The African Drill in the Strategicon

[Macedon]

I guess that most of you guys have read Pseudo-Mauricius' Strategicon, a must read for anyone interested in Byzantine warfare. I was making some models of the Drills he mentions in Book VI and everything went all right until I came to the African Drill....

I keep trying to understand what the book describes and find myself unable to actually comprehend what is going on...

The Greek text reads :

6.4.
(t.) Περὶ Ἀφρικανῆς γυμνασίας σχηματικῆς.
(1.) Ἀφρικανή, ὅταν ἐπὶ μιᾶς παρατάξεως τάσσωνται, ὡς καὶ μέχρι καὶ
νῦν ἦν, καὶ ἡ μὲν μέση μοῖρα εἰς δηφένσορας γίνεται, αἱ δὲ ἑκατέρωθεν αὐ-
τῆς εἰς κούρσορας• εἶτα, τῆς ἐλασίας ὡς ἐπὶ δίωξιν γινομένης, ἡ μὲν μέση
μοῖρα ἐν τάξει ἐπακολουθεῖ, ὡς δηφένσωρ, αἱ δὲ ἑκατέρωθεν ὡς κούρσορες ἐξ-
έρχονται• εἶτα ἐν τῷ ὑποστρέφειν, ἡ μὲν μία μοῖρα μένει ἤτοι ἐμβραδύνει ἔξω, (5)
ἡ δὲ ἄλλη σὺν ἐλασίᾳ ὑποστρέφει, ὡς ἐπὶ τοὺς δηφένσορας. Καὶ πάλιν κινούσης
τῆς ἐναπομεινάσης ὡς πρὸς τοὺς δηφένσορας, ἡ ἄλλη, ὡς εἰς ἀπάντησιν τρέ-
χουσα, δι’ ἑνὸς μέρους ἀπέρχεται, καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ τούτῳ μία παρὰ μίαν μοῖραν
ἀντιπρόσωποι ἀλλήλων εὑρίσκονται, μὴ ἐγκρούουσαι ἑαυταῖς. (2.) Ἔστι δὲ καὶ
ἄλλη ὁμοιότροπος αὐτῆς εἰς τοὐναντίον τασσομένη, τουτέστιν τὴν μὲν μέσην
μοῖραν κούρσορας ἔχουσαν, τὰς δὲ ἑκατέρωθεν δηφένσορας ἐν ταῖς εἰρημέναις
κινήσεσιν• ἥντινα δέον, εἰ χρὴ γενέσθαι, Ἰλλυρικιανὰν καλεῖν.

I thought that maybe Dennis' translation would help me form a possible picture but it did not..

Here is Dennis' translation for you who are not very familiar with Byzantine Greek:

The African Drill, Simulated

In the African system the troops are drawn up in one battle line, which has been the usual practice until the present. The middle moira is composed of defenders, both wings of assault troops. In picking up speed, as though in pursuit, the center moira drops behind a bit maintaining its close-order formation, while the assault troops on both flanks begin to move out. Then, when it is time to turn back, one moira stays in position or slows down on the outside, while the other races back to the defenders. The wing which had halted then starts moving back to the main line, the other wing moves quickly out to meet it, riding off to one side, and in this way the two wings come face to face, but without colliding. There is another formation similar to this in which the troops are drawn up in the opposite way, that is the central moira consists of assault troops and the wings of defenders, but following the same movements. To be correct, it should be called the Illyrikian system.

Before discussing possible discrepancies of Dennis' translation I would like to know if you can picture in your minds what Dennis describes.

What is easy to understand is that the cavalry battle-line (these drills are for cavalry armies ONLY, no matter what you might have read elsewhere) is divided in three moirai (these are units), of which the central one is in close order (defensores, what Dennis calls defenders). The advance begins and the central unit stays behind in its advancement because it moves at a slower pace to maintain order. The right and left moirai engage as koursores (assault troops, skirmishers, avoiding general melee but in this they actually do not engage since it is only a drill) and then comes the time to withdraw... The question is what happens now...

