Strategicon-full greek text

[rozanus]

Hi guys I'm looking for full greek text of Strategicon/Strategikon (I have one from Corpus Fontum Historiae Bizantinae but I need it in pdf file).

thx for any help!

[M. Demetrius]

When you find that, if you could explain just what a "Fulkon" is, I'd like to hear a clear explanation. I've read an English translation, and, well, it's all Greek to me.... :wink: :roll:

[rozanus]

Well I can
The men in the front ranks close in until their shields are touching, completely covering their midsections almost to their ankles. The man standing behind them hold their shield above their heads interlocking them with those of the men in front of them covering their breasts and faces. (Strategicon, p.146.)

clear for me you can find picture in the Byzantine infantryman 900-1204 but shields of soldiers in first rank are not interlocked (many errors in this Osprey!) for slavic people this formation was called (?ciana tarcz-polish version)english- wall of shields (but byzantine version was very similar to roman testudo).

[Alexandr K]

Hi,

When you find that, if you could explain just what a "Fulkon" is, I'd like to hear a clear explanation. I've read an English translation, and, well, it's all Greek to me....

You would probably like to read this article by Philip Rance :wink:

Greetings
Alexandr

[SigniferOne]

Wow that is a stupendous article on the Fulcum (and on the Testudo).

I've a question on that though, and wonder what other people's thoughts are:

Fulcum is described as originating from the Germanic "fulc", but is shown to be a thoroughly Roman anti-cavalry maneuver that goes back to 2nd century AD if not all the way to the Republic. It isn't very clearly explained why Late Roman soldiers and commanders began using the word "fulcum" instead of employing their native 'testudo' taught to them by their commanders and with its ancient (400 year) pedigree. Rance says that this may indicate a large prevalence of Germanics in the Roman army, applying a native Germanic term to the Latin concept being taught to them; yet he also hedges that he does not accept that theory. If not it, then what?

[M. Demetrius]

I don't know the etymology, and can't answer that question.

A testudo and a fulkon are not exactly the same thing, though. I suspect the further back than second ranks of troops would have carried their shields elevated at some angle, though, to protect themselves from incoming missiles.

[Robert Vermaat]

Indeed , a fulcum/fulkon is not the same as a testudo.
For one, the Strategikon describes two different ones.
The first is an offensive one, whereby the soldiers are moving powards the enemy infantry lines, with only the first two ranks overlapping shields to protect the front.
The second one is a defensive one whereby lances are thrust in the ground, shoulders lean against shields (meaning the first rank now kneels down) and the third and fourth lines holding shields overhead, stabbing and later throwing their lances at the enemy. Although it seems that the Roman army used such formations a long time before the Strategikon was written (Arrian describes a somewhat similar formation), we do not come across a Latin word for it before the Strategikon calls it a fulcum.

On the other hand we have the testudo, which is not a battlefield formation but one used in sieges, with soldiers not only protecting their front and heads, but also their sides. Apparently the testudo is something very different and hence has a different word for it. And maybe the fulcum was 'learned' from the Germanic enemy, for it closely resembles what we know of medieval Germanic shield-walls, and hence it carries a Germanic name?

Rance describes in another article how the Strategikon also contains Celtic words (relating to horsemanship) - maybe the word for the shield-formation eneterred Roman military language the same way?

[SigniferOne]

Indeed , a fulcum/fulkon is not the same as a testudo.
For one, the Strategikon describes two different ones.
The first is an offensive one, whereby the soldiers are moving powards the enemy infantry lines, with only the first two ranks overlapping shields to protect the front.

You're right, I was being a little unspecific with my terminology: the formation that is fulcum is testudo-like, but we don't know the actual early-Principate name for it (though we do have ample evidence that it was used, alongside the testudo).

Apparently the testudo is something very different and hence has a different word for it. And maybe the fulcum was 'learned' from the Germanic enemy, for it closely resembles what we know of medieval Germanic shield-walls, and hence it carries a Germanic name?

What Rance does is trace down mentions of this formation, and concludes that it is Roman in origin, being for the first time mentioned in Germanic armies in the 6th century AD, while being unambiguously described by Arrian in his military manual, Ectaxis, in the early 2nd century. Furthermore, there is evidence that it was even used in the Late Republic, meaning that it had quite a long pedigree before the Franks for the first time used it 600 years later.

