Byzantine Infantry

[barca]

I find it interesting how the use of long pikes became dominant during the Hellenistic period, and went into decline because of devastating defeats at the hands of the Romans. They don't really emerge again (or at least one doesn't hear much about them) until the later middle ages with the Flemish, Swiss, Scotts, etc. It is clear that long pikes were a strong deterrent against cavalry, and I find it hard to believe that the Romans didn't find them useful in their eastern campaigns. We all know about Arrian's description of the legion's formation against the Alans, but it seems to me that a pilum is less effective than a longer spear or pike against cavalry.

 

Caracala supposedly was intersted in recreating a macedonian style phalanx for one of his future ventures in the east. The later Roman armies replaced the pilum with a longer thrusting spear, which was probably superior against cavalry.

The Byzantine infantrymen were accustomed to bracing themselves against cavalry, and they also had relatively long spears, but I don't know if they ever used extra-long pikes (18-21 ft)

 

Is there any evidence that the Byzantines ever used the longer pikes prior to the late middle ages?

[Romanus]

The Skoutatoi used kontarion 2-3 M long spears in the first ranks of the Byzantine battalions. to fend off Calvary charges. You need to remember however that the Byzantine army used combined arms where Infantry and Calvary worked in unison (and were the first army in the world to do so.) Please also take into account that the Pike is a great weapon against a Western European or Person Calvary but against Eastern horse archers they are powerless. Any time the Eastern Romans had competent leadership The could easily beat any Western Calvary With the more flexable system they used than the more ridged long pikes the Western European employed.

[barca]

Please also take into account that the Pike is a great weapon against a Western European or Person Calvary but against Eastern horse archers they are powerless.

 

 

Their eastern opponents had not only horse archers, but heavy cavalry as well.

 

On numerous occasions macedonian-style phalanxes held their pikes upward at an angle to deflect arrows or other missiles going their way. A good example was The Pontic phalanx at Chaeronea II.

[barca]

You need to remember however that the Byzantine army used combined arms where Infantry and Calvary worked in unison (and were the first army in the world to do so.)

 

 

It seems to me that the Hellenistic system was supposed to do the same thing. It worked for Alexander. He used the mobile hypaspists as a flexible bridge between his companion cavalry and the phalanx. Later Hellenistic armies weren't able to apply this method against the Romans, perhaps because of the quality of the opposition. At Magnesia, the winning Seleucid cavalry overshot the battle line and broke off from the rest of the army.

Edited January 19, 2010 by barca

[Romanus]

Please also take into account that the Pike is a great weapon against a Western European or Person Calvary but against Eastern horse archers they are powerless.

 

 

Their eastern opponents had not only horse archers, but heavy cavalry as well.

 

On numerous occasions macedonian-style phalanxes held their pikes upward at an angle to deflect arrows or other missiles going their way. A good example was The Pontic phalanx at Chaeronea II.

 

The Byzantine army worked as one unit. Heavy and Light Calvary and infantry so when faced with a Heavy cavalry charge the Byzantine infantry would become the anvil on which the Calvary would smash the enemy onto. another tactic would be to open a hole in the middle of the infantry letting the cavalry charge then hitting the opposing cavalry from the sides.

 

long pikes would still not give you the flexibility of Byzantine combined arms. an example is the fact the Byzantine lance was even shorter than the Byzantine spear and could double as a javelin as well as the use of Bows.

 

You need to remember however that the Byzantine army used combined arms where Infantry and Calvary worked in unison (and were the first army in the world to do so.)

 

 

It seems to me that the Hellenistic system was supposed to do the same thing. It worked for Alexander. He used the mobile hypaspists as a flexible bridge between his companion cavalry and the phalanx. Later Hellenistic armies weren't able to apply this method against the Romans, perhaps because of the quality of the opposition. At Magnesia, the winning Seleucid cavalry overshot the battle line and broke off from the rest of the army.

 

That is an incorrect comparison as no footman has the mobility of a horseman as well as the fact that the technology for controlling a horse from mounted position was much superior in the middle ages than during the classical age. The Stirrup was a much better way to control the mount than the saddles that were used during classical times. Yes later Hellenistic armies had degraded but the main reason the hypaspists weren't able to work on the Romans is do to the fact that the Roman maniple system was far more mobile and flexible than the hypaspist system.