In Dennis' words :

one moira stays in position or slows down on the outside, while the other races back to the defenders. The wing which had halted then starts moving back to the main line, the other wing moves quickly out to meet it, riding off to one side, and in this way the two wings come face to face, but without colliding.

The two moirai of koursores have to end their movement as two lines opposite and close to each other... The thing is where? In line in front of the central meros? on a wing? at an angle to the defenders? I bolded the parts of the translation that poorly describe movement. Any ideas?

And once we can picture something here, then we can see if we can do the same with the defensores on the wings... a nightmare.....

[Robert Vermaat]

I guess that most of you guys have read Pseudo-Mauricius' Strategicon

Why do you call him 'pseudo-Mauricius'? I'm aware of the discussion about the identity of the author, just interested in your reasons to reject the identification with the emperor Maurice/Maurikios.

(these drills are for cavalry armies ONLY, no matter what you might have read elsewhere)

Before going into what Dennis made of it, why are you stressing that these drill are for cavalry only? it's correct that this drill is described in the section for cavalry, but why would that mean that the content is exclusively for cavalry? Maurice did not pay as much attention to the infantry in his treatise, but I think it's wrong to conclude that what's written about cavalry is only for cavalry. Ancient authors did never write everything down about a subject, just what they wanted to stress about it or what had not been written before. That's unfortunate for us, because the most common commands were probably looked at as a well-known subject for the reader, and not fit to be repeated. To conclude that we should take the source as a literal description of the entire subject would be a mistake. That the African drill is described for cavalry would, in my opinion, not mean that there was no such thing for the infantry. It's equally possible that Maurice did not write it down because his audience was a;ready familiar with it.

No matter what you might have read elsewhere. :wink:

Any ideas? [..]... a nightmare.....

I'll have a look at it. Already it seems like Dennis making a mess of it - he probably did not ensivage what his translation would look like in the field.

[Macedon]

1. Dennis is clear in his prologue that the author may or may not be Emperor Maurice himself and offers possible alternatives "The principal manuscript" he says "attributes the work to Urbicios", "John Wilta has proposed that the treaty may have been written by Philippicus, general and brother-in-law of Maurice". In TLG the work is referred to as : Pseudo–Mauricius Tact., Strategicon (sub nomine Mauricii Imperatoris vel Urbicii).

I have not researched the possibility that the work might be written by Emperor Maurice myself, so I go with TLG and the doubts of Dennis. If you have different information I would be happy to look at it.

2. It is very important to take that into account, since in order to interpret the data given in the book, one should not imagine a mixed formation. If one brings infantry into the equation, we have very different properties of the formation to consider like speed, distance covered in a certain time and whether that would be possible in battle etc. Strategicon's African Drill is exclusively performed by cavalry. The possibility that a similar drill could be performed by infantry or mixed armies has just nothing to do with the specific text. The problem here is NOT who could perform the drill, but how this specific drill is performed according to this specific text (so that a schematic could be produced to explain the text). Alternative theories are welcome but it is the specific text I need to understand before resorting to alternatives or thinking of variants.

The author of Strategicon does not handle tactics as things already known to the reader. He gives definitions, explanations and specific advice. His work, every little detail in it, is to be taken very literally. It is a manual, not a historiographical work. Regarding his choice of words, I am sure that these directions meant specific things to him, that we, I fear, may not understand today... Btw, don't forget that the two drills presented before the African are the Scythian and the Alan. Would you consider the possibility of drills bearing such names (or the nature of the drills themselves) to be about infantry? I personally do not (but of course this is my opinion, everyone is entitled to one). Plus,regarding the text itself, the terminology he uses in Greek is terminology used for cavalry, so even if one theorizes that such a drill could be performed by mixed or infantry formations this particular description is about cavalry.

In the original text I turned into italics the terminology used pointing that the participating units are cavalry, a distinction not easily made in the English translation.

