Nikephoros Phokas

The adoption of the spatha did not necessarily alter Roman sword techniques. The longer sword was used by both cavalry and auxiliary units. The latter may have had different weapons (spatha, lancea and oval shield) from the legions, but there are no significant reports that their training for hand to hand fighting differed greatly. The spatha can be used in the same way as the gladius. The most important distinction being the longer reach of the spatha. This may have been one of the reasons that it was eventually adopted by the legions. A longer blade may have been an advantage when fighting cavalry. Its adoption by the legions coincides roughly with the emergence of the Sasanian Persians as a major military threat to the empire. The most important aspect of Roman sword fighting was the thrust. The design of the blade indicated that the point of both gladius and spatha was more important than the edge. Thrusting minimized the exposure of the sword arm and it is also a very economical motion. Modern police use their shields and batons in much the same way as Roman infantry. Thrusting or pushing with the baton is better suited for the tight defensive formations usually adopted by the police.

Jordanes wrote a history of the Goths for the Gothic royals. He weaves fact and fiction to provide ties between the Gothic royal families of his age with the ancient Gothic kings. Given his Gothic audience and the role played by the Visigoths at Chalons, he may be exaggerating the decadence of the Roman military. Aetius was the senior Roman general (magister) and his forces represented the rump of the imperial field or mobile armies in the western provinces. How large a force this was is debatable although Elton, Drinkwater, MacDowall, Heather and other modern writers do provide some glimpses during the twilight of the west. One theory is that Aetius kept a large force at his disposal so that no other Roman general could challenge him. His relationship with the government of Valentinian III was based on control of the military. He had already fought the equivalent of civil wars to guarantee his supremacy prior to Chalons. Unfortunately, there is no enough evidence to do more than guess at the Roman component at Chalons. The presence of Visigoths is likely a result of military and political ties. The Visigoths were historically responsible for providing troops upon request as part of the treaty (foedus) that led to their settlement in southwestern France. The Alans were likely present because Aetius did not trust their king, who may have be willing to aid Attila. The Alans were also settled in France under the terms of a treaty. Frankish foederati were included in the Roman contingent. Jordanes also lists Sarmatians, Armoricans, Liticians, Burgundians, Saxons, Olibrones (whom he describes as "once Roman soldiers and now the flower of the allied forces"), and other Celtic or German tribes. Some of these may have been archaic names no longer used by the peoples so identified. They may also have been used to disguise the Roman units. Given the frequency of Celtic, German and non-Latin names in Roman unit titles, Jordanes may have been easily confused (or just pretending to be ignorant). Thus the Roman army represented a cross section of the known military forces serving in France or surrounding regions.

I recommend the Osprey books that cover military uniforms from early Republican to Byzantine times. The various theories are based on thorough research and there are lots of illustrations including some that show original colors on paintings, mosaics, sculptures and monuments.

Comes or companion was both a military and civilian rank. The imperial government of the Dominate was organized along military lines with civil servants being classed as soldiers. They even received rations like soldiers. As a military rank, comes was second after magister (master). Magister was likely the Roman equivalent to Commanders-in-Chief or as they are now known "combatant commanders" who are the commanding generals of formations like Central Command (CENTCOM), EUCOM, PACOM, and SOUTHCOM. In the west, there were usually two magistri, while in the east, there were five or more at any given time during the 5th Century. Comes or Comes rei militaris commanded forces assigned to various regions such as the Saxon Shore, Britain, Spain, Africa, etc. Dux (duces) ranked below comes and commanded military forces in one or more provinces. These were usually limitanei as opposed to comitatensis or field/mobile armies. The limitanei usually were garrisoned in the frontier provinces and areas that were particularly unstable such as Isauria (southeastern Anatolia).