 

The Persians who where almost all Cavalry after they became independent from the Seleucid state never were able to completely defeat the Romans while the Romans were able to totally destroy both Parthia under Trajan (he was to old to take the whole thing) and Sassanian Persia under Heraclius (He didn't want to keep it so he went back to the defacto border). During the Byzantine

[barca]

Stirrup was a much better way to control the mount than the saddles that were used during classical times.

 

The Persians who where almost all Cavalry after they became independent from the Seleucid state never were able to completely defeat the Romans while the Romans were able to totally destroy both Parthia under Trajan (he was to old to take the whole thing) and Sassanian Persia under Heraclius (He didn't want to keep it so he went back to the defacto border). During the Byzantine

Edited January 20, 2010 by barca

[barca]

Yes later Hellenistic armies had degraded but the main reason the hypaspists weren't able to work on the Romans is do to the fact that the Roman maniple system was far more mobile and flexible than the hypaspist system.

 

 

Here's a good description of the role of the hypaspists:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=rR88jF6ta...der&f=false

 

and more:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=nTmXOFX-w...ink&f=false

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=S6J5yOnPC...dna&f=false

 

The importance of the flexibility of the Roman maniple system is overstated, and we really don't know enough about their relative flexibilities. What really made a difference for the Romans was the gladius which was vastly superior to any Greek sword. So once they got into close quarteres, the Romans had a distinct advantage.

Edited January 20, 2010 by barca

[Romanus]

Stirrup was a much better way to control the mount than the saddles that were used during classical times.

 

The Persians who where almost all Cavalry after they became independent from the Seleucid state never were able to completely defeat the Romans while the Romans were able to totally destroy both Parthia under Trajan (he was to old to take the whole thing) and Sassanian Persia under Heraclius (He didn't want to keep it so he went back to the defacto border). During the Byzantine

[barca]

The Sassanian system was completely powerless against the Arabs suffering defeat after defeat while the Romans simply didn't have the army left to hold onto most of the empire.

 

It is generally assumed that the Romans actually outnumbered the Arabs at Yarmouk. Would you agree with the following statement made by a previous poster?

 

"From a purely military standpoint, a most critical contributor was definitively the command of Khālid ibn al-Walīd, a tactician of the same magnitude as let say Timur or Alexander Magnus."

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10534

Edited January 20, 2010 by barca

[barca]

The Skoutatoi used kontarion 2-3 M long spears in the first ranks of the Byzantine battalions. to fend off Calvary charges. You need to remember however that the Byzantine army used combined arms where Infantry and Calvary worked in unison (and were the first army in the world to do so.) Please also take into account that the Pike is a great weapon against a Western European or Person Calvary but against Eastern horse archers they are powerless. Any time the Eastern Romans had competent leadership The could easily beat any Western Calvary With the more flexable system they used than the more ridged long pikes the Western European employed.

 

 

Here's a good description of the Byzantine Scoutatoi

 

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Medieval/war...tleTactics.html

 

In some ways a throwback to the pre-sarissa hoplite phalanx. The intermediate length spear, the relatively large shield, and the close order. The main difference being better armor and sword for effective one on one fighting once they came into close quarters with opposing infantry.

 

And I agree that theirs was a very effective system, and their infantry often fought from a defensive position, delivering an effective counterblow. They did not take the aggressive advance movements of the Swiss and other pike units of the later middle ages.

 

The Byzantine system worked very well for the most part, but they didn't do too well against the Normans at Durrazo in 1081.

Edited January 20, 2010 by barca

[Romanus]

The Sassanian system was completely powerless against the Arabs suffering defeat after defeat while the Romans simply didn't have the army left to hold onto most of the empire.

 

It is generally assumed that the Romans actually outnumbered the Arabs at Yarmouk. Would you agree with the following statement made by a previous poster?

 

"From a purely military standpoint, a most critical contributor was definitively the command of Khālid ibn al-Walīd, a tactician of the same magnitude as let say Timur or Alexander Magnus."

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10534

 

Yarmouk was everything the Romans had. After that they couldn't counter attack and had to take a defensive posture which proved impossible to maintain outside Anatolia. The Sassanians on the other hand Fought and lost, Counter attacked and lost several times. If the Sassanians had given up on Iraq after the Arabs finally conquered it then They would have at least held onto Iran proper. Omar said as much when he stated that he wished there was a mountain of fire between the Caliphate and the Sassanian empire. I also agree about Khālid ibn al-Walīd but I would add that without the women holding out against roman breakthroughs until the Rashidun army could recover the Romans would have most likely won.

