Download PDF | Byzantine Military Tactics In Syria And Mesopotamia In The 10th Century A Comparative Study, By Georgios Theotokis (Author), Edinburgh University Press, 2018.
361 Pages
Acknowledgements
This monograph has been eight years in the making, from the time it was first conceived as an original idea while discussing over a glass of wine with colleagues from the University of Glasgow, during which time I was still struggling to finish my doctoral thesis, to the completion of the final draft in the study cubicles of the National Library of Latvia in Riga. In this process of endless research, reading and writing, I benefitted from the support of several institutions, most notably the Medieval Institute of the University of Notre Dame, which provided me with both an ideal working environment and the financial support to get my idea off the ground and develop it into a viable project.
Iam grateful to the late Olivia Remie Constable, Robert M. Conway Director of the Medieval Institute at the University of Notre Dame, who gave me this rare opportunity to work across the Atlantic. I also spent six fruitful months in the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter where, with the help and guidance of Professor Dionisius Agius, my monograph acquired its final form. Finally, I am grateful to the three most important people of my life, my parents and my wife, who truly helped this ‘ship sail safely through stormy seas’ with their endless love and encouragement.
Bogazici, February 2018
Introduction
Fas est et ab hoste doceri (It is right to learn, even from the enemy) —Ovid, Metamorphoses, 4.428
As a doctoral student, I was interested in the raids of the Norman dukes of southern Italy on the Byzantine provinces in the Balkans between 1081 and 1108. Foremost, I conducted a study of the military organisation of the Norman and Byzantine states in that period, their overall strategies and their military tactics on the battlefield. In that time, I had the chance to venture into the world of warfare in the eastern Mediterranean, from Italy and the Balkans to Asia Minor and the Middle East, examining the military organisation, tactics and strategies of the Byzantines and the Seljuk Turks, the Arabs of Egypt and the Crusaders. It was while studying battles in the same geographical area that I could identify the numerous tactical innovations and adaptations between different armies in their battle tactics after a pitched battle or a skirmish with the enemy. Therefore, a key question was quickly raised: can it be said that the general who shows the most willingness to adapt to the tactics of the enemy has significantly better chances of winning the battle and, perhaps, even the war? Thus, the main aim of the present study is to examine in detail the way each state adapted to the strategies and tactics of its enemies in a specific operational theatre: the region that is bordered by Antioch and Aleppo to the south, Taron and Vaspourakan around Lake Van to the east, and the mountain ranges of the Taurus and Anti-Taurus to the north and west, between the second and third quarters of the tenth century.
The period that I have chosen to study should be considered within the political context of the Byzantine wars of expansion that dominated the eastern frontiers of the empire for the best part of the tenth century. Since 927-8, when the threat from the Bulgarian tsar Symeon had disappeared, the empire’s foreign policy had already shifted to the preservation of a pro-Byzantine Armenia and the establishment of control over the strategic cantons of Taron and Vaspourakan, around Lake Van — an area that controlled the invasion routes into Byzantine Chaldea through north-eastern Anatolia.' This period comes in complete contrast to the previous decades of incessant raiding in eastern and central Anatolia; the second and third quarters of the third century witnessed an increasingly aggressive Byzantine foreign policy during which the need for more professional units of heavy infantry and cavalry became pressing. If Armenia, however, was strategically far more important to the Byzantine government than Cilicia and Syria, then how can the empire’s extensive territorial gains in Cilicia in the third quarter of the tenth century be explained?
It all comes down to the personal and political image of the Byzantine emperor as a sovereign chosen by God to protect His people. The struggle between the Emperor Constantine VII (945-59) and his successors and Sayf ad-Dawla of Aleppo (944-67) was titanic, and by the close of the 950s had escalated into an all-out conflict where no one could afford (politically) to succumb. In the end, it was the vast resources Byzantium poured into the wars in the East that turned the tide in their favour by 962. After the conquest of Antioch seven years later, Nicephorus II Phocas (r. 963-9) wrecked the Emirate of Aleppo, swept away the bases for Arab raids in Anatolia and replaced them with an impregnable wall of Byzantine themes which was to withstand foreign invasions for another hundred years. After his death, the Emirate of Aleppo was to become a Byzantine dependency, thus enabling the Byzantines to come into direct contact with the Fatimids of Egypt, who held southern Palestine.
As the title suggests, this is a comparative study of the military cultures that clashed in Cilicia, Syria and northern Mesopotamia in the tenth century. For the purposes of this comparison, I examine two pools of primary material: first, the accounts of the largest and most important raids, sieges and pitched battles of this period, since they could have had a decisive outcome on the course of a campaign or even a war, through whatever information can be deduced from the contemporary historical accounts; second, the Byzantine and Arab military manuals, which, being prescriptive and not descriptive in nature, provide crucial information on how armies should have been organised and deployed in the battlefield up to the period when they were compiled, thus reflecting decades and even centuries of experience in fighting.