One parallel between the Roman and German forces was the development of companions, also known as comitatus and antrustiones. They were the personal following of a leader such as the Gothic guards of Gallia Placidia, "queen of the Visigoths" and sister of the western emperor, Honorius. The emperors and their appointees were not the only leaders to have bodyguards. Senior officials and landowners raised unauthorised contingents of bodyguards. The most common name for them was Boukellarioi or Bucellarii (derived from bucellam, bread or "hard tack" biscuits) in the 5th Century (the name is not recorded in earlier times, although private retinues probably existed then). The official bucellarii swore oaths of allegiance to both their employer and the emperor. Other bodyguards were probably only loyal to their employers. Bodyguards were both Roman and foreign soldiers. They could be raised by generals (and some civilian officials and landowners) to supplement regular forces but were fully professional troops. They were also called hypaspistai, doruphoroi, and spatharioi (shield, spear and sword bearers). The officers were called doruphoroi and others as hypaspistai in Prokopios. The doruphoroi were also called amici, and hypaspistai were called armigeri, which were the earlier Latin names. Bucellarii were not a specific type of soldier like a legionary or auxiliary infantryman, although most were likely cavalry. This is how they are identified in the Strategicon, a military manual written in the later 6th Century AD. Their earlier Imperial counterparts were possibly the Scholae, all of which were cavalry units and imperial guardsmen. They were raised by Constantine the Great and numbered five units of ala (plural alae) or vexillatio (plural vexillationes) size, about 500. The number based in Constantinople was later increased to seven. Alternatively, they may have been similar to the guards called "protectores et domestici". There were two units; one of infantry under the comes domesticourm pedites and one of cavalry under the comes domesticorum equites Bodyguards were assigned to senior officers and governors and were both infantry and cavalry. These were drawn from existing units so were imperial soldiers. Barbarian or foreign officers may have been allowed to enroll their guards upon becoming Roman officers.

Our perception of the Roman Empire is heavily influenced by English culture. Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" has been one of the most important sources in shaping western (American and European) views of Late Antiquity. There is a tendency to treat 476 AD as a terminal point in European history and thus the survival of the Eastern Roman Empire is overlooked. Added to this tendency is the fact that the east evolved into the Byzantine Empire so stopped being Roman. The Roman Empire continued as a recognizable political entity until the conquest of its remaining vestiges by the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century. Another reason for being confused about the empire is the establishment of the second or Holy Roman Empire in the 9th Century. This was dissolved by Napoleon in 1809 and became the Austro-Hungarian Empire (among other names). The Byzantine army maintained all of the traditions and doctrines of the Roman army. The Germanic successor states in the west also maintained elements of the imperial government including the military. The Byzantine army is well identified in the Notitia Dignitatum and a search of the Internet will provide many sources listing military units in Latin and English. Whether this provides a true order of battle for the Roman army is debatable, although it is a good starting point.

Flavius Vegetius Renatus (c. 385

At the start of the 5th Century, the Western and Eastern Roman Empires controlled all of the Mediterranean Sea such that it was known as Mare Nostrum (Our Sea). The imperial navy was primarily charged with the protection of shipping and deterring piracy. There were two large fleets, the Classis Praetoria Misenensis (based in Misenum) and Classis Praetoria Ravennatis (based in Ravenna) in the Mediterranean. The Classis Augusta Alexandrina (based in Alexandria) guarded Egypt with a detachment at Caesarea (Classis Syriaca). The Black Sea was divided between the Classis Pontica, responsible for the southern and eastern parts of the Black Sea, while the mouth of the Danube and the coastline to the north as far as the Crimea was the responsibility of the Classis Moesica. The Classis Pannonia patrolled the Danube River. The main type of ship of the 5th Century was the liburnia (pl liburnicae), so called because it was developed from the ships used by the Illyrian pirates of Liburnia (in modern-day Croatia). It had two banks of oars, and the Romans came to prefer it because of its greater speed and maneuverability. The crew of a liburnia consisted of about 50-80 oar-men (remiges) and a unit of about 30-50 marines (classiarii), depending on the size of the ship. There were usually 50 oars per ship (25 per side). Liburnicae were used everywhere in the Roman Empire, for example on the Nile, Rhine and Danube Rivers. Compared to the fighting value of the earliest warships with only one row of oars-men, the liburnia was a more powerful ship especially when ramming an enemy ship. With a closed deck it could take more marines as any other ship this size for the purpose of hand-to-hand combat helping insure a victory when fighting at close quarters with a ship of the same size. Later Roman scout ship had 20 rowers in one bank, one mast and painted blue (venetus) according to Vegetius. For more information, I recommend the following: Pryor, J.H.