 

The Skoutatoi used kontarion 2-3 M long spears in the first ranks of the Byzantine battalions. to fend off Calvary charges. You need to remember however that the Byzantine army used combined arms where Infantry and Calvary worked in unison (and were the first army in the world to do so.) Please also take into account that the Pike is a great weapon against a Western European or Person Calvary but against Eastern horse archers they are powerless. Any time the Eastern Romans had competent leadership The could easily beat any Western Calvary With the more flexable system they used than the more ridged long pikes the Western European employed.

 

 

Here's a good description of the Byzantine Scoutatoi

 

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Medieval/war...tleTactics.html

 

In some ways a throwback to the pre-sarissa hoplite phalanx. The intermediate length spear, the relatively large shield, and the close order. The main difference being better armor and sword for effective one on one fighting once they came into close quarters with opposing infantry.

 

And I agree that theirs was a very effective system, and their infantry often fought from a defensive position, delivering an effective counterblow. They did not take the aggressive advance movements of the Swiss and other pike units of the later middle ages.

 

The Byzantine system worked very well for the most part, but they didn't do too well against the Normans at Durrazo in 1081.

 

It wasn't a throwback to the hoplite phalanx in any way. The Spears were only equipped by the first ranks so they could counter cavalry charges with the main weapon being the spathion long sword. A standard tactic was to have the infantry advance under cover of archery to take some important point on the battlefield then when the enemy counter attacked the cavalry who had stayed behind the infantry would flank or the infantry would open up to allow the cavalry to charge there by enveloping and crushing the enemy.

 

The Byzantine system worked very well at The Battle of Dyrrhachium and they would have won until the army collapsed on it's own. The Norman right had collapsed and the entire Norman army was in danger of being encircled and destroyed until the Varangians most of whom were Saxons who were driven out of England by the Norman conquest chased the Norman right wing ending up being separated from the rest of the army and being completely destroyed. then both King Constantine Bodin of Duklja and the Turkish mercenaries abandoned the Byzantines This left the Byzantine center exposed and it was at this point the Normans struck and crushed Alexius's Army. If the Byzantine left along with the Varangians had remained within striking distance of the center it would have been the Normans who would have been destroyed not the Byzantines.

[barca]

It wasn't a throwback to the hoplite phalanx in any way. The Spears were only equipped by the first ranks so they could counter cavalry charges with the main weapon being the spathion long sword.

 

 

Alexander had a similar plan for the future development of the phalanx. Only the first 3 ranks would carry the sarissa, and light infantry with bows or javelins would be behind them. I don't think he ever got a chance to try it out in battle, and his successors abandoned this experimental formation.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=nTmXOFX-w...ile&f=false

[marcus silanus]

It wasn't a throwback to the hoplite phalanx in any way. The Spears were only equipped by the first ranks so they could counter cavalry charges with the main weapon being the spathion long sword.

 

 

Alexander had a similar plan for the future development of the phalanx. Only the first 3 ranks would carry the sarissa, and light infantry with bows or javelins would be behind them. I don't think he ever got a chance to try it out in battle, and his successors abandoned this experimental formation.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=nTmXOFX-w...ile&f=false

 

The deep Macedonian Phalanx certainly created the impression of wastage as the sarissii of only the first five ranks would protrude. However the other ranks would provide "weight" to the advance and much needed momentum. The raised sarissii of the remaining ranks also provided cover against missile attacks.

 

I must admit that I know very little of note with respect to the Byzantine period. I do wonder why, however, none of the Diadochi adopted the new tactics. What they actually seemed to do was try an execute versions of Alexander's tactics, whilst the reality was that resources had been split and therefore depleated. Alexander had a six to one ratio of infantry to cavalry and at best, Perseus at Pydna had one of ten to one.

Edited January 25, 2010 by marcus silanus

[Yehudah]

Caracala supposedly was intersted in recreating a macedonian style phalanx for one of his future ventures in the east. The later Roman armies replaced the pilum with a longer thrusting spear, which was probably superior against cavalry.

 

Caracalla was just imitating the Macedonian phalanx of old, and there is little evidence outside the writings of Cassius Dio for this bizarre experiment. I would personally think it has nothing to do with the later adoption of pike-like polearms by the Eastern Roman Empire.

 

The pilum and its descendants, the spiculum and the angon, continued to be used throughout the 4th and probably into the 5th Century. I think javelins remained in favor over thrusting spears longer than has been traditionally assumed.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Yehudah