So the question still remains: here is a Roman formation (the name of which we do not know), used for half a thousand years before the 5-6th centuries are reached, and yet at that time the soldiers start switching from using its Latin name to the Germanic one instead. Again, Rance admits it could be a sign of "germanization" of the Roman army, but himself doesn't believe that to be the case. Yet he doesn't explain what else could cause the Germanic version of the name to start being used en masse across the whole Roman army. He both traces its Roman origin and doesn't believe its later name-change was due to 'germanization'.

[Robert Vermaat]

What Rance does is trace down mentions of this formation, and concludes that it is Roman in origin, being for the first time mentioned in Germanic armies in the 6th century AD

I'm not sure that's what Rance does. The Latin or Germanic name is not mentioned before that time, either way.

while being unambiguously described by Arrian in his military manual, Ectaxis, in the early 2nd century. Furthermore, there is evidence that it was even used in the Late Republic, meaning that it had quite a long pedigree before the Franks for the first time used it 600 years later.

Well, just the anti-cavalry version is mentioned by Arrian. Furthermore, it's doubtful that part of this formation (the overlapping of shields) could even haven been achieved by legionaries with their square shields. Arrian is not the only one who mentions this: Ammianus, describing the battle of Argentorate in 357, also mentions the Roman infantry in a very close formation, without mentioning any name for that formation:

Sed violentia iraque inconpositi barbari in modum exarsere flammarum nexamque scutorum conpagem, quae nostros in modum testudinis tuebatur, scindebant ictibus gladiorum adsiduis.
But the savages, thrown into disorder by their violence and anger, flamed up like fire, and hacked with repeated strokes of their swords at the close-jointed array of shields, which protected our men like a tortoise-formation.

And Where do you have the information that the Franks used it for the first time 600 years later? Rance also refers to Caesar (BG1.52). Rance is ignoring Ammianus' description of the Alamanni at Argentorate, whom he also describes as using close wedge formations. Plus, he is countermanding himself when he suggests that the Germanic lack of discipline would have prevented the use of a shieldwall as in the Roman sense. However, if this were the case, then how could the Franks at Rimini, undisciplined as they evidently were, still have maintained order? Or how could (as Rance fails to explore), a Roman formation have received a Germanic name if the Germanic forces were not disciplined enough to form it themselves? Apparently there is a discrepancy there. The Franks at Rimini were not disciplined, yet they still managed to produce a shield-wall that could not be dislodged. I think that Rance underestimates the Germanic posssibilities of producing defensive formations like the shield-wall, even though we lack clear-cut descriptions of such formations.

However, there is more than this - we have etymology. Rance is clear that the Greek foulkonis derived from an earlier Latin *fulcum, meaning that the word, although probably of Germanic origin, first underwent a Latinisation, which must have taken place long before it ended up in the Strategikon.

So the question still remains: here is a Roman formation (the name of which we do not know), used for half a thousand years before the 5-6th centuries are reached, and yet at that time the soldiers start switching from using its Latin name to the Germanic one instead. Again, Rance admits it could be a sign of "germanization" of the Roman army, but himself doesn't believe that to be the case. Yet he doesn't explain what else could cause the Germanic version of the name to start being used en masse across the whole Roman army. He both traces its Roman origin and doesn't believe its later name-change was due to 'germanization'.

Again, since we do not have name for this formation before the Strategikon, it's pure speculation to say that it was named with a Latin name, as do I fully admit that it is speculation to say that it had a Germanic name. But this also indicates that it is useless to start specualtion about germanization of the Roman army, because we do not have the information that there even ii]was[/i] a name-change. Rance shows that the name continues in use for centuries (although in a changing maning), which for me indicates that it might have been the word for the formation used by earlier Roman armies as well.

[Macedon]

It is true that foulkon is very similar to testudo. Most possibly it is the same formation, which of course, as any other formation would be adapted according to the needs of the time and situation. The term "foulkon" and what is more interesting "foulko peripatein" which translates as "walking foulkon" is also coined by Leo the Wise in his Tactica (Z.73). The term "testudo" was of course not only used for the well known formations used during sieges but as Frontinus clearly suggests (Strategimaticon LII.3.15) it was used also in battle. Frontinus coins its use (as "testudo") during a campaign of M. Antonius against the Parthians. I really do not know if a Greek or Latin etymology can be found (don't forget that both Maurice and Leo wrote in Greek and not in Latin), but it is also important to note that neither they nor other tacticians use the term "testudo" in their treatises of the time (Nicephorus Phocas, Nicephorus Ouranos etc). If I am not mistaken, they prefer the Greek term "chelone" (tortoise). My opinion is that foulkon was indeed what the ancients called testudo as a battle formation. As for Arrian, in his "Ektaxis kat' Alanon" he clerly describes a locked shields formation (synaspismos or later syskouton), where the first three lines close in, lock their shields and support them (and the men in front) with their weight and I don't remember him saying something about putting shields overhead.

