"The Strategikon of Maurikios" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAncients
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleAnother week, another unit for the Amazon army!
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor heads for Vicksburg...
|
Tango01 | 03 Jul 2019 4:21 p.m. PST |
"The Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire produced a large number of treatises on military science. The Empire maintained its highly sophisticated military system from antiquity, which relied on discipline, training, knowledge of tactics and a well-organized support system. A crucial element in the maintenance and spreading of this military know-how, along with traditional histories, were the various treatises and practical manuals. These continued a tradition that stretched back to Xenophon and Aeneas the Tactician, and many Eastern Roman military manuals excerpt or adapt the works of ancient authors, especially Aelian and Onasander…." Main page link Amicalement Armand |
Lewisgunner | 04 Jul 2019 4:58 a.m. PST |
The big question about such manuals is how did the Romans/Byzantines and their opponents, manage to train and operate with large and small formations without them? The Strategikon refers to formations that were used historically but no longer so they must have had a mechanism for creating and eventually abandoning tactics that did not rely upon a set of current manuals. The doubt that creates is to what extent such manuals were actually part of the mainstream of military development as opposed to being a literary genre in which the author laid out classic military theories and added some helpful hints of his own to show that he was both highly educated in the continuing classical tradition and a forward thinker. The very act of discussion of the Strategikon cements its description as being descriptive of current practice, but the question remains as to how far it is. The best test of its practicality is its relationship to actual incidents described in contemporary histories and there one finds substantial variation . Some modern authors tend to shoehorn the descriptions in chronicles into the manual described formations, but they are not always convincing . Perhaps there was a current vernacular art of war based upon an oral tradition that operated and was the actual determinant of how armies and units were deployed and managed in combat? |
Tango01 | 04 Jul 2019 11:55 a.m. PST |
Interesting….. Amicalement Armand |
catavar | 04 Jul 2019 6:11 p.m. PST |
I believe the manual gives advice relating to contemporary opponents. I would think readers in the know, at that time, would've recognized if it's information was helpful. I'm sure there were other manuals that haven't survived. That alone may shed some light on it's importance. |
Lewisgunner | 05 Jul 2019 4:22 a.m. PST |
Interestingly there is a fair degree of copying in manuals and some change. The infantry section of Maurice is thought to be based upon an earlier work, for example. So the changes might be very relevant in terms of current practice, or changes that the author wanted to bring about. Recommendations about the number of troopers in a cavalry file, their equipment and the way that they should carry out a charge might be bang up to date accurate information or they might be a project that the writer wants to suggest or sponsor. Certainly there is a disconnect between the description of the multiple unit cavalry formation in the Strategikon and the simpler formations that are described as earlier practice. Battle descriptions post the date of the manual don't sound that complex either, but that could be because descriptions are by literary men or that the sub divisions that should be carrying out these drills are just assumed to be there? The descriptions of the equipment and tactics of the Byzantines' enemies are also dubious. The Sassanids, for example, are described as armoured horse archers , but sculptural sources and a listing of kit that Persian gentry are to bring to the host suggests that they are also lancers and Arab sources speak of elephants and we know from earlier accounts that elephants were used. The Persian army was a regular all arms force. far more varied than the Strategikon's description. Its portrayal of Western armies has an element if truth, but again it is an over simplification and has oddities such as Westerners using short swords which does not equate with the results of much archaeology.. It is thought that at least a portion of the description of Byzantine enemies is simply a topos in which the Imperial enemies are represented in a traditional manner. Indeed, such conventionalised depictions might actually be the way that classically educated Greeks conceptualised their potential enemies. We would only have to go back to the Second World War to see military plans based upon cartoonish misrepresentations of Japanese eyesight, ability to shoot straight, Italian cowardice and so on and those are plans made by Western university educated staff college trained officers. |
Tango01 | 05 Jul 2019 12:56 p.m. PST |
Many thanks!. Amicalement Armand
|
catavar | 05 Jul 2019 8:27 p.m. PST |
I believe the main Sassanian cavalry (at least the type that mattered to those who probably read a manual like the Strategikon) were predominately armored bowmen. Sure, many probably had (or should have had) spears too, but the bow was the weapon of choice. Elephants were not always used and I doubt any foot were taken seriously. So dealing primarily with the Sassanian Army's primary arm (armored horse) makes sense I think. At least that's my take on the subject, but who really knows? |
The Last Conformist | 11 Jul 2019 4:29 a.m. PST |
The Strategicon is strongly cavalry-centric when describing Roman/Byzantine forces – the infantry are essentially relegated to an appendix – so it focusing on the mounted arm of Persian armies is hardly surprising. Plus, Persian infantry isn't terribly prominent in battle accounts either, although they obviously existed. |
|