Greetings, I recommend reading the following if you wish to know more about the battle: The Battle of Adrianople:A Reconsideration By TS Burns Adrianople AD 378 The Goths crush Rome's legions (Campaign 84) by SC MacDowall (Osprey Publishing) I can provide a copy of the first as a MS Word document. Burns has written several books and articles about the Goths and their interaction with the Roman Empire. MacDowall spent time searching for a likely location for the battle near the modern Turkish city of Edirne prior to writing his book. Vegetius was indeed an "armchair general" as he had no known military experience unlike Ammianus Marcellinus who served as a staff officer before writing his history. It was common for people like Vegetius to demonstrate their writing skills by authoring a paper which would form part of their resume or cirriculum vitae. The Roman military had a long history of employing "barbarians" and so the presence of some German soldiers at Adrianople would be normal. Remember that the vast majority of auxiliaries of the Imperial Roman military were non-citizens. Auxiliaries may have formed half or more of the army. The granting of citizenship to all residents in 212 AD blurred the distinction in the military so it is difficult to assess the foreign content after the 3rd Century. Perry Gray

There have been a number of books published in the last ten years that provide plenty of information about the military in the 4th and 5th Centuries. I suggest that anyone interested in the performance of the military read some of the following: Warfare in Roman Europe by Hugh Elton The Late Roman Army by Pat Dixon and Karen Suthern Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather Twilight of Empire by Martijn Nicassie On the subject of barbarians, one must remember that the Roman military had a long history of recruiting from foreign and non-Roman populations. This was a trend established in the Republican era prior to the rise of Octavianus/Augustus. The majority of Imperial auxiliaries were non-citizens until 212 AD when citizenship was granted to all except slaves. Germans were a common fixture in the military well before the 4th Century. What was different in the later 4th Century was the admittance of the Goths after 376 AD without assimilation. The Goths followed by the Suebi, Vandals, Burgundians and Alans created autonomous states within the empire. These states within a state were instrumental in the collapse of the western empire; the extent of their influence remains a heated debate among historians. Tied to the loss of tax revenues to these barbarians was a decrease in the military as running a deficite budget was a modern concept. If the government could not pay its troops, then the troops did not serve. While it is true that the quantity of cavalry did increase within the military, the majority of the soldiers were infantrymen. They were cheaper to employ and could be moved quite quickly to threatened areas. Cavalry horses tend to be particular in what they eat so fodder was required in large quantities to keep them healthy. Horses cannot maintain a constant rate of march like men. Moving long distances required a slower rate of march than if only foot soldiers were used. While this may be hard to believe, it is a proven fact. Nomads were faster because they fed their horses on whatever was available, although the lack of suitable fodder was a problem. Horses will not eat plants like sheep and goats. The military did play a role in the fall, but was one of many factors in the demise of the western empire. Civil wars always made barbarian intrusions harder to contain. Several senior officers like Aetius and Ricimer did rely upon barbarians to retain power especially as counters to the power of the civilian branches of the central government.

There are a number of misconceptions about the composition of the army. Infantry continued to outnumber cavalry well into the Byzantine period. The ratio was roughly 3:1. Most of the soldiers were Roman citizens despite many of the tribal names given to the units. The empire recruited from a variety of sources with the German element being one of many, albeit historians tend to highlight the German presence. Diocletian introduced a law that required a son to follow the father in terms of career, so the sons of soldiers were expected to join the military. The recruits were a mix of conscripts and volunteers, civilian and non-civilian. This was the traditional method of recruiting although the granting of citizenship after 212 to all occupants of the empire (except slaves) did obscure the earlier distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. The separation of the two into legions and auxiliaries became blurred so it is difficult to identify the origin of the troops as time passed. Many of the so-called German officers were possibly citizens like Stilicho, who was the son of a Germanic officer and Roman mother. His father would have been awarded citizenship during or on completion of his service. Aetius was another offspring of a mixed Roman/foreginer marriage. There are no confirmed indicators that Roman soldiers wore less armor or were less well trained than their earlier counter-parts. Vegetius is a poor source as he was ignorant of the military. His book was written to curry favor with the emperor and he was a civil servant with no military experience. His popularity is due in part to the fact that his book survived while others did not. In fact there are some indications that armor was used more extensively than in earlier times. The addition of heavily armored cavalry is one example and the use of arm and leg armor among infantry is plausible. One fact to consider is that very little Roman armor survives from any period, less than 5%. What is available may be limited to one or two examples in reality. Speculation has been employed to fill in many of the blanks despite the lack of physical evidence. For anyone interested in this subject, be careful about the sources. A limited number of contemporary sources such as Vegetius form the basis of modern knowledge. There are many good modern books, although most use the same information, which is not always obvious because the bibliography may seem impressive. Most of the information can be traced back to a few contemporary sources, which are often cited. Saying the same thing a thousand times does not make it more true just more commonly stated.