3. I guess that Dennis understood that his translation makes little sense but tried to follow the original, which he equally did not understand... How can you translate something you cannot understand yourself if not word by word as you see it?

[Macedon]

A possible explanation. I am not satisfied with it, but this was the first thing that came to my mind when reading the text.

Phase 1, initial deployment

[attachment=1253]AFph1.jpg[/attachment]



Phase 2, formation advances

[attachment=1254]AFph2.jpg[/attachment]



Phase 3, left wing remains in position, right wing rides "towards" defensores

[attachment=1257]AFph3.jpg[/attachment]



Phase 4, left wing also rides towards defensores, right wing rides towards left wing, movement ends with both cursores moirai facing each other.


[attachment=1258]AFph4.jpg[/attachment]


Phase 4, alternative, the right wing rides sidelong towards the left, the left withdraws "towards the main-line", not the defensores...


[attachment=1261]AF4b.jpg[/attachment]

[Robert Vermaat]

1. Dennis is clear in his prologue that the author may or may not be Emperor Maurice himself and offers possible alternatives "The principal manuscript" he says "attributes the work to Urbicios", "John Wilta has proposed that the treaty may have been written by Philippicus, general and brother-in-law of Maurice". In TLG the work is referred to as : Pseudo–Mauricius Tact., Strategicon (sub nomine Mauricii Imperatoris vel Urbicii).
I have not researched the possibility that the work might be written by Emperor Maurice myself, so I go with TLG and the doubts of Dennis. If you have different information I would be happy to look at it.

Of course, to begin with, I take the text quite literal, including the author’s name.
Unlike Dennis I rather follow Rance, both in ascribing the Strategicon to Maurice, and in the conviction “that the erroneous ascription of Maurice’s Strategicon (ca. 590–600) to Urbicius in one tenth-century manuscript (M) is demonstrably spurious and the result of the copyist’s intervention.”
Rance, Philip (2004): The Fulcum, the Late Roman and Byzantine Testudo: the Germanization of Roman Infantry Tactics?, in: Greek and Byzantine Studies 44.3, pp. 265-326, at: http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FT...Rance2.pdf. *
Rance, Philip (2007a): The Etymologicum Magnum and the "Fragment of Urbicius", in: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 47, pp. 193-224, at: http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FT.../Rance.pdf

2. It is very important to take that into account, since in order to interpret the data given in the book, one should not imagine a mixed formation. If one brings infantry into the equation, we have very different properties of the formation to consider like speed, distance covered in a certain time and whether that would be possible in battle etc. Strategicon's African Drill is exclusively performed by cavalry.

Ah, I see we misunderstand each other. Of course this one is performed by cavalry. I also think, like you, that the Avar and Scythian drill are designed for cavalry. The African one, however, could have an infantry form. A mixed form would something altogether different, I agree.

No, I thought you were saying that these drill were (in general) not for infantry. Like you, I take the text very literal. It’s just so that some authors have interpreted the lack of drills for infantry (or even the disproportionate number of pages devoted to the infantry) as a signal that infantry did not perform such drills or was not of any importance any longer. But I see that’s not what you meant.

The author of Strategicon does not handle tactics as things already known to the reader. He gives definitions, explanations and specific advice. His work, every little detail in it, is to be taken very literal.

Well yes and no. As above, I take him literally, but as I explained before I read his text as I read other ancient texts: things that the author sees as known to his audience are not described. Maurice clearly wanted to write a handbook for junior officers and other cadre troops, and his cavalry drills were something he wanted them to pay attention to. I am not prepared to think that the infantry was unimportant. I think the infantry drills were already well-known and needed no such attention.

It is a manual, not a historiographical work.

Indeed, there is nothing historiographical about it. it's even more practical than the tactica that went before it.

3. I guess that Dennis understood that his translation makes little sense but tried to follow the original, which he equally did not understand... How can you translate something you cannot understand yourself if not word by word as you see it?

I agree. This would be very hard indeed. I deplore that Rance’s translation (forthcoming 2005) has not been published yet, because in the meantime he did a lot of work on this text and others like it.