My strategy is twofold: first, I focus on the tactical changes that took place in the units of the imperial army in the tenth century. The richest and most useful — but ostensibly underutilised — sources for identifying these changes are military treatises such as the Praecepta Militaria (Military Precepts) of Nicephorus Phocas (c. 969), the anonymous Sylloge Taktikorum (Collection of Tactics) (c. 930), the Taktika attributed to Emperor Leo VI (written c. 895-908) and numerous others. I discuss the recommendations of the authors regarding the marching and battle formations, the armament and battlefield tactics of the Byzantine army units, and I ask whether they reflect any kind of innovation or tactical adaptation to the strategic situation in the East. Then I explain how far we can say that ‘theory translated into practice’ in the campaigns and battlefields of this period, such as Hadath (954), Tarsus (965), Dorystolo (971), Alexandretta (971), Orontes (994) and Apamea (998), according to the accounts of contemporary historians from both sides of the political, religious and cultural spectrums.
I try to understand the mechanisms that lie behind this diffusion of ‘military knowledge’, and I approach the issue by asking several related questions:
e What were the tactics of each state in the region under consideration and what basic similarities can we trace? How suitable were they for the warfare in the region?
¢ Can we identify any similarities in the tactics used against different enemies in the same region or do we notice a change depending on the enemy faced in the field? Are we able to trace the origins of a tactic and what does that say about the influence each culture had on its neighbours?
e What is the connection between adaptability in the battlefield and the overall strategy of a state? Do we see nations that pursue a more defensive strategy adapting more easily to the changing tactics of their enemies?
¢ Can we say that certain cultures are more susceptible to tactical changes than others and, if so, what are the deeper reasons behind this phenomenon? In what way does this reflect their social structure and any changes in it? What was the role of religion and religious enthusiasm in this process?
The standard work on the political and social history of the Hamdanids of Aleppo remains Canard’s Histoire de la dynastie des Hamdanides,’ a remarkable survey of the naissance, heyday and decline of the Muslim dynasty, through the study of Arab and non-Arab, literary and non-literary sources, supplemented by a rich bibliography and more than 200 pages of material on the historical geography of the Jazira (Upper Mesopotamia), Mesopotamia, Syria and Armenia-Azerbaijan. Other works include Bikhazi’s PhD thesis that revised Canard’s narrative and analysis in a number of areas, especially concerning the emirate in Mosul.’ The towns and populations of the thughar (frontiers), the Muslim frontier districts that formed the bulwark between the Byzantine Empire and the provinces of the Abbasid Caliphate, have been thoroughly studied by Asa Eger, Bonner, Bosworth, Holmes, and Haldon and Kennedy.’ Finally, Shepard has produced two influential papers on the Byzantine notion of frontiers and imperial expansionism, and on the empire’s foreign policy in the East, with a particular focus on Armenia.”
Of direct relevance are the works by Haldon and Treadgold that examine the structure, consistency, battle tactics and formations of the Byzantine army up to the eleventh century.° Although these editions are invaluable in providing a general overview of the transformation of the imperial army through the centuries, McGeer’s laborious and detailed work on Byzantine warfare in the tenth century is more helpful for the purposes of this study.’ His monograph forms a contribution to the understanding not simply of two of the most important military treatises of tenth-century Byzantine military literature, but also very skilfully places them within the political and social context of the period’s expansionist policies against the Arabs in Cilicia, Syria and Armenia, thus revealing the sophistication of the imperial military system at the time.
Crossing the political frontier, many rich and engaging studies have been produced on the military organisation of the Muslim states bordering the empire in the East and, especially, the Fatimids of Egypt. I would argue that the works by Lev have set the bar very high for the quality of work produced on both Mediterranean and Islamic history during a period (tenth to twelfth centuries) of profound changes in the eastern Mediterranean.* Kennedy’s study on the armies of the caliphs provides a competent analysis of the history, organisation and equipment of the Muslim armies for the first three centuries of the Muslim expansion.’ Other useful monographs are Beshir’s ‘Fatimid Military Organization’ ,'° Hamblin’s PhD dissertation titled ‘The Fatimid Army during the Early Crusades’,'' followed by Bosworth’s articles on the ‘Military Organization under the Buyids of Persia and Iraq’ and ‘Ghaznavid Military Organization’,’* a collection of studies edited by Parry and Yapp,"’ and a number of general overviews on the topic with rich endnotes by Nicolle.'* Regrettably, the only study on the military organisation and tactics of the Hamdanid armies is a dense but well-written chapter in McGeer’s Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth.