I highly recommend the following website: http://members.tripod.com/S_van_Dorst/legio.html Sander provides a lot of information on the Roman army and is a regular contributor to another website, Roman Army Talk. RAT has many historians and re-enactors among its members, who provide details on many subjects related to the Roman and Greek military forces.

The major military manual of the 9th Century was the Tactica. It was written during the life of Emperor Leo VI, and he may have authored it as he did write a book providing guidance for his son and successor. The Tactica was the historical sequel to a 6th Century military manual known as the Strategicon. This book was possibly written by one of two emperors, Maurice or Heraclius or more likely dedicated to one of them by an anonymous author. The Strategicon was translated into English by George Dennis, "Maurice's Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy" (ISBN: 0812217721). Another version will be published early next year and will include more information about the Byzantine military. This was written by Philip Rance, an English professor of Late Antiquity studies. The Tactica was not translated into English; however, it was used as the basis for the chapters on the Byzantine military in "The Art of War in the Middle Ages" by Sir Charles Oman. This book provides an overview of European warfare from the Roman era to the end of the 15th Century. Oman uses large chunks of the Tactica to describe the Byzantine military and its tactics. If you compare Dennis and Oman you will notice the similarity between the Strategicon and the Tactica.

I have read all of the posts in this thread and it is interesting to see what perceptions people have of the Byzantine military. Terminology is somewhat confusing and often words are misused. For example, cataphract is often used as a generic name for Byzantine cavalry. This is incorrect. The most common word in Byzantine sources is kabalarioi which is a Greek variation of the Latin word for cavalry. Mounted troops formed the core of most Byzantine armies and had more prestige than infantry, even though foot soldiers were more numerous. Kataphractoi Kabalarioi Heavily armoured cavalry formed into units of 384 or 504, and normally only one or two units used by the army. Single unit usually deployed in centre of first battle line, while two units could be used on flanks. Fully armoured with textile and metal armour on fully armoured horses wearing textile armour (kentukla) or bull hide (klibania). Armed with spear (kontaria), swords (spathia), sabres (parameria), maces (sidirorabdia) and shield (32-inch diameter). Supported by archers (toxotai) and javelinmen (akontistai). The archers wore only torso armour and helmets and rode unarmoured horses and armed only with bows, totalling one-quarter of the unit. The javelinmen were similar to the spearmen (lancers). These formed the interior of the unit and supported the spearmen with missile fire. The object was to drive through the enemy towards the opposing commander. Maces were the most common weapon with spears carried by the exterior members of the rear ranks. The first recorded units were formed by Nikephoros Phokas, a member of one of the most powerful military families owning estates in Anatolia (now eastern Turkey). He commanded Byzantine forces located along the eastern frontier against Muslim forces of the Abbasid Empire during the mid-10th Century AD/CE. Historians are uncertain about the number of kataphractoi and when they ceased to be a distinct troop type. The last units may have been disbanded in the early 12th Century. It was very costly to maintain these heavily-armoured troops. In battle, kataphractoi charged at the trot not at the gallop. The shear weight of the armour and the need to maintain a tight formation limited the speed of the horses. For more information about these soldiers, I recommend "Sowing the Dragons Teeth" by Eric McGeer. This includes translations of Byzantine military manuals and descriptions of tactics and enemies of the Byzantines during the 1oth Century.