Hello, this is my first post here so if it is a little confusing please bear with me!!
I have been reading the argument in the earlier part of this thread about the equipment of the Roman cavalry, especially the part concerning whether they were armed with bows or not. I have a few points of my own to raise.
Quote:There is a tendency to equip soldiers of the past like those of modern times. This may obscure the wide range of weapons, armour and clothing in use. For example, Procopius would have us believe that the typical Roman cavalryman was armed with bow, sword and shield. This is very different from the cavalry as described by earlier historians. Yet how often do we challenge what Procopius would have us accept?
I must agree that Procopius' account must be preferred to that of others. The period was one of transformation, coming between the Roman period, when the reliance was more on the infantry to win the battles, and that of the Byzantine period, when the cavalry arm was dominant. There is very little evidence for the equipment used by Belisarius et al, and most of it comes from Procopius. therefore, before dismissing his claims he must be analysed thoroughly.
Quote:... the operations of Belisarius in Africa and Italy ...may have be more a result of good leadership and other factors. There is some information to support this hunch or hypothesis. Belisarius tended to rely more upon cavalry than infantry. This was a very unconventional trend given the dominant place of infantry in Roman history prior to the 6th Century.
Quote:Belisarius may have been more comfortable leading cavalry than infantry. His personal preferences may have affected Procopius's writing in that infantry are rarely mentioned and usually perform poorly. To suggest that his examples can be universally applied to all infantry may be too misleading.
It is too easy to take the campaigns of Belisarius out of context. His reliance upon cavalry in the West was due to his realisation that neither the Vandals nor the Goths could counter his horse archers. The infantry were a vital component of the army, and it is likely that his reluctance to use them in Italy was due to the poor quality of the toops he had been given. When properly led, they could fight well - as witnessed in the Battle of Rome.
Quote:Such things make it difficult to compare soldiers even in a limited time frame as that covered by the emperors from Justinian to Heraclius.
If we are ever to gain a clear understanding of why the army of Aetius and Stilicho evolved into the army of Maurice, we need to analyse every scrap of information and understand it properly before making our assessments.
Quote:One of the most recent articles to come into my possession is by Anthony Kaldellis entitled "Classicism, Barbarism and Warfare" to be published in AJAH later this year. I was given a draft copy and will therefore include some quotes from it below.
Kaldellis believes that the latter {horse archers} were in the minority "additional proof for their scarcity will be found when we turn to the actual narrative of the Wars".
For the Vandal campaign, Kaldellis suggests the following "Prokopios emphasizes that only the Huns were hippotoxotai (3.11.11)" as evidence that the Roman cavalry and other contingents were not horse-archers.
In Italy, the absence of horse-archers is also suggested as follows" in early 537 an advance cavalry force accidentally precipitated a major battle near the Milvian bridge that was fought at close quarters with spears and swords (5.18)".
Admittedly Kaldellis may be misreading Prokopios and being too selective in his quotes so as to prove his theory that Roman cavalry included a minority of horse-archers. The enrollment of Vandals and Goths as well as other German cavalry during the wars may provide additional proof that Roman cavalry were not bow-armed. It is quite likely they continued to fight with their traditional weapons, spears and swords.
In Agathias's 'Histories', an account of Belisarios' last campaign in 559 AD is presented in which he opposes Bulgar/Hun raiders. Belisarios had slightly greater than 300 heavily armed troops that he split into two groups. A group of 200 cavalry armed with javelin and shield, which Belisarios placed in ambush on both sides of a wooded glen. The others were placed in the centre under command of Belisarios (Book 5, paragraphs 17-20).
The idea that 'Prokopios emphasizes that only the Huns were hippotoxotai (3.11.11)' does not besr scrutiny. I assume that he is quoting the section where Procopius says that, "And there followed with them also 400 Eruli, whom Pharas led, and about 600 barbarian allies from the nation of the Massagetae, all mounted bowmen" joined the army. Even reading the chapters around this, there is no emphasis placed upon the Huns being horse archers, except to differentiate them from the Eruli. To interpret this as emphasis may be an indication of the weakness of the hypothesis being proposed.
Don't forget either that the 'Roman' forces under Belisarius were a fairly mixed bunch of races and troops, so the idea that he could send out 200, 300, or 600 men for a specific task who were not horse archers does not prove anything: he had enough variety in his foederati to pick and choose as he needed.
As a final point, during the siege of Rome Procopius has Belisarius noting that the Goths had no answer to the Romans, since "practically all the Romans and their allies, the Huns, are good mounted bowmen, but not a man among the Goths has had practice in this branch". (5.27.27)
Although his readers may accept many things as traditional rhetoric or flattery, they may not so easily accept an outright lie which they knew to be false. It is more than likely that the Roman cavalry were transforming into horse archers at the start of the Wars of Justinian.
Ian (Sonic) Hughes
![[Image: T1052AS.JPG]](http://www.ospreypublishing.com/osp_img/titlecovers/T1052AS.JPG)
I hope it has something for Heraclius.
![[Image: fectio.png]](http://s226.photobucket.com/user/sattuviitana/media/fectio.png.html)