Much of what I touch upon in this monograph has been covered in reasonable detail within the last fifty years. In many of the chapters I review the findings and breakthroughs of scholars like McGeer and Haldon concerning the theory and practice of tenth-century warfare in the empire, and the political, cultural and social environment that imposed a deep divide between the empire’s centre and its provinces. Therefore, what I am suggesting is a synthesis of what we know of tenth-century Byzantine warfare, but within a very focused thematic (campaign strategy, comparative tactics, raids, siege warfare), geographic (Armenia, Cilicia, Syria) and chronological (tenth century) scope. I offer a fresh and critical perspective on warfare in the region by delving deeper into well-known, but ostensibly underutilised, sources. For that purpose, my intention is to compare tactics with military cultures found in the tenth-century military manuals and place them as a sort of ‘benchmark’ against which to test narrative accounts. As a consequence, the analysis will delve further into the issue of ‘innovation’ and identify developments within and between military cultures.
Two conventions of conflict that need to be explained and formulated within the context of the medieval strategy of campaigning are the theory of Vegetian warfare and the role of battle as a component or tool in a commander’s repertoire.’ The former theory describes a cross-cultural’® method of waging war in pre-modern economic and technological conditions, which places a particular emphasis on the avoidance of battle at all costs and underlines the logistical and geographical constraints imposed upon the medieval and early modern commander. This theory, of course, dates back many centuries — even further back than the derogatory words put by Herodotus into the mouth of a bewildered Mardonius commenting on the fighting habits of the ancient Greeks, a characteristic example of an outsider reviewing intracultural warfare tactics.'”
The use of the term Vegetian (warfare/theory/strategy), however, to describe the principle of avoiding an engagement by using “other means’, should not be taken as a misnomer, giving the false impression that I am creating an artificial problem by importing a research question pertaining to the medieval West that is utterly irrelevant to Byzantium. As I will show in the second part of Chapter 1, the Byzantines had very similar attitudes towards pitched battles: they did not risk taking to the battlefield unless the odds were overwhelmingly stacked in their favour. And it was not just European commanders that followed Vegetius’ dicta well into the eighteenth century. Many of Byzantium’s Muslim enemies, including their Ottoman successors, complied with the same theory of battle avoidance as a principle for conducting military operations.'* Due to the lack of any equivalent modern historical term to describe the Byzantine culture of war — something in the spirit of ‘Maurician’ (referring to the sixth-century Strategikon attributed to Emperor Maurice) or ‘Leonid’ (referring to the Taktika written by Emperor Leo VI c. 895-908) strategy in Byzantium — I had no choice but to borrow the term ‘Vegetian’ as a convenient reference to a specific set of principles of war that defined European strategy for almost fifteen centuries.
Thus far we have established that battle is a hazardous course of action only to be followed when the odds are overwhelmingly in one’s favour or as a last resort. Pitched battles were risky because they might lead to waste of life and resources and undo the arduous work of months or even years in just a few hours. That is precisely the reason why battles were rare: because they could, potentially, be decisive. Rather, it was diplomacy, bribery, tricks, stratagems, sieges, raiding and plundering that took precedence in the Byzantine officers’ campaigning repertoire against the empire’s multitudes of enemies in East and West. Armies, therefore, were built as much for ravaging and siege work as for battle, which affected how they fought on the battlefield. But how decisive could a battle be and what exactly do we mean by the term ‘decisive battle’?
In a detailed article on the different categories of wars the Byzantines fought in their long history, W. Treadgold argued:
My point is not that the Byzantines defended themselves badly, because for the most part they defended themselves very well. After all, the empire lasted longer than all its enemies. It outlived the Persian Empire, two Muslim caliphates, two Bulgarian empires, and the Seljuk Turks; even the Ottoman Turks, who brought Byzantium down, founded an empire that was to have a much shorter life. The Byzantines were probably wise to avoid major pitched battles, especially because they lost most of the few they did fight, like the battle of Adrianople against the Goths, the battle of the Yarmouk during the initial Muslim expansion, and the battles of Manzikert and Myriocephalum against the Seljuk Turks."
Thus, according to Treadgold’s very aptly put argument on their military abilities, the Byzantines were not very good at taking their chances on the battlefield against their Christian and Muslim enemies. But then how can we explain the paradox of an ‘empire that would not die’? Surely, occasional crises united the empire by forcing the imperial court, the provincial ruling classes and the church closer together,” but there is an additional factor here, one that takes us back to the previous question regarding the decisiveness of battles. If the Byzantines were so hopeless at fighting external enemies in pitched battles — an oversimplification based solely on their track record — then were these battles decisive or not?
