"Konstantinian and Komnenan Byzantine Armies" Topic

I am looking for information on the Konstantinian and Komnenan Byzantine armies. Specifically, did they have infantry units comprised of both spearmen and archers? Did they have massed units of archers or were all archers skirmishers?

My understanding is that they no longer had mixed cavalry units of lances and archers, as they did in the Thematic period.

Any information would be appreciated.

To which Emperor Constantine are you referring?

Constantine I (272 – 337), also known as Constantine the Great, was a Roman emperor from AD 306 to 337?

Constantine II (337-340)?

Constantine III (407-411)?

Constantine IV (668-685)

Constantine V (741-775)?

Constantine VI (780-797)?

Constantine VII (905-959)?

Constantine VIII (962-1028)?

Constantine IX Monomachus (1042-1055)

Constantine XI Dragases Palaiologos (1404-1453)?

Jim

Konstantinian armies were basically the same as those led by more competent military emperors like Nikephoros II, John I, and Basil II. So, although their training had been neglected after the death of Basil II, they were probably still using skutatoi backed by archers. The Komnenian Army was much different as the numerous rebellions and civil wars after Manzikert pretty much eliminated that old professional army. Except for the famed Varangian Guard. That old Tagmatic unit lasted right up until the end of the Empire. Little is written in the sources about the regular infantry, but what most historians seem to support is the idea that infantry still played a very important role in Komnenian forces – particularly those of John II. The number of sieges that he carried out would necessitate competent infantry forces. Most seem to think that the majority of infantry was now comprised of some spearmen, but that most were massed archers and psiloi. The Komnenian cavalry received the most attention and was composed of mercenary and native cavalry units. The horse archers were now all non-native units hired from Pechenegs, Cumans, Alans, Seljuks, and Turkomans. The horse archers were divided into Skythikoi (Pechenegs, Cumans, Alans, etc), Turcopoles (Christianized Turks), and "Persians" (Seljuk Turks and Turkomans). The heavy cavalry was usually supplemented with Norman or Frankish mercenaries, but could also include Georgian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Serbian, and other Eastern Balkan nobles. Native cavalry tended to be Pronoiars (land/tax revenue cavalrymen) and Noble's with their retinues – the Oikoi (Plural of Oikos = family). These retinues of the noble families were already present in the Konstantinian army as well. Certainly, by the time of Manuel I the native Greek/Roman/Byzantine cavalry was much improved in their equipment and fighting skills through their contact with the Normans and Frankish Crusader Knights. So, if I were building either of these armies, I would model the Konstantinian army as very similar to the Nikephorian Byzantine army with Skutatoi backed with archers. The Komnenian Army I would model with separate archer and spear units. Both armies would always have psiloi units also. Javelinmen were highly valued and may have replaced Skutatoi/Kontaratoi according to some historians.

Jim, "Konstantinian" usually refers to the Eastern Roman Army from the death of Basil II to the Battle of Manzikert – at least in the WRG Lists. They call it that because of the military "measures" of Constantine IX. They could have called it anything, "Post-Nikephorian" for example, but chose that for the reason stated I guess.

Perris-Thank you. I was asking about the Konstantinian army from 1042-1071 AD (as mentioned in Book 3 of the DBM Army Lists).

Perris-just to clarify, would the separate archers units in the Komnenian army be massed archers, skirmishers, or both?

I figured that's what you meant when you referred to Konstantinian. For the Komenan period I would do both massed archers and psiloi skirmishers. The psiloi was comprised of archers, javelinmen, and slingers. The really interesting thing to me is the debate over the kontaratoi (spearmen). This stems from the phraseology of Anna in the Alexiad referring to "peltastoi". This could mean many different things and the debate is certainly interesting.

Oh, I also wanted to mention that I participated in a Crusades era battle that you hosted at Historicon several years ago. It remains the most enjoyable battle that I ever played at Historicon! Despite the fact that my side lost. So, thanks much!

Perris-I appreciate all the information you shared but I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else. Sadly, I've never been to Historicon.

Hm. Maybe it was Dave Waxtel? Man, you have to check out Historicon! It's a 19-hour drive for me, but worth every minute and mile of it.

Sadly, I'm 3,000 miles away in California.

Yes. That IS a bit of a commute. I was born in Long Beach, but I was moved to Wisconsin at the tender age of 2. I still have an aunt in Redding and a sister in Folsom. Why are you interested in this period of Byzantine history if I may ask?

I've always loved the Crusade period. I have SAGA armies for the Byzantines, Normans, and Arabs. I want to expand my Byzantine army and was wondering what to add to it.

I plan to move close to the Folsom area later this year. If you ever visit your sister let me know and perhaps we could have a wargame. You can DM me at burker1 (at) aol (dot) com.

Will do! The Crusades era is my favorite also, followed closely by the Franco Prussian War.

Funny, you should mention the Franco Prussian war. I am the co-author of they died for glory, along with Dave Waxtel.