One difference one might pinpoint with the testudo as was performed by the ancients lies not in the formation itself but in the fact that during the Byzantine times, the infantry line would not solely consist of heavy infantry (whether spear or sword bearing) but was usually a mixed formation of lines of spearmen in front, bowmen in the middle and spearmen again in the back. This means that this order would be most possibly carried out by the front ranks only and nt by the whole formation as is usually done with the ancients' (more) homogenous lines.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Macedon,

Please write your real (first) name in your signature, it's a forum rule.

On the whole, this defensive formation of marc Anthony's, including the shields held overhead, does indeed sound like a foulkon, I must grant you that.
There are three occasions (that I know of) where the testudo is described as a shield wall in battle, and all are referring to marc Anthony's campaign against the Parthians. Frontinus is the closest to the action, and the only one referring to it with the Latin name.

Frontinus (early first century) mentions it:

M. Antonius adversus Parthos, qui infinita multitudine sagittarum exercitum eius obruebant, subsidere suos et testudinem facere iussit, supra quam transmissis sagittis sine militum noxa exhaustus est hostis.
When Mark Antony was engaged in battle with the Parthians and these were showering his army with innumerable arrows, he ordered his men to stop and form a testudo. The arrows passed over this without harm to the soldiers, and the enemy's supply was soon exhausted.

Plutarch (46-120) also describes this (but without using the name):

However, as the Romans were descending some steep hills, the Parthians attacked them and shot at them as they slowly moved along. Then the shield-bearers wheeled about, enclosing the lighter armed troops within their ranks, while they themselves dropped on one knee and held their shields out before them. The second rank held their shields out over the heads of the first, and the next rank likewise. The resulting appearance is very like that of a roof,41 affords a striking spectacle, and is the most effective of protections against arrows, which glide off from it.

Cassius Dio (early third century) also describes this formation, using the word at least twice:

One day, when they fell into an ambush and were being struck by dense showers of arrows, they suddenly formed the testudo by joining their shields, and rested their left knees on the ground.

This testudo and the way in which it is formed are as follows. The baggage animals, the light-armed troops, and the cavalry are placed in the centre of the army. The heavy-armed troops who use the oblong, curved, and cylindrical shields are drawn up around the outside, making a rectangular figure; and, facing outward and holding their arms at the ready, they enclose the rest. The others, who have flat shields, form a compact body in the centre and raise their shields over the heads of all the others, so that nothing but shields can be seen in every part of the phalanx alike and all the men by the density of the formation are under shelter from missiles. Indeed, it is so marvellously strong that men can walk upon it, and whenever they come to a narrow ravine, even horses and vehicles can be driven over it. Such is the plan of this formation, and for this reason it has received the name testudo, with reference both to its strength and to the excellent shelter it affords. They use it in two ways: either they approach some fort to assault it, often even enabling men to scale the very walls, or sometimes, when they are surrounded by archers, they all crouch together — even the horses being taught to kneel or lie down — and thereby cause the foe to think that they are exhausted; then, when the enemy draws near, they suddenly rise and throw them into consternation.

The testudo, then, is the kind of device just described.

It must be said, of course, that neither Plutarch nor Cassius Dio wrote in Latin, and therefore never used the Latin word.
Cassius Dio is really making a mess of it - his 'anecdote' that you could ride horses and carts over it I cannot believe. Holding a shiield over your head for a longer period of time is especially exhausting. Fellow-re-enactors can confirm (I should think) that doing this for longer than ten minutes is extremely tiring. I doubt that Cassius Dio ever saw it in action.

Arrian indeed describes something similar as at least one of the formations described by Maurikios as a foulkon, but he does not give it a name. the word 'synaspismos' was used in other treatises and describes the density of the formation, not the formation itself.

When referring to the foulkon we should also realise, as Rance clearly points out, that later Byzantine treatises retain the word, but slowly change the meaning. In leo's treatise for instance', the foulkon no longer has shield overlapping from boss to bosss, but only from rim to rim (which of course gives a less dense formation). Rance thinks that leo mistook the word 'boss' because in his day, that word had come to denote the whole shield. Also, the word foulkon came to be used for different things, such as a guard for officers and dignitaries, or a guard watching the back of looting comrades. Something very different from what Maurikios describes.