Late thematic and Nikephorian medium infantry

[badhabum]

Hy

So the Sylloge Tacticorum describes the "roman" medium infantry that some like to name "peltast" . The tactivorum makes a distinction between those guys and the heavy and the light infantry . They have mail, Long Spears similar as the heavy infantry, smaller shields.

Strangely, nowhere else is their role explained . It seems to be different than for the heavies or the light infantry but it is unclear what they did . In the rest of the tacticorum, it is question of heavy infantry and lots of light infantry .

Anna Komnene cites a few times "peltatsts" in her story , mostly as quick force .

So should the "medium" infantry be reinstated in those armies as a loose order unit  with LSor do we count them as heavy infantry ( which they are not ) or should the byzantine light infantry be upgraded in a similar way as the euzenoï , a mix of light infantry with heavier help from the "medium" infantry ?

[nikgaukroger]

They are indeed a bit of a mystery.

On the basis that their role is nowhere explained I decided to take them to have been in with the "heavy infantry" in the spearblocks that are described - the assumption being that if thye had a specialist role it would be described as the Sylloge is a (pretty much) completely new manual and not just an add on to, say, Leo's Taktika.

There is possibly some support for this in the section that describes forming a "tortoise" as this says that the men with the man-height shields form the front couple of ranks and the ranks further back hold their shields above their heads which may indicate there are 2 infantry types here. That the peltastoi also have javelins it would be a good place to be throwing them from as well.

However, IIRC they are not mentioned in Nikeforos' work so presumably whatever they were they no longer existed in his time.

The "peltastoi" of Anna are, possibly oddly, apparently cavalry so not a good comparison. (which reminds me I must post something on the Komnenan list soon)

[badhabum]

So after some research I come back with some infos .

In the Alexiad, the word Peltast comes 4 times and it is difficult to say what a "peltast" is , but it seems to be shooty.

So I went back to the Sylloge Tacticorum( later theme ) and also took my copy of " sowing the Dragon's teeth" , so having a look at the Praecepta Militaria and the taktika ( Nikephorian period ) and found out some interesting info that might lead to some revision in those lists.

As already aknoweledge, the Sylloge Tacticorum describes what is qualified as a "medium" infantry soldier ( terms used at that time ) . That soldier should have a 8 cubits long spear ( near 2,8 meters ), some akontia, or javelins, a shield smaller that that of the heavy infantry - who has a spear 8 to 10 cubits - and a smallershield than the heavy infantry, the armour should be lighter than the heavy infantry

For those who never fought in LARP/reenactment shield wall type battle, the size of the shield is important as it helps cohesion, helps to keep the line but a real shield has weight and slows down your mobility. So the medium infantry is nearly as well equiped as the heavy, but less standing power ( no shieldwall in MEG terms) but more mobility and some shooting power due to javelins.

The light infantry is being described as mostly bow and some javeliners + slings

It might be interesting to note that when writing about the infantry, a distinction is madewith "light" infantry and shieldbearers. The "light" infantry seems to have some rear guard function, as well as reserve, banner guards. Strangely the word prokoursatores is the one used and is associated till now to a rear guard mounted unit. Koursatores being used for the "raiders/scouts/vanguard".

So we have a medium infantry, equiped with a kind of SP/LS , some javelins, a smaller shield but his role seems difficult to determine.

The light infantry seems to be also deployed in the intervalls between the heavy infantry formation ( flexibility ? )

So we go to the Praecepta Taktika which describes the near same heavy infantry albeit with less armour, and light infantry in which we have javeliners, bowmen and slingers.

It is interesting to note that the javeliners should plug a gap and that light bow and slings are deployed behind them.

The Javeliners have as a task to press forward in the opening when their cavalry gets in being pursued by enemy mountedand turn the enemy away ( with javelins ? )

The menvlatoï do work in cooperation with the javelinmen and their equipment for both is described as being : shields more modest in size than the heavy infantrymen,but the rest of the equipment should be the same as theirs.


That does remind me of the medium infantryman of the sylloge tacticorum. A medium infantry with a LS and some javelins.

It is also noted that when the menvlatoï do go forward and have to defend vs enemy kataphracts, the javelinmen should go with them to attack those kataphracts, divert them ...with "javelins ? " or with a LS 8 cubit long and no one writes about the bowmen or the slingers ! so a case for light infantry and not so light infantry ?

The taktika goes along the same linesand also describes how the javeliners ( not mentionned as light) with the menvlatoï should act to attack enemy infantry, the javelinmen should also help attack the enemy mounted ( kataphracts )

But archers and slingers are never mentionned in that role,

So I believe that the "peltast" was still there but under cover of being a "light infantry" as opposed to a "heavy infantry". The javeliners had to be more mobile to move on the battlefied, run, plug gaps, outflank kataphracts, face cavalry with the right weapon , a LS, have some javelins to harass while the more solid heavy is the much less mobile wall .

