Belisarius: The Last Roman General Read online

  The bucellari (personal guards) were named after the bucellatum, the dried biscuit or hard tack which was issued as rations in the field. They appear to have originally comprised the more heavily-armed barbarian, and especially steppe, nobles and their retainers serving directly under the general who had hired them. As a consequence, the majority were armed with their traditional equipment, namely a kontos (lance), a bow and possibly a small shield. (It should be noted however that the lance, whilst being the requisite length, was never used by the Romans in the couched manner that became prevalent in the later Middle Ages. Instead, it was used underarm and two-handed.) Forming the core of a general’s comitatus (‘fellow troops’, ‘personal army’) in the Justinian period, by the time of Belisarius this equipment had become the norm, later spreading to other units of the cavalry.

  The bucellarii were recruited by the generals under whom they served, not by the emperor, and so had loyalty only to the general that hired them, not to the empire or to the emperor in Constantinople. Although this was a situation fraught with danger for the emperor, there was little that could be done to change things. As mercenaries, they paid for their own equipment before hiring themselves to whoever was willing to pay them, or to generals in places where the chances of plunder were great. They had no desire to become soldiers who were only for show around the emperor.

  The reduction in the power and status of the legions, the reliance upon horse archers and the employment of mercenary troops armed in their own fashion marked a distinct phase in the development of the Roman army. In effect, the old Roman army was gone.

  Defensive Equipment

  Alongside the change in the nature of the army, there was a corresponding change in dress and equipment. It has always been assumed by scholars that the Roman army retained many features throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods. In the earlier empire, the state-owned fabricae (factories) manufactured weapons, shields, armour and helmets. These were then distributed around the empire. Furthermore, helmets, body armour, shields and swords would be manufactured to specific patterns, depending upon whether the unit receiving them was a legio (legion), ala (cavalry) or auxilia (non-Roman infantry) unit. Many writers have assumed that the model remained true throughout the empire.

  The theory does not take into account a major change in practice in the era approximate to the fall of the west. Earlier, money was deducted from troops’ wages to pay for the equipment that they used. However, Anastasius changed the system in 498 or thereabouts. The soldiers were now paid ‘in full’, but they were expected to equip themselves out of their own purse. The large increase in pay meant that service in the army now became a viable career again; conscription was no longer needed and the army increased in size. The new levels of willing manpower available may have been a factor in Justinian’s attempt to reconquer the west.

  It is likely that the equipment that they bought depended upon several factors. Certainly, there was the obligation to fulfil their duties, and in this it is likely that they would purchase offensive weapons consistent with that of their unit, otherwise they would be a liability to their comrades. It is possible that these were still supplied specifically by the government in order to avoid confusion. It would also be necessary to buy equipment that would identify them as belonging to their unit; either they would have helmet plumes of the same colour or their shields would be painted with a colour or pattern to match that of their colleagues, or both.

  Yet within specific limitations, there would be a great deal of flexibility according to their personal tastes. Specific weapons, such as swords, were doubtless bought for individual preference, since weight, length and ‘feel’ are highly individual aspects of weapons. In addition, the more expensive defensive items would not be to everyone’s taste. Helmets and body armour could have been bought and tailored to fit, with the individual having to balance the greater cost of chain mail with its excellent defensive properties against the cheaper but more easily-damaged scale armour. Nor was this all. There was the possibility of using quilted linen armour, or even of relying upon a large shield and having no armour to cover the body at all. Furthermore, in provinces such as Egypt and Spain where there was little danger of military duties, with the troops acting more as a police force, there would have been little incentive for the troops to buy armour which they were never likely to use.

  The same factors also apply to helmets. Although it is common to find helmets described as either ‘infantry’ or ‘cavalry’ helmets, it is likely that by the later period covered here there was a considerable overlap of helmet usage between the various services of the army. Since it was down to cost and personal taste, a relatively rich infantryman could probably afford the same helmets – or better – than the less well-off among the cavalry.

  Therefore, the common image of units wearing exactly the same equipment should no longer be considered the norm. There was likely to be a variety of helmets, shields and armour within each unit, with only the colours of crests and/or shields defining the parent unit of the soldier. The main limiting factor would be availability. The equipment needed to re-equip the army, following both the defeat at Adrianople and the decision to change the armament of the cavalry, had to be manufactured in eastern fabricae: the fabricae of the west having by now been lost. This would have greatly reduced production and is likely to have caused shortages in some areas for at least some time.

  In light of these considerations, it has been thought best to look at the equipment of the troops by equipment type, rather than by whether it is deemed to be worn by infantry or cavalry units by modern historians and archaeologists.

  Helmets

  There were a few types of helmet available for the soldier of Belisarius’ army to purchase.

