New Book - Romano-Byzantine Infantry Equipment!

[aitor iriarte]

Yes, the artwork is infuriatingly BAD! :evil:
I bought Stephenson's first book by mistake and I don't intend to repeat that mistake unless somebody proofs me that any of his subsequent books deserves to be bought... :roll:
Evidently, the draughstman hasn't bothered to check any of the many extant coulour pics of the Berkasovo 1 helmet! :twisted:


Aitor

[Salvianus]

My copy arrived this morning

Stephenson is looking at the period from the accession of Diocletian 284AD to the abdication of Romulus Augustulus in 476 in the western empire & from then to the death of Heraclius in 641 in the east.

He seeks both to summarize the growing published evidence about the Romano-Byzantine military, but also to challenge what he sees as some rapidly ossifying misconceptions. His flagship example is the Duerne helmet pictured on the cover, attested in one of it's inscriptions as belonging to a cavalryman, but which he does not see as representing a 'cavalry type' not worn by infantry.

For a relative newcomer like myself, this volume seems to put together a wealth of information that expands on the equipment chapter of 'Southern & Dixon' & will easily hold me until the new edition of 'Bishop & Coulston' comes along. Hopefully very soon.

The colour reconstruction drawings are not to my taste & some of the plates & illustrations of the extant examples will necessarily be familiar to many readers, but I definitely prefer it to his book on cavalry equipment & would say that the additional resources and analysis are well worth adding to even a fair sized late Roman library.

I'd be interested on how folk think this volume compares to his 'Roman Infantry Equipment: The Later Empire' & which I have to admit I have not rushed out to buy.

[Robert Vermaat]

I'd be interested on how folk think this volume compares to his 'Roman Infantry Equipment: The Later Empire' & which I have to admit I have not rushed out to buy.

I'll tell you as soon as my copy arrives...

[Salvianus]

A few more details on this volume:

Stephenson prefers the interpretation of the solenarion as an arrow-guide for short dart-like arrows, not a crossbow. He follows Marsden in interpreting the manuballista as a cheiroballistra, concludes that the subarmalis was probably very comparable to the medieval gambeson and that the armoured soldier was probably very well protected from direct blows.

He omits clothing & military belts, only mentions staff slings in passing and I found the discussion of missile weapons a bit brief, but I was interested in the details about greaves & manicae.

I like his comparisons with later medieval evidence and the way he discusses how weapons were employed - e.g. the advantage of underarm spear use as opposed to overarm, but his strong opinions, for example that the 'shieldwall' did not involve overlapping shields & that infantry did not ground or angle their spears against cavalry attacks may provoke some heated reactions. I have to say that using the Duerne helmet for the cover, exactly like Southern & Dixon (2000), seems an odd, almost adversarial choice.

I feel there's a lot of experimental archaeological work out there that would be nice to see examined in the next book in the field.