Byzantine Weapons and Warfare

[egfroth]

Regarding sidearms, the Taktika states

They [the infantry spearmen] must have .. . swords girded at the waist, axes or iron maces, so that one man fights with one weapon, the next with another according to the skill of each one. They should all have slings in their belts.

And

All the menavlatoi and javeliners ought to have shields more modest in size than he heavy infantrymen, but the rest of their equipment should be the same as theirs.

The corresponding passage from the Praecepta is almost identical.

So the menavlatoi wouldn't be disarming themselves if a menavlion is a missile weapon.

A point that hasn't yet been made in relation to the use of the pilum is that as far as I'm aware, it was intended for use against infantry - would a thrown menavlion be as effective against a charge of faster-moving cavalry, who would be upon you almost as soon as they were within (a relatively short) throwing range? I don't know the answer to this, but I think it should be raised. And how far can a normal person - or even a "courageous and strong" one - throw a 9-12 foot menavlion from a standing position? (No run-ups possible when you're in the front rank of an army)

Regarding the possibility of deforming the bodies of the menavlatoi, I think the Mary Rose examples really answer the question. Why would the Byzantines care any more about deforming their soldiers' bodies than the Tudors did?

Finally, I don't think I've made myself clear regarding the shattering thing. What I meant is that if weight was the primary requirement in a menavlion (so a thrown one could punch through cavalry armour), then the manual would stress that the shaft should be heavy. But it is hardness of the wood that the manuals stress, leading me to think that strength is the major consideration - more appropriate to a "fending off" weapon than to a missile.