  The first types are known as ‘ridge helmets’. Although they came into use as early as the late third century, these types continued in use for a very long time and were probably still in use during the wars of Belisarius: indeed, coins dating between the fourth and sixth centuries depict emperors wearing variants of the type, although this may be due to tradition in the imagery rather than contemporary fashion.

  Ridge helmets came in two varieties. The archetype of these is known as ‘Intercisa’, named from the site where the first remains were found. These helmets were constructed from two halves, joined along the centre by a metal strip. There were three varieties of joining strip found on the site. Those of Intercisa 1 and Intercisa 2 were relatively broad and low, that of Intercisa 3 was narrow and high. These differences might simply be ascribed to production techniques and overall design effect of the finished helmet rather than profound differences in manufacture.

  However, on Intercisa 4 the ridge projected far above the bowl of the helmet, forming a large metal crest. In art these metal-crested helmets are shown on various manuscripts, but it is likely that the soldiers portrayed are guardsmen. Therefore the difference between Intercisa 4 and the others may be that this helmet was worn by officers or guardsmen, worn to distinguish them from others in battle. This remains doubtful, however, since some of the Intercisa 1, 2 and 3 helmets appear to have had holes and fittings for the attachment of crests. If this is the case, the large metal crest of Intercisa 4 would have been less noticeable, especially in battlefield conditions.

  Finds of similar helmets at Berkasovo were made from either two halves or four quarter pieces, but also include ‘nasals’ to guard the nose. Although such nasals are known from the Classical Greek period, this is unlikely to have represented a return to classical styles. Such patterns were popular amongst peoples from the steppes, such as the Huns, who appear to have been the source for many of the designs in the Byzantine army of this period. A similar example was found at Burgh-on-Sands in England (Plate 17).

  The second type of helmet is known as a ‘spangenhelm’, from the German word spangen, which was applied to the inverted T-pieces with which such helmets were constructed. The spangenhelm was made from four or six shaped iron plates, a
ttached to a brow band at the base and then connected together at the sides by the aforementioned spangen, made from gilded copper-alloy plates. The helmet was surmounted by a disc to hold the completed assembly together.

  Unlike earlier helmets, where cheek pieces and neck guards were integral parts of the helmet, in all of these helmets they were made separately and attached to the lower rim of the helmet. This was likely to have been for ease and low cost of production.

  With all of these helmets it must be born in mind that the corroded iron remains that are usually all that is left of the helmet can disguise its form when originally worn. All of the helmets described could be, and possibly were, adorned with gold, silver or other metal sheeting, or might have been tinned to enhance their appearance. Some may also have added paste gems or semi-precious stones to make them even more imposing.

  A further option for head protection appears to have been a coif of either chain or scale mail designed to be worn over the head in a similar fashion to a modern balaclava. Unfortunately, although possibly represented in art, no finds of such equipment have been found and the exact design remains in the realm of conjecture.

  As a final note, an early seventh-century artefact known as ‘the David and Goliath Plate’ shows infantry wearing highly-decorated cloth covers over the top of their helmets. These would have acted as protection for the helmets themselves in inclement weather, and their decoration could have aided in individual and unit recognition. The date of their introduction is unknown. There is no evidence for their use in the sixth century, due to their inability to survive as archaeological artefacts and the lack of contemporary descriptions and artwork. However their use by the armies of Belisarius remains a possibility.

  Armour

  For body protection there were, again, a variety of armours that could be purchased. The most familiar of these to modern readers is likely to be chain mail. Small, individual rings of iron are interlinked and riveted together to form a strong and flexible – if very heavy – armour. However, the process of manufacturing the thousands of iron rings needed, plus the large amount of time necessary to rivet the links together, make this a very expensive piece of kit.

  As a second choice there was scale mail. In this, a large number of scales are joined together to form a protective cuirass. The method of joining the scales produced two variations of the armour. In one, the scales are joined with either wire or string to their neighbours to left and right, as well as to a cloth or leather backing material to produce a relatively flexible armour. However, there would be a weakness in the armour between the horizontal rows of scales, which are not joined. In the alternative method, the scales are also joined to the adjacent scales above and below to form a rigid set of armour. The loss of flexibility would be offset against the elimination of the weakness between the rows.

  A third form of armour is known as ‘lamellar’ armour. Narrow elongated plates of metal were vertically laced, not wired, to form a very rigid style of armour. Whilst there was little in the way of flexibility, the armour was strong and, due to the method of manufacture, relatively cheap. The form was increasing in popularity at this time under heavy steppe, particularly Avar, influences; this was a fashionable style of armour.

