Byzantine Weapons and Warfare

[egfroth]

I'm not sure how relevant the Napoleonic reference is to the discussion. The row of bayonets was backed up with a row of muskets, which could deliver a withering missile fire long before the cavalry could get close enough to pose a threat. I don't know of any full-speed cavalry charge in Napoleonic times that was held off with bayonets alone, but I'm not an expert on Napoleonic warfare. Arrows cause casualties to cavalry, but not to anything like the extent of massed musketry. One thing I do think is relevant is that a 42 inch musket is far less slender and prone to shattering than a 9-15 foot spear.

A spear under compressive forces is certainly stronger than under shear forces, but it has its limits. Once it begins to bow, a transverse component is introduced into the force equation, and a slender spear is in grave danger of shattering. In fact both the Taktika and the Praecepta Militaria say the heavy spears of the menavlatoi are to defend against the enemy's heavily armoured kataphraktoi smashing the spears of the heavy infantry.

McGeer's Sowing the Dragon's Teeth quotes three major sources - the Sylloge Tacticorum (a collection of military treatises put together about 950 AD), the Praecepta Miltaria of Emperor Nikephoros Phokas (c. 965)and the Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos (c. 1000). The only source that gives a clear indication of the length of the menavlion is the Taktika, of 1.5-2 ourguiai. That's 2.7-3.6 metres (9-12 feet).

Having used 9 feet spears for years, and hefted 12 foot ones, I know they are extremely difficult if not impossible to use as polearms in the way, say, a halberd or glaive are. The balance is all wrong. A polearm has to be considerably shorter - or else it becomes unwieldy.

The Praecepta specifies the function of the menavlatoi as forming a full rank in front of the first rank of spearmen - not small semi-independent units - if the enemy kataphraktoi are attacking the infantry formation.

The other functions of the menavlatoi: if enemy infantry approach the infantry formation, the menavlatoi and the javelineers divide into two sections in a "C" shape in front of the formation and hit them from the flanks (like the "horns of the bull"), if the enemy approach the army in a square formation, a parallel line of menavlia is drawn up to face them.

It has to be acknowledged that the Sylloge describes their function very differently, as an independent force of a mere three hundred men who move out 30-40 ourguiai (60-80 yards) in front of the formation to meet an attack of the kataphraktoi with their menavlia, slashing up the horses and destroying the impetus of the cavalry charge. Apparently this was very effective when first introduced. However, by the time of the Praecepta, Emperor Nikephoros is stressing the very opposite - that the menavlatoi stick close to the main formation. McGeer posits that the surprise value of the tactics outlined in the Sylloge had been used up, and that the arabs had developed tactics to counter it - probably as easy as flanking them and wiping them out.

Rather than assault troops, my reading of their function according to the Praecepta and the Taktika is that they were a heavy defensive line capable of absorbing and standing strong against the force of a heavy cavalry attack.

On a completely different subject - though the ourguia's length is calculated as 6 feet, and seems to fit well, and McGeer's value of 23.4 cm (9.2 inches) (calculated by Schilbach) for a spithame (handspan) seems correct when used for the Sylloge, according to Dr Tim Dawson there are grave doubts about its use when applied to the Praecepta Miltaria and the Taktika. If used literally, it would mean the heavy infantry carried spears 19 to 23 feet long, and shields 4'6" in diameter. These are both ludicrous sizes (unless the shields are kites or ovals, but even then, contemporary Byzantine illustrations show kite and oval shields as quite a bit smaller than that). McGeer sort of acknowledges the problem but doesn't really deal with it.


The details are as follows:

The length of the kontarion (the spear of the heavy infantry) is 8-10 cubits according to the Sylloge. This is equivalent to 3.7-4.7 metres (12-15 feet). However, according to the Praecepta and the Taktika it's 25-30 spithamai. Using Schilbach's figures, that's 5.8-7 metres (19-23 feet) . Which is just ludicrous.

McGeer quotes the length of the head "according to the treatises" as 1.5 spithamai. Though he says that's 47cm (18 inches), he's got his arithmetic wrong - it should be 35.1cm (1 foot 2 inches). That's a possible length, but the source is not specified.

The length of a menavlion is not mentioned by the Sylloge. The value given by the Praecepta is apparently corrupt. As mentioned above, the only apparently reliable length is from the Taktika - 9-12 feet.

The length of javelins, by the way, is only mentioned in the Sylloge, for which Schilbach's value of the spithame seems to be correct. It's quoted both as one and a third ourguiai (8 feet) and 12 spithamai (9 feet).

The size of a heavy infantry shield in both the Taktika and the Praecepta is specified is no less than 6 spithamai, which according Schilbach, would make it 4 feet 6 inches in diameter (or perhaps 4 foot 6 long if it's a kite or an oval).

Tim Dawson proposes that the value of a handspan in the Taktika and the Praecepta should be considerably less - perhaps measured across a different part of the hand. Based upon the supposed equivalence for a kontarion's length of of 8-10 cubits (12-15 feet) in the Sylloge with 25-30 spithamai in both the Taktika and the Praecepta, a figure of 6 inches for the spithame would seem more appropriate to me. It would mean that the infantry spear would be 12-15 feet long, and the shield would be 36 inches - 3 feet - in diameter. Much more sensible IMHO.