Eric McGeer also describes the javelinmen as less heavily equiped than the skutatoï and there is a clear difference between the javeliners and the bowmen, slingers and some other light javeliners !

Now some "javeliners" of foreign nations are also used to fill in gaps ! so we have the problem to solve of how where those guys equiped as "national" javeliners are peltast like and have the same role as the rhos and other javeliners ..but to me stopping a cavalry pursuit, attacking kataphracts and infantry is not the role of a SUG in MEG

So what to do with them:

Include them in the skutatoï
Upgrade the byzantine javeliners to protected LS/SP, javelin, melee expert or something like that ..
Add more menvlatoi supporting light troops as the light troops are clrealy not so light after all so go from 4 to 8 or 12 ( a good solution for me as it already exist in the list , groups of 4,6 or 8 )

But at least now we know a bit more abouth those damn peltastoï that were pestering us with their shadowy role !

[nikgaukroger]

OK my take - will repeat some of Jacques stuff inevitably; thanks to him for his post 

The Alexiad references are a red herring for the troops in the Later Thematic and Nikeforian lists as the appear to be cavalry (not to mention after a major disruption to the Byzantine army which means caution when making comparisons).

As we both noted above the "peltastoi" in the Sylloge have no role described so a tad difficult to draw any conclusions there - however, as mentioned that they don't is, to me, indicative that they don't have a specialist role outside of the fighting infantry.

In both the Praecepta of Nikeforos and the Taktika of Ouranos there are no mentions of "peltastoi" - please correct me if I am wrong there.

As Jacques has noted we do, however, have "javelineers" - "akontistoi" I think is the word used in the Praecepta. Their equipment looks to be similar to the "peltatstoi" of the Sylloge. There is a lacuna in the text for the Taktika but I don't think there is any reason to think the equipment differs from the Praecepta.

Unlike the Sylloge we do have some information on their use. They are to stand in the gaps between the main infantry units - however, and possibly importantly, they are not to stand in line with the heavy infantry but in line with the rear ranks of the heavies. Suggests that they are not seen as combat capable IMO. They are described as "Rhos or other foreigners, fifty, forty or thirty of them" in these detachments - so not large numbers or large bodies. Unlike the manavltoi, who also have the smaller shields, they are not used to go and confront the enemy katafraktoi frontally, they are instead to "divert" them issues out of the intervals between the heavy infantry.. The Taktika also has them attacking the flanks of enemy infantry who are attacking the Byzantine infantry.

So we have relatively small numbers of these (foreign) javelineers operating from the 12 intervals between the heavy infantry (using the infantry square formation as a base) - 600 in 12 bodies if we use the highest figure - and troops that are not seen as capable in combat as either the heavy infantry or menavltoi.

I wonder if the Slav mercenaries already in the Nikeforian list actually adequately cover them?

[badhabum]

Suggests that they are not seen as combat capable IMO

I'll challenge that , not so combat capable units that have to fight cataphracts and the enemy infantry in a line, equiped as the heavy infantry except for the shield which is smaller and has a LS same lengt or slightly less that the heavy infantry, same armour as heavy infantry..les combat capable !

I think yodo see light infantry as skirmishers , as SUGS, but IMo this is a more MOBILE infantry unit, not packed closely as a "heavy skutatoï" the shield being a huge difference .

Yes foreign javeliners are mentionned ALONG native byzantine/armenians javeliners .;so there is a distinction.

I think the mistake is to think light infantry as SUG while in the taktiKa, the praecepta or the Sylloge the distinction is beween the heavy closely packed infantry and the more mobile units that have to be mobile to open/plug gaps are are NOT SUGs in MEG's way but full combat capable units

Asking those units to face fully armoured mounted or heavy infantry assault and considering them less capable is pretty contractictory .

however, and possibly importantly, they are not to stand in line with the heavy infantry but in line with the rear ranks of the heavies. Suggests that they are not seen as combat capable IMO

.

Well your mobile reserves are rarely to the front

They are described as "Rhos or other foreigners, fifty, forty or thirty of them" in these detachments

Not accurate . All are not foreigners, some may be ..and the light infantry equiped as the heavy infantry is described in all 3 military books you cannot ignore it so easely. There is question of the foreigners in some gaps BUT also abit further in the text of the taxiarchs who have under their command 400 heavy INF + 300 bowmen + 200 javeliners ( our peltasts ? ):slingers + 100 menvlatoi . It is clear from reading a bit further that "these javeliners and extra bowmen/slingers must defend the entrances and intervals. if you read it all carefuly, those javeliners are equiped as the menvlatoï, lighter than the skutatoi - need for mobility - but LS + Javelin

So light ifantry is not light infantry, but the writer uses the same word for what we make a distinction between light skirmishers and not heavy so heavy infantry .