What makes a battle decisive? From Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy’s well-known nineteenth-century monograph to more contemporary works by John Keegan, Victor Davis Hanson and Stephen Morillo, the answer is straightforward: impact.’ A decisive battle should have long-term socio-political implications between adversaries and profoundly affect the balance of power on more than just the local level. Inevitably, many battles spring to mind: Salamis, appraised as having saved the Western world and democracy from oriental despotism and having provided the necessary impetus for the rise of Athenian (naval) power; Lechfeld, effectively ending the raiding of the Magyars in central Europe and seeing the rise of the eastern Frankish power in Europe; Stanford Bridge and Hastings, starting a new chapter in the socio-political history of England; Talas River, putting a halt on Tang China’s expansionist policies towards the west, resulting in Muslim control of Transoxiana for the next 400 years; Manzikert, although not the cataclysmic event it was once considered to be, still viewed as an engagement that decisively lost central and eastern Anatolia to the Turks; Antioch (1098), when the future of the Crusading movement hung in the balance; Bouvines, securing Normandy for the Capetians and turning France into the most powerful monarchy in Europe; and the second battle of Kosovo, where the Ottomans managed to annihilate the Serbian army, thus forcing the Serbian principalities that were not already Ottoman vassals to become so in the following years.
Let us consider in more detail the concept of a decisive battle through a series of examples that involved the empire in a long-term conflict on its eastern frontiers. I am referring to the four-century long war with the Sassanid Empire that went on from the 230s to Heraclius’ campaigns in the 620s, involving several smaller campaigns and peace treaties lasting for years at a time. Despite the inevitable religious-ideological element of the conflict that was omnipresent, both parties were constantly vying for control of the strategic buffer zones of Iberia and Lazica, in the Caucasus, and northern Mesopotamia; the Persians were dominant in the south and the Byzantines were more successful in the north, nearer their bases in Asia Minor. Military activity in the region depended on a delicate balance between the Romano-Byzantine use of fortifications and heavy infantry, and the Persian advantage on mobile heavy cavalry forces (clibanarii). A key aspect of these wars is that they ‘tended toward indecisiveness and often ended in a truce by mutual agreement to avoid fiscal crisis’.* What Morillo aptly points out is the correlation between the decisiveness, the strategic aim/outcome and the logistical constraints of a campaign and/or war.
This conflict reached its climax in the first quarter of the seventh century. The Persians proved largely successful during the first stage of the war from 602 to 622, conquering much of the Levant, Egypt and parts of Anatolia, while Heraclius’ campaigns in Persian lands from 622 to 626 forced the Persians onto the defensive, allowing his armies to regain momentum that culminated in the famous Battle of Nineveh in 627. It is important to note, however, that until 619 ‘Rome was on the verge of extinction, and the empire of Darius on the verge of being re-established’;* this was no longer a conflict regarding regional buffer zones, but rather an operation for the liquidation of the Byzantine Empire. Heraclius followed up the triumph of Nineveh with a direct strike to Ctesiphon that delivered the crushing blow to Khusro’s regime, and that resulted in the installation of his son Kavadh as king, who returned all Persian conquests to Roman rule. This extraordinary reversal of fortunes after 622 owes much to the determination, brilliant generalship and leadership, diplomacy and financial management of one man, Heraclius.”*
Heraclius’ achievements were briefly undermined by the advent of a new enemy from the south-east, who stroke a devastating blow against Byzantine arms at Yarmouk in 636. This was one of the rare occasions when the Byzantines allowed themselves to be drawn into a pitched battle, as they had a sound strategic objective: to flush the Arabs out of Syria.” The Arabs had an equally sound strategic objective and that was luring as many Byzantine forces as possible into Syria so that they could inflict a decisive defeat.*° The magnitude of the Arab victory at Yarmouk can be encapsulated not only in the number of fatalities inflicted on the Byzantine armies but, most importantly, in its immediate aftermath:
They [the Arabs] concentrated on sound military goals, the destruction of the remaining Byzantine forces as organized armies, and only then worried about conquering and organizing rich lands and towns. These actions transformed what was merely a great victory into a very decisive one, and one of the worst of all Byzantine military disasters.”’
The survival of the empire might not, realistically and with the benefit of hindsight, have been at stake, but Yarmouk did provide a crucial window of opportunity that inevitably led to permanent changes in the balance of power in Syria.
Thus a great victory — to use Kaegi’s term — could be considered a decisive one according to the strategic aims of the battle-seeking army’s commander. A detailed analysis of the Byzantine and Arab strategies and campaigning tactics in Cilicia and Anatolia (eighth to tenth centuries) is the subject of the second chapter in this study, but what I should mention here are the so-called “basic forms of strategy’: annihilation, exhaustion and attrition.” A key difference between the strategies of annihilation and exhaustion is the target; the strategy of annihilation targets the enemy’s armed forces, while the strategy of exhaustion aims at the people’s will to continue fighting. The latter is known in Western medieval history under the French term chevauchée, although historians of the eastern Mediterranean would better identify it with the razzia: limited warfare verging on brigandage that avoided head-on confrontations and instead emphasised raiding and looting, usually of livestock.” Although both the chevauchée and the razzia served the same strategic purposes, the key difference between them was the religious element that was dominant in the Fertile Crescent.
