk
Part V - The 1st Battle of Yarmouk

.

Part VI - The Fall of Damascus

Part VII - The Swaying Struggle

k

Part VIII - The Empire Strikes Back

Late Roman Empire Cavalry The basic look of the Roman cavalry during the Arab invasions would have not changed all that much. The heavy Cataphract units would have more armor and other units would have less for better mobility. The armored cavalry would act as the mailed fist of any Roman field army. (Roman Empire.net)

(Yarmuk)   (Yarmouk)   (Great Arab Conquests)