My point of view stands .

[nikgaukroger]

And you were doing so well ... 

The "not as combat capable" is by comparison to the heavy infantry and the menavltoi as it is clear that they are not to fight in the same frontally confrontationally way that they are. Therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion that they were not expected to be as good at it as those other troops and, thus, our classification must reflect that (hence my suggestion about the Slavs).

The "Rhos and other foreigners" is a direct quote from the Praecepta and Taktika - hard to say that it is, therefore, not accurate, and refers to the small 30 to 50 man bodies covering the 12 gaps in the infantry square.

[nikgaukroger]

The "Rhos and other foreigners" is a direct quote from the Praecepta and Taktika - hard to say that it is, therefore, not accurate, and refers to the small 30 to 50 man bodies covering the 12 gaps in the infantry square.

To be honest these bodies are so small you could legitimately argue that they are subsumed within the Skoutatoi units as being below what is represented by a MeG UG.

[LawrenceG]

To be honest these bodies are so small you could legitimately argue that they are subsumed within the Skoutatoi units as being below what is represented by a MeG UG.

Less than a base, really.

[badhabum]

And you were doing so well ... 

The "not as combat capable" is by comparison to the heavy infantry and the menavltoi as it is clear that they are not to fight in the same frontally confrontationally way that they are. Therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion that they were not expected to be as good at it as those other troops and, thus, our classification must reflect that (hence my suggestion about the Slavs).

The "Rhos and other foreigners" is a direct quote from the Praecepta and Taktika - hard to say that it is, therefore, not accurate, and refers to the small 30 to 50 man bodies covering the 12 gaps in the infantry square.

Well their role is pretty clear and I fear you downgrade those soldiers .

You must think in Roman way : they did consider the skutatoi as a phalanx . A rather heavy blok of soldiers, not so manoeuvrable, mobile or agile . It is clear from the byzantine military books, when taken all 3 toegheter, that the "elite" menvlatoÎ worked and trained in conjonction with the peltast called peltats in the Sylloge and also light infantry in the taktika and the praecepta.

Thimothy Dawson ( osprey Warrior 118 )Pg 29  states that " while steadiness was the primary quality of the pike-armed hoplitai ( skutatoi ) , the peltastoi and menvlatoi with their shorter spears underwent a more athletic training to prepare them for their more mobile functions of skirmishing and moving from a reserve position to reinforce weaknesses occuring in the formation. the side-arm combat skills of these men had to be at least equal to those of the hoplitain if not more so, hence they must have used the sema training excercises for those weapons.

Now from the Praecepta :the javeliners should go out through the two intervals on both sides to join battle with the enemy kataphraktoi and divert them.......;and the menvlatoi must move through the intervals with the javeliners..

So "second rate troops" or as I believe specialist soldiers whose task is not to be in a heavy unwieldy formation but do have to run to fill in gaps, be a reserve, run to the front of enemy kataphaktois ???some unprotected javeliners ??or as described in the 3 military books : light infantry equiped as the skutatoi but with a smaller shield, a LS and 2 javelins ?

Javeliners from rhos or other nations are mentionned as light infantry indeed . But I believe that the word light infantry is used twice with a different meaning . Light is opposed to heavy . The word medium dissapears but the description of what was called medium remains and those soldiers equiped in a byzantine way with byzantine training in a byzantine infantry formation are not Rhos/foreigners .

We speak of 2 formarions ( 2 gaps ) of 300 byzantine soldiers not some 50 Rhos

[badhabum]

The "Rhos and other foreigners" is a direct quote from the Praecepta and Taktika - hard to say that it is, therefore, not accurate, and refers to the small 30 to 50 man bodies covering the 12 gaps in the infantry square.

Yes but they are not the twice 300 byzantine menvlatoi combined with peltats and slingers

That's a mistake

At first , when the Rohs are mentionned, I believ they mean the SK infantry but later, when we encounter the lines about heavy infantry and menvlatoi + "light" infantry it is a completely different situation as it discusses the command under an officier , how he whould place his heavies + menvlatoi and "light" ..there is no more question of foreigners there but regulat byzantine soldiers

[badhabum]

The "Rhos and other foreigners" is a direct quote from the Praecepta and Taktika - hard to say that it is, therefore, not accurate, and refers to the small 30 to 50 man bodies covering the 12 gaps in the infantry square.

To be honest these bodies are so small you could legitimately argue that they are subsumed within the Skoutatoi units as being below what is represented by a MeG UG.