Based on what I have examined so far about the decisiveness of a pitched battle in medieval history and the significance of (1) the impact of the battle, and (2) the strategic aims of the battle-seeking commander, let me return to the perplexing conclusion put forward by Treadgold about the survival of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines defended themselves brilliantly, despite their numerous defeats in pitched battles, because rarely was their centre of power — the imperial court — seriously endangered, and no defeat proved as devastating for the fighting capabilities of the Byzantine armed forces as Adrianople (378) or Yarmouk (636).
A battle can be said to be decisive because of its impact, but in no way does this form conclusive evidence of the superiority of one military culture over another: the interpretation of battles as proof of historical superiority, bearing in mind cultural, social, economic and technological factors, is unfounded.*° The superiority one side may have before the battle certainly provides it with the best chances of prevailing, but that does not consider a hugely influential factor: chance. An accidental arrow, unexpected rainfall, fog or a royal horse running astray on the battlefield could upset the turn of events. This is what Clausewitz calls ‘friction’:
The only concept that more or less corresponds to the factors that distinguish real war from war on paper . . . This tremendous friction, which cannot, as in mechanics, be reduced to a few points, is everywhere in contact with chance, and brings about effects that cannot be measured, just because they are largely due to chance.”'
This factor offers battle the ability to change the balance of power between two forces in a truly chaotic manner, simply because ‘small inputs can create very large perturbations’. Thus battles were important because failure to employ correct tactics could have a profound political impact, in a period when national leaders often fought in the front ranks.
During the wars in the East between the Byzantine and the Hamdanid armies that dominated the best part of the tenth century, both sides fought numerous battles and competed for control over an equally large number of castles and mountain and river crossings. At no time, however, did the Byzantine Empire feel threatened for its very existence, as it had some three centuries earlier, since we know that the Arab threat to the capital had already ceased by 718. This, however, does not negate the decisive nature of some of the battles of the period. Clearing out the Muslim outposts west of the Taurus and Anti-Taurus Mountains, pushing the eastern marches of the empire further east to include the strategic cities of Tarsus and Mopsuestia, and neutralising the city of Aleppo by turning it into a buffer zone between the empire and the emerging Fatimids of Egypt, who controlled southern Palestine, were the main strategic objectives of the period. In pursuing an expansionist regional strategy in three consecutive phases that involved a change from a strategy of exhaustion into one of annihilation, with the final phase (963-5) focusing on the conquest of Cilicia despite the logistical challenge, pitched battles assumed an overriding — although not exclusive — role on the socio-political shaping of the region in the second half of the tenth century.”
A final concept that needs to be defined and formulated within the context of warfare in medieval Anatolia and the Middle East is “military culture’. First and foremost, we need to underline the distinction between social structure and culture:
Social structure comprises the relationships among groups, institutions, and individuals within a society; in contrast, culture (ideas, norms, rituals, codes of behaviour) provides .. . [a] ‘web of meaning’ shared by members of a particular society or group within a society.**
Culture is a system of beliefs and behavioural norms that influence what people think is (morally) right and wrong, how they make judgements and how they categorise things. Therefore, “military social structure’ can be defined as the structure that consists of the arrangement into military groups, such as divisions, battalions and companies; “military culture’, conversely, can be understood as the ‘operational code of war’ that is followed by an entire nation or people or, to give a more straightforward definition, it could mean ‘a way of understanding why an army acts as it does in war’.*
As different cultures perceive war differently,* the Byzantines had their own military culture that was transmitted to them through the centuries from ancient Greece and classical Rome, partly through the written tradition of what we have already identified as military manuals, also called (biblia) Strategika or (biblia) Taktika.*’ These manuals carried on a late Roman tradition of theoretical and practical writing about military organisation, structures and hierarchies, battle tactics and war ethos/ideology, placing war at the epicentre of the imperial foreign policy’s repertoire complemented by other tools such as bribery, tricks, diplomacy and so on.
This book, then, is a contribution to the study of the military culture of the Byzantines in the tenth century, comparing it with the received wisdom on warfare from earlier periods (for instance, ancient Greece and Rome) and contrasting it with the contemporary and equally developed and detailed accounts surviving from Byzantium’s Muslim neighbours. It focuses on behaviour in war and battle, identifying the norms and expectations of both warriors and others who observed them concerning the conduct of war. It also provides a comprehensive comparison with the military institutions and systems, methods of recruitment and ideology of the Byzantine adversaries in the region during the period in question.