  In all of the above examples the armour was designed to cover the torso of the wearer. In addition, fashion now dictated that sleeves were being worn long, usually down to the elbow, and that the skirt of the armour would reach down to the knee. Where necessary, it was designed with a split for ease of wearing by cavalry.

  Unless the soldier was prepared to enter battle completely unarmoured, there was one further form of armour he could wear. This was the thoracomachus (‘chest/thorax protector’) or subarmalis (‘below the armour’), which, as the name suggests, originated as a padded undergarment to be worn below heavy metal armour. There is no archaeological evidence for this armour, yet there are a few pictorial and literary sources available that show it was worn. Similar to the much later medieval akheton, layers of linen or other suitable material were stuffed with a soft filling of some form, for example goats’ wool. This produced a tough, padded armour that could absorb some of a blow’s force, whilst still being very flexible and extremely cheap. Indeed, it is feasible that many of these would have been hand made by the owner to save on armour costs.

  To supplement the body armour there was a limited variety of leg, arm and hand armours available.

  The ocreae (greaves) used to protect the lower leg had been in use since before the time of Scipio Africanus in the third century BC. They had evolved from the clip-on version of the early Greek city states into a style that was attached to the leg by leather straps. They were now made from either iron or wood, and were constructed from long pieces which ran vertically up the leg, a form similar to the lamellar armour mentioned above, but in this context known as ‘splint’ armour.

  For the arms there were two sorts of defence available. Manicae (‘sleeves’) are segmented defences made of iron, copper alloy or leather. They are shown on the Adamklissi monument, where they were probably worn to defend the upper arm against the feared Dacian falx. They continued in use until at least the period under discussion, and they are included in the Notitia Dignitatum along with the items produced by the state-owned Illustration Stephenson). munitions factories. Although useful in protecting the vulnerable right arm (the left arm being behind a shield), their added expense may have resulted in only a few, if any, being worn by Belisarius’ troops.

  The other arm defences available were vambraces. These were made in the same way as the splint greaves mentioned earlier, their difference from manicae being that they only protected the lower arm. These may have been in greater demand than manicae, since the trend was to wear elbow-length armour and a vambrace would complete the arm protection at relatively little additional cost. However their use by horse archers was probably limited due to their restricting the movement of the right arm, for which flexibility was paramount when drawing and aiming a bow, and the possibility of interfering with a clean release.

  Finally, there were gauntlets. These appear to have been made by stitching shaped metal plates onto a leather glove, either worn separately or as an extension of a manica or vambrace. Whatever method was used, they would be invaluable in giving the wearer some protection for the otherwise extremely vulnerable right hand. Unfortunately, although we know they were available, there is very little evidence for their manufacture and use. It is possible they they proved restrictive in the use of the bow, and so were deemed unsuitable for use by cavalry units.

  Shields

  Shields were now made using simple plank construction, with the face at least being covered in leather to help maintain shield integrity. The old plywood shields of the earlier empire were now a thing of the past.

  Up until at least the start of this period the use of shields by horsemen had declined but shields began to come back into fashion at roughly the time of Belisarius’ wars. The Byzantine cavalry was now primarily armed with a bow. This necessitated a change in the size and shape of the shields, which now became small and circular, as opposed to the large ovals that had dominated previously. These small cavalry shields were slung from the neck and attached to the upper left arm. This allowed the wearer both to use the bow at distance, and to utilise the limited protection that such a shield offered when in hand-to-hand combat.

  Foot archers also appear to have had small shields, which they hung from their belts when not in use. However, these were a last-ditch defence, since the archers were very vulnerable to attack by all opposing troops except for similarly-equipped archers, and would be expected to use evasive tactics if charged.

  The spearmen were still expected to use the long oval shield that became common during the preceding centuries, although the size and precise shape of these was likely to be up to the individual purchaser.

  All the shields of a given unit would probably have been painted in a ‘regimental’ pattern, or at least the sam
e colour. Yet it should be borne in mind that during the course of a campaign shields were absorbing blows aimed at the bearer, and so could become severely damaged. It is unlikely that field replacements would have been painted with a highly complex pattern; a simple facing colour would have been more likely. It should also be remembered that in a unit with a maximum strength of only 1,200 men, each man would have been known to his comrades, at least by sight.

  Weapons

  In the employment of weapons, it is likely that the choice would not necessarily have been left to the individual; it is probable that the main offensive/defensive weapon would have been provided by the state – although the cost would then have been deducted from the soldier’s pay. In this way, uniformity of weapons within a unit would help to define the unit’s main function and also eliminate the confusion that could arise from personal choice. Yet it must be remembered that the specific size or weight of, for example, a sword is a personal factor and may have resulted in such weapons continuing to be left up to the choice of the individual.

  Spears and javelins