First : there are many gaps up to 8 intervals with Rhos infantry which makes 400 .

So now what are numbers in MEG . I though that MEG was a game without scale !

The whole roman Xth legion, something along 2000 men on campaing, 4500 full strenght may have 8 bases

Alexandrian's compagnions are also interesting as the royal guard, the senior ile or about 300 men ( 200 to 400 depending on sources ) is entitled 6 bases in MEG and the grand total of compagnions going from 1800 to 2400 depending on sources, royal squadron included, is 6 for the Royal squadron + 12 ( 18 in alexander expedition ) bases

So what scale do we use ? Is there a scale ?


So perhaps those twice 300 men ( 2 gaps ), menvlatoi + peltastoi + slingers could at minimum be allowed to be 6 menvlatoi in the byzantine army list ( per infantry TUG ? )


It is a pity we do not have more information . What is clear is that the menvlatoi, from a signle unit eeevolved to smaller tactical units, mixing with peltasts and lighter infantry to counter infantry and mainly cavalry assault, they are the mobile part of the infantry blocks and in the Byzantine army, each of the 12 commands had a "menvlatoi" unit attached to it  ( regular troops not mercenaries, no Rhos but the 300 mixed guys ).

So now what's next ?

[nikgaukroger]

First : there are many gaps up to 8 intervals with Rhos infantry which makes 400 .

12 in the square formation as I mentioned (the picture is in the book so you can count them  ) so 600 in that case. Did I miss somewhere where it says 400?

So now what are numbers in MEG . I though that MEG was a game without scale !

As you surely know that whilst there isn't an absolute scale things like proportions are considered - triarii to hastati & principes in the Med Republican Roman would be an obvious case. Thus the representation of a  body of 50 men needs to be looked at in comparison to the other bodies in the given army and they may, or may not, justify being represented by an UG or by some other mechanism (and an example of the latter would be how the menavltoi are represented in the Nikeforian list when not operating in a detached manner).

It is, of course, an art not a science. Si's description is about getting the "shape" of the army right.

[badhabum]

First : there are many gaps up to 8 intervals with Rhos infantry which makes 400 .

12 in the square formation as I mentioned (the picture is in the book so you can count them  ) so 600 in that case. Did I miss somewhere where it says 400?

So now what are numbers in MEG . I though that MEG was a game without scale !

As you surely know that whilst there isn't an absolute scale things like proportions are considered - triarii to hastati & principes in the Med Republican Roman would be an obvious case. Thus the representation of a  body of 50 men needs to be looked at in comparison to the other bodies in the given army and they may, or may not, justify being represented by an UG or by some other mechanism (and an example of the latter would be how the menavltoi are represented in the Nikeforian list when not operating in a detached manner).

It is, of course, an art not a science. Si's description is about getting the "shape" of the army right.

When I challenge you on scale and numbers, you come back with proportions

So once again 300 royal bodygaurd , alexander's close companions : 6 bases ..and how many companion footmen compared to that  ? 8 bases  for an estimated total of 3000 foot guards   yes proportions may be fun 

So neither you nor I can discuss it with an open mind as you absolutely want to be as right as I do .

So let someone else make the decision but please no more "proportions" as that concept is clearly not used in MEG !

[nikgaukroger]

When I challenge you on scale and numbers, you come back with proportions

Because that was relevant to your question.

So once again 300 royal bodygaurd , alexander's close companions : 6 bases ..and how many companion footmen compared to that  ? 8 bases  for an estimated total of 3000 foot guards   yes proportions may be fun 

A valid question and one I don't think I can answer in a lot of detail as my interest and knowledge on Alexander is a bit patchy.

However, I would think that the number of bases allowed are based on what is known about the "great" battles we all know, and also the operations undertaken between those battles when Alexander split his army into a number of parts which operated separately - presumably in some the proportion of Companions was higher than at, say, Gaugamela. The separate Alexandrian Expeditionary is, of course, a specific case of these operations.

As ever, if you have info for making a list more accurate, post a suggestion for RJC to consider.

FWIW I suspect that the Agema TUG allowed might better be described as Companions led by the Agema so the TUG representing a formation of them and "ordinary" Companions and getting the higher quality due to the Agema's cutting edge. (but this is just my speculation on what the TUG represents).  RJC: Indeed this is the case.

So let someone else make the decision but please no more "proportions" as that concept is clearly not used in MEG !  RJC:  Of course proportions matter...

Something of a shock for those of us using proportions as a guide* to creating the army lists - I guess the Triarii/Hastati and Principes proportion was just a coincidence 


* I use the word "guide" advisedly - as I have said before, list creation is an art not a science.

[badhabum]

And now you cannot avoid having a beer with me at LGT