[Macedon]

After a quick read though, I did not see Rance positively attributing Strategicon to Maurice. Does he someplace positively identify Maurice as the author apart from stating it was not Urbicius?

As for the infantry role, of course I agree, I just mean that I take literally what the author writes, what he does not write is open to speculation, but how can we assume that the African drill could be performed by a mixed or an infantry formation if we do not understand how it goes?

[Macedon]

I found an attempt of a book trying to provide a description of the African Formation, but I do not think it is even close. The book is "Muslim Expansion and Byzantine Collapse in North Africa"by Walter E. Kaegi p.136-138.

click here

He calls the defensores rear-guards, he seems to interpret koursores simply as "cavalry to charge", I guess this is a misconception coming from Dennis' own translation of koursores as "assault troops". He has the koursores "close ranks" when they finish their maneuvers, tells of how they would seek to "form a constant front", how they would "join the rear unit"...

I personally think that the author is very amiss, but it also adds to the question of what the African drill really was.

[jho]

I must admit that I am also puzzled by the wording and that my skills in Greek are just as limited as my practical knowledge of cavalry maneuvering, but I would like to propose the following reconstruction of the maneuvre which can just be made to fit the English translation you have kindly provided:

Phase 1 Deployment - 1 Line

This is simple: CCCCC DDDDDD CCCCCC


Phase 2 Advance - 2 Lines, First Line open

All three units advance in line formation, the Defenders fall back and maintain closer order. This allows the Pursuers who are now further advanced than the Defenders to open their order ("begin to move out") and therefore they partially overlap the Defenders.

C-C-C-C-C-C----C-C-C-C-C-C


----------DDDDDD-----------


Phase 3 Retreat - 3 "Lines"

One unit of Pursuers stays put and covers the other unit which turns about and retreats in line formation towards the Defenders but does not close up with them (which would not be possible because they partially overlap them due to their more open order). This unit would be retracing its own steps rather than retreating directly towards the Defenders because if it advanced directly towards the Defenders it would prevent the Defenders from advancing to support the advanced unit of Pursuers in the event of enemy attack.

In this Phase the advanced Pursuers cover the retreating Pursuers and at the same time the Defenders are ready to advance to support them.

C-C-C-C-C-C---------------

-----------------C-C-C-C-C-C
----------DDDDDD----------


Phase 4 Reuniting - 2 Lines Closed

The unit of Pursuers which has retreated turns about and is now in line and ready to support the other advanced unit of Pursuers together with the Defenders.

The advanced unit of Pursuers now turns about and makes the same movement in line formation towards the Defenders as the first unit resulting in the following:

C-C-C-C-C-C----C-C-C-C-C-C
----------DDDDDD-----------

Now both units of Pursuers make a turn to the left and right respectively ("riding off to one side") and advance towards each other in column(!) until the heads of the column meet ("come face to face, but without colliding"). The advance in column allows them to close ranks once again. They now make a turn to the left and right respectively and face the enemy in line again. The final result is as follows:

CCCCC-CCCCCC
---DDDDDD

The purpose of the maneuvre would be that (a) the retreating units are always covered by both other units and (b) the final column movement towards each other allows them to close ranks again. In my opinion it only makes sense for both units of Pursuers to meet (come face to face) in column! This is because meeting in line would mean that either both offer their flank to the enemy or one offers its back to the enemy and the other cannot support it.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Jens,

Your solution seems to make a bit more sense that the solution of Dennis. It looks a bit like two wings of cavalry hitting the enemy after another, perhaps attempting to create imbalance? After the attack, the cavalry rides (wheels?) back, rallying on the infantry before creating a new line in front of it. That retreating on the infantry is a normal tactical manouvre, with the later Roman infantry acting as a steady reserve (a 'castle'). If on the run, cavalry could reform behind it.