This book does not go into detail concerning the institutional framework of the polities of the eastern Mediterranean region, nor does it break new ground in the logistics of the wars and campaigns of the period; it does not talk about the experience of the common soldier in battle or the impact of war on the border societies of eastern Anatolia and Mesopotamia. This would certainly raise some eyebrows as to why I have deviated from the ‘fashionable’ (an inappropriate term, still used by some historians, that pertains conformity and adherence to popular norms) narratives of the so-called ‘new military history’ school that has had a dominant influence in historical output since the 1980s. This school aspires to bring closer together the field of military history and the socio-economic analyses of Karl Marx, in stark contrast to the academic model before the 1950s that largely focused on the Art of War and the study of campaigns and battles as models and exemplars of military history.
‘New military history’ focuses on three main contexts: (1) the politicalinstitutional context that covers the relation between the political and the military institutions within a state and the degree to which an army could be used as an instrument of politics; (2) the socio-economic context, an area that includes the impact of war on societies (economic productivity, logistics, recruitment, technology and so on) and that of societies on war; and (3) the cultural context that encompasses the interaction of warrior values with the cultural values of societies in general (glorification or condemnation of warrior values through epic poems, folk songs and tales and so forth). *
Keeping this in mind, I am not disputing the importance of matters such as administration, the institutional framework for warfare, supply systems and logistics, and society during war; after all, it was the vast logistical and economic resources of the Byzantine Empire that brought the Emirate of Aleppo to its knees through a relentless series of campaigns, conducted both in the summer and winter months between 963 and 965.* In the same vein, I do not attempt to reshape the contemporary view that requires sieges, raids, skirmishes and ambushes to dominate medieval warfare;“” historians note that in the aforementioned period between 963 and 965 ‘most of the military activity [in northern Syria] took the form of sieges and pillaging rather than pitched battle’,*' because Aleppo could no longer offer any significant resistance to the war of exhaustion that had been waged against it since 959.
As mentioned already, this is a study with a very focused thematic (campaign strategy, comparative tactics, raids, siege warfare), geographic (Armenia, Cilicia, Syria) and chronological (tenth century) scope. It is my intention to reintegrate the operational, tactical, technical and equipment aspects of the conduct of warfare, whilst incorporating into the discussion its impact on wider society. This is because, regardless of whether battles are trustworthy or untrustworthy assessments of historical entities and movements, they are rare events and they form the ultimate ‘Darwinian test’ for two sides facing each other in a frenzied and violent interaction that would provide history with a winner. ‘For it is not through what armies are but by what they do that the lives of nations and of individuals are changed’,”’ especially considering that this was a period when the emperor or the emir were at the forefront of fighting and their units often bore the brunt of an enemy attack.
An Overview of the Book
The purpose of Chapter 1 is to provide a condensed view of the “grand strategy’ of the Byzantine Empire and the different perceptions of strategy and tactics present in the military manuals of the ancient Greek and Roman authors of strategika like Aeneas Tacticus (writing in 357-6 Bc), Onasander (writing in AD 59), Aelian (writing in AD 106), Polyaenus (writing in AD 163-5) and the anonymous author of the Strategikon attributed to Emperor Maurice (probably written in ap 591-610). I ask in what way the Byzantine theorists and generals of the period up to the tenth century established their theoretical and practical ideas about warfare, and in what way can the Byzantine emperors be said to have pursued a “grand strategy’?
Next, I compare the notion of ‘cultures of bravery’ (and therefore of cowardice) in the Byzantine, Western European and Islamic worlds in an attempt to show the degree to which the acceptability of, for instance, feigned flights, other sorts of ruses, ambushes and so on varies between cultures. For some, such tactics were indeed construed as unmanly and as signs of cowardice, since for them bravery was constructed around notions of how one fought, with the ‘how’ usually centred on the honour to be gained in face-to-face combat with melee weapons. For others, such tactics were signs of cleverness — bravery and manliness having been constructed more around whether one won a battle than how one fought it. This will show how willing different cultures were to adopt military tactics and strategies from their enemies.
Chapter 2 focuses on a different set of questions: what is the kind of warfare that dominated the geographical area under consideration and what does it reveal about the strategy and strategic goals of the Arabs in the region? In view of the wider debate between modern scholars like C. J. Rogers, J. Gillingham and S. Morillo about the term ‘Vegetian strategy’, I will ask whether historians can characterise any of the strategies applied by the Arabs and the Byzantines in the operational theatres of the East leading up to the 960s as ‘Vegetian’? What key role did the three Muslim bastions for razzias (Tarsus, Melitene and Theodosiopolis) play in this conflict? How did the regional geography of eastern and central Anatolia shape the kind of warfare that was waged in the region? What were the invasion routes taken by the Arab raiding parties that led them over the Taurus and Anti-Taurus into Anatolia?