1. Dennis is clear in his prologue that the author may or may not be Emperor Maurice himself and offers possible alternatives "The principal manuscript" he says "attributes the work to Urbicios"

Actually, Dennis is not that ambivalent about the author. Although he indeed states that "the identity of the author of the Strategikon has not been clearly establisehd", he leaves no doubt that the atrribution to Urbicus may have been a scribal error, with all other MSS and later writers ascribing the MS to Maurikios. Other proposal notwithstanding, although not fully proven, the evidence seems in favour of it. Dennis does not call his book 'pseudo-Maurice's Strategikon, after all.

I'll look up what Rance says about the author, but I'm not with my library right now (Dennis I have with me).

[Macedon]

I must admit that I am also puzzled by the wording and that my skills in Greek are just as limited as my practical knowledge of cavalry maneuvering, but I would like to propose the following reconstruction of the maneuvre which can just be made to fit the English translation you have kindly provided:

Phase 1 Deployment - 1 Line

This is simple: CCCCC DDDDDD CCCCCC

Agreed, at least this is indeed simple...

Phase 2 Advance - 2 Lines, First Line open

All three units advance in line formation, the Defenders fall back and maintain closer order. This allows the Pursuers who are now further advanced than the Defenders to open their order ("begin to move out") and therefore they partially overlap the Defenders.

C-C-C-C-C-C----C-C-C-C-C-C


----------DDDDDD-----------

The "begin to move out" does not refer to the density of the units (and I mean the Greek words used of course). It only has to do with the speed. Of course, the defenders do not have to be in close order, they could as well be in open order - Dennis translation is wrong, he just translates "defensores" as close order, but defensores could also be arrayed in open order. The same applies to the cursores who would also not start their movement in close order anyways. So, in principal, the schematic you provided is not wrong, just the interpretation of the densities is not justified.

Phase 3 Retreat - 3 "Lines"

One unit of Pursuers stays put and covers the other unit which turns about and retreats in line formation towards the Defenders but does not close up with them (which would not be possible because they partially overlap them due to their more open order). This unit would be retracing its own steps rather than retreating directly towards the Defenders because if it advanced directly towards the Defenders it would prevent the Defenders from advancing to support the advanced unit of Pursuers in the event of enemy attack.

In this Phase the advanced Pursuers cover the retreating Pursuers and at the same time the Defenders are ready to advance to support them.

C-C-C-C-C-C---------------

-----------------C-C-C-C-C-C
----------DDDDDD----------

The left unit staying put or slowly withdrawing cannot provide cover for the other wing anyways. They are just too far away. They can normally retreat, since there is no real problem even if they were overlapping the defensores. The text says they are retreating towards the defensores (actually it says "as if towards the defensores", which would allow for a second movement towards another position), so I guess they should be retreating towards the defensores' front. Now, about the defensores supporting the cursores, throughout the Strategikon, the job of the defensores is to protect the retreat of the cursores, not attack those who might counterattack the cursores who might be skirmishers anyways and avoid close combat. What do you mean by "pursuers"? If you mean that the cursores are acting as pursuers then the defensores will surely not rush to the attack.

Phase 4 Reuniting - 2 Lines Closed

The unit of Pursuers which has retreated turns about and is now in line and ready to support the other advanced unit of Pursuers together with the Defenders.

The advanced unit of Pursuers now turns about and makes the same movement in line formation towards the Defenders as the first unit resulting in the following:

C-C-C-C-C-C----C-C-C-C-C-C
----------DDDDDD-----------

The other wing of cursores also retreats in gallop "as if towards" the defensores, so retreating straight back again sounds different to the description. Yet, what is wrong here is the fact that according to the text, this retreat is simultaneously made with the next one. The text says that the other wing moves "as a response" (not in Dennis' translation unfortunately). So, both wings have to move now one towards the other, while the second one has not yet reached the defensores, but is retreating "as towards" them...

Now both units of Pursuers make a turn to the left and right respectively ("riding off to one side") and advance towards each other in column(!) until the heads of the column meet ("come face to face, but without colliding"). The advance in column allows them to close ranks once again. They now make a turn to the left and right respectively and face the enemy in line again. The final result is as follows:

CCCCC-CCCCCC
---DDDDDD

This last maneuver is though sheer speculation... There is no support from the text. No turn "to the shield" for the left wing, no mentions of any columns and the timeframe is problematic. The right wing may indeed ride to one side. So we can either have two lines move in line or one (the left one) moving in line and the other one in column... That means though that the "face" (always according to the text...) has to be in line.

The purpose of the maneuvre would be that (a) the retreating units are always covered by both other units and (b) the final column movement towards each other allows them to close ranks again. In my opinion it only makes sense for both units of Pursuers to meet (come face to face) in column! This is because meeting in line would mean that either both offer their flank to the enemy or one offers its back to the enemy and the other cannot support it.

All in all, I have thought about what you proposed, although I would feel even more comfortable if they met in the rear instead of the front of the defensores as is usual in those maneuvers. Their uniting phalanx in front of the defensores actually makes the whole line very vulnerable since they would not be able to withstand an ordered attack of a close ordered enemy and then they would not be able to withdraw behind the defensores to reform but would have to fall upon them! Yet, the problems I find with this interpretation (the densities are indeed details that have little to do with the final outcome here) is the lack of evidence that the left wing moves sideways in column and that the simultaneous movement of the wings would not allow them to meet halfways. This would require the right wing waiting for the left one to end its withdrawal in line before moving towards it, which is not in accordance with the text..

[Macedon]

I do agree that Urbicius' authorship is seriously questioned. But, still, not Dennis nor Rance (at least in the one article about Urbicius) offer Maurice as the most probable alternative, even though they do use his name. As for Pseudo-Mauricius, it is TLG that categorized it so and under the evidence so far, I find it quite understandable. I guess it is an ongoing debate which I admit I now follow with great interest. I would love to hear that someone has persuaded the academic community of a conclusive theory on Strategicon's authorship... :roll: :roll: Is it Rance who proposed that Syrianus has authored some of the usually called manuals of an Anonymous Byzantine?

About the drill, the defensores are not infantry. They are cavalry too.

[Robert Vermaat]

About the drill, the defensores are not infantry. They are cavalry too.

Absolutely. The defender act the same as infantry does in some battles of the 6th entury. But in this drill, they are all cavalry.

I do agree that Urbicius' authorship is seriously questioned. But, still, not Dennis nor Rance (at least in the one article about Urbicius) offer Maurice as the most probable alternative, even though they do use his name.

Then I think you should take a look at Dennis again, because that is exactly what he does - Maurice is his most probable candidate.

As for Pseudo-Mauricius, it is TLG that categorized it so and under the evidence so far, I find it quite understandable. I guess it is an ongoing debate which I admit I now follow with great interest. I would love to hear that someone has persuaded the academic community of a conclusive theory on Strategicon's authorship... :roll: :roll:

No-one will ever establish the authorship of the Strategikon for 100%, that's how things are with ancient documents. From my end, I don't like to use names like 'pseudo-this & that', because that dong quite the ame, namely claiming that we know someone was NOT 'this or that' author, for which we lack exactly the same proof. And when most (but one) documents give us the name of Maurikios, and subsequent authors agree on that, why should we be stubborn and say "no, it can't be, it must be another guy with the same name"?

Is it Rance who proposed that Syrianus has authored some of the usually called manuals of an Anonymous Byzantine?

Yes, one of the authors who claim that the 'anonymous' autthor ca be called Syrianus Magister, and that his work dates to at least the 9th c., I believe: Rance, Philip (2007c): The Date of the Military Compendium of Syrianus Magister (formerly the sixth-century Anonymus Byzantinus), in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 100 heft 2, pp. 701-37.

[PMBardunias]

I have a Strategicon question. What is a "Herulian sword", and why is it good for arming heavy infantry who form a foulkon?

This book is remarkable by the way for many detail of the way formations of men can move around a battlefield that are glossed over in the various earlier Taktika.