The fact that these three Arab bases on the frontiers of the Christian— Muslim world in Anatolia were such a thorn in the side of the empire would be made abundantly clear. These razzias over the Taurus and Anti-Taurus contributed to the political instability, militarisation, and economic, commercial, agricultural and demographic decline of central and eastern Asia Minor. The breaking of the power of these emirates and, in effect, their neutralisation would be at the top of the priorities of the governments of Romanus I Lecapenus, Constantine VII and their successors, and it would dominate their foreign policy from the 920s onwards.
The main aim of Chapters 3 and 4 is to bring the imperial policy in the East into the spotlight and provide some perspective on the empire’s frontier wars against its Muslim enemies, which reached a climax in the middle of the tenth century. Few studies have been produced about the Byzantine Empire’s foreign policy in Armenia and northern Mesopotamia during the reign of the first three emperors of the Macedonian dynasty, even though the empire considered this region as one of its most significant and fragile territories that required careful diplomatic negotiations and the show of brute force to prevent it from falling under the sphere of influence of the Abbasid Caliphate. Hence, Chapter 3 will consider several interrelated aspects of Byzantium’s strategic management of the eastern frontier regions: the political reasons behind its involvement into this operational theatre; the wars with the Muslims; the emperors’ delicate diplomatic negotiations with the Armenian princes; the imperial campaigns in the Armenian and Mesopotamian frontiers and the emergence of a new enemy — the brothers Nasir and Sayf ad-Dawla.
There is, however, a paradox in Byzantium’s expansionist wars in the first half of the tenth century: in none of the cases were the Byzantines contemplating any kind of permanent territorial expansion — these remained just raids to capture prisoners that would later be exchanged for ransom money and to enhance the emperor’s influence and popularity. If that was the case, then why did the empire decide to crush the dynasty of the Hamdanids of Aleppo in a series of expansionist wars that placed huge sums of money and materiel at the disposal of the imperial generals in the East? What were the attractions that drew Byzantium and the Hamdanid emir to the region of Armenia, Taron, Vaspourakan and northern Mesopotamia? Was it considered to be a fight to the bitter end for Byzantium and the Hamdanids of Aleppo? These are some of the issues that I attempt to formulate in the second part of Chapter 3.
In Chapter 4, I wish to concentrate on the methods of exchange of information and intelligence between cultures. In this case I focus on the Byzantine view of their enemies on the battlefield — the Arabs: ‘What are they really like? What weapons do they make use of in military campaigns? What are their practices? How does one arm oneself and campaign against them and thus carry out operations against them?’ These are the kind of questions Leo VI was asking about the Arabs.
What I have been able to discern by looking through lay and ecclesiastical sources of the period provided me with a rather contradictory view of the Arabs as warriors. Leo the Deacon offers the most stereotypic view of the Arabs as warriors of jihad: they are an enemy unsophisticated in warfare and technologically inferior. This notion of an opportunistic soldier can also be found in Ioannes Kaminiates’ history of the siege and conquest of Thessaloniki in 904. Kaminiates despised them, but he was also highly impressed by their fighting abilities: they were intelligent, furiously resilient, with high morale and ready to die for their cause. Leo VI’s Taktika reveals a feeling of respect for the empire’s Muslim adversaries on the battlefield. He describes them as formidable enemies who excel all foreign nations in intelligence and who have adopted Roman weapons and often copied Roman tactics.
The most striking difference of opinion can be found in the works of Emperor Constantine VII. In his oration to his troops in the autumn of 950 he portrays the Arabs of Aleppo as feeble women, while in his magisterial manual on kingcraft he highlights their prowess in battle and the splendour of their weapons and armour. Constantine VII’s oration is a good example of Byzantine propaganda literature. A small victory against the Hamdanids was exploited for propaganda purposes rather than for its real strategic value. The purpose was simple: to restore some much-needed prestige to the regime of Constantine Porphyrogenitus after the humiliation of the Cretan expedition the year before. His true thoughts about the Arabs as warriors can be seen in his De Administrando Imperio and they are much more pragmatic. This is also the case for the military treatises of the period, such as the Praecepta Militaria; they paint a clearer and more refined picture of their enemies as ingenious and brave soldiers capable of injecting fear and confusion into their adversaries, and likely to stand their ground and even fight a losing battle rather than strike camp and retreat. But it is the Byzantines who have the moral high ground; it is they who will achieve eternal glory with the help of God.
Crossing over to the methods of transmission of (military) knowledge between cultures, the focal point of Chapter 5 is intelligence and the different methods of procuring accurate and reliable information, which could have a potentially lethal effect on the battlefield. In this section, I concentrate on a series of questions: what types of intelligence does a modern general have at his disposal before a great battle and what did a medieval general have to cope with in order to obtain all the necessary information that would shape his strategy? Why is intelligence a fundamental aspect of warfare in any period and what was its role in medieval Islamic and Christian armies?
Knowing as much as possible about your enemy is paramount for the successful outcome of a battle or even a war. Some fundamental questions include the state of the sovereign’s army, its numbers, armament and morale/loyalty, and how many (and which) officers can be found in each fortress and town in the border areas — obviously hinting at their battle worthiness and loyalty to the regime. Another crucial question is the state of the country’s economy, thus considering whether an invasion army can be logistically supported, if there are rich pickings to be had by an invasion or if there is any public feeling of discontent against the central government to be taken advantage of.
Intelligence on the enemy could be acquired in two ways: by reconnaissance (or tactical intelligence), where a commander openly sent scouts (either light infantry, cavalry or swift scouting ships) to observe the enemy army and collect information about its numbers, composition and the general’s intentions, or by espionage, where disguised or covert agents operated in secret in enemy territory collecting information about the enemy. I ask what do the primary sources tell us about intelligence in this period and, more specifically, how could information be passed on or procured in the interests of war? Chapter 6 follows with an investigation of the role of espionage in Byzantine foreign relations, and the official and unofficial channels that provided the Byzantines with the necessary information that shaped their foreign policy.
Chapters 7 and 8 of this study focus on the battlefield deployment of the Byzantine armies in the tenth century, and the changes and adaptations that took place according to the military manuals of the period. As the Byzantines encountered many enemies in different operational theatres of war during their long history, their numerous military treatises amply illustrate their willingness not only to produce works that describe in detail the fighting habits and customs of their enemies, but also to learn from them and adapt their methods of war to those of their opponents. With the study of war energetically renewed in tenth-century Byzantium, the number of important manuscripts and texts dating from this period also proliferated — there are six extant treatises on tactics that date from this century. It has always been a difficult problem for historians, however, to establish whether the theory of tactical change in the Byzantine army of the tenth century, as described by the contemporary military manuals, translated into practice on the battlefields of Cilicia and Syria.
The most useful primary sources for identifying these changes are the military treatises, such as the Praecepta Militaria (Military Precepts) of Nicephorus Phocas (c. 969) or the Sylloge Taktikorum (Collection of Tactics) by an anonymous author (c. 930), which among others provide crucial information on how armies should have been organised and deployed on the battlefield up to the period when they were compiled.
I discuss the recommendations of the authors of the treatises regarding the marching, battle formations, armament and battlefield tactics of the Byzantine cavalry units, and I ask whether they reflect any kind of innovation or tactical adaptation to the strategic situation in the East. This section is immediately followed by Chapters 9 and 10 that scrutinise the evidence of innovation and adaptation found in the contemporary historical sources in regard to the battles between the Byzantines and the Arabs in the East during the better part of the tenth century.
The objective of Chapter 9 is to examine the most detailed primary sources for the period of the Byzantine expansion in the tenth century. These include two Byzantine sources, namely Leo the Deacon and John Skylitzes, whose accounts of the Byzantine wars in the Balkans are considered the best and most detailed that modern historians have to hand, a local Syriac one, Yahya ibn Said al-Antaki from Antioch, and three Muslim, al-Mutanabbi, Abu Firas and Ibn Zafir, who provide us with invaluable information about the Byzantine—Arab conflicts of the 940s— 60s in Cilicia, Syria and northern Mesopotamia. I direct my attention to the chroniclers’ social, religious and educational backgrounds, the dates and places of the compilation of their works, their own sources and the ways they collected information from them, their biases and sympathies and, thus, the extent of their impartiality as historians. This section is followed by a comparative analysis of the aforementioned sources strictly from a military perspective, reaching significant conclusions regarding their value as ‘military historians’.
Finally, to determine whether theory translated into practice, in Chapter 10 I examine the largest and most important campaigns and pitched battles of this period: Hadath (954), Tarsus (965), Dorystolo (971), Alexandretta (971), Apamea (994) and Orontes (998), through the accounts of contemporary lay and ecclesiastical sources. In the process, I give answers to such questions as: How successful were the Byzantines at adapting to the changing military threats posed by their enemies in the East? How far can we see the Byzantines responding to the tactical and strategic threats of enemies in ways not anticipated by the manuals?
These questions give me the opportunity to discern the place of literacy in the Byzantine military command structure and the training of the officer class, and to reach some conclusions on the question of professionalism in the Byzantine army. This will be coupled with the whole idea of ‘adaptability’ to the new and innovative elements of warfare in the East, shedding light on the (military) culture, ideology and — once again — the level of professionalism in the imperial armies of the tenth century.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق