Byzantine army (Komnenian era)

Byzantine army
Leaders	Byzantine Emperor
Dates of operation	1081–1204 AD
Headquarters	Constantinople
Active regions	Asia Minor, Southern Italy, Balkans, Hungary, Syria, Egypt.
Part of	Byzantine Empire
Allies	Venice, Genoa, Danishmends, Georgia, Galicia, Vladimir-Suzdal, Kiev, Ancona, Hungary, Jerusalem, Tripoli, Antioch, Mosul.
Opponents	Venice, Hungary, Danishmends, Bulgaria, Seljuks, Antioch, Sicily, Armenian Cilicia, Fatimids, Ayyubids, Pechenegs, Cumans.
Battles and wars	Dyrrhachium, Levounion, Nicaea Philomelion, Beroia, Sirmium, Myriokephalon, Hyelion and Leimocheir, Cotyaeum, Constantinople (1203), Constantinople (1204)

The Komnenian Byzantine army or Komnenian army was the force established by Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos during the late eleventh/early twelfth century, and perfected by his successors John II Komnenos and Manuel I Komnenos during the 12th century. Alexios constructed a new army from the ground up, completely replacing previous forms of the Byzantine army. The Komnenian army was instrumental in the Komnenian restoration of the Byzantine empire during the period of its existence, and was deployed in the Balkans, Italy, Hungary, Anatolia, the Holy Land and Egypt.

Introduction

Emperor John II Komnenos, the most successful commander of the Komnenian army.

At the beginning of the Komnenian period in 1081, the Byzantine Empire had been reduced to the smallest territorial extent in its history. Surrounded by enemies, and financially ruined by a long period of civil war, the empire's prospects had looked grim. The state lay defenseless before, as the Byzantine army had been reduced to a shadow of its former self: during the 11th century, decades of peace and neglect had reduced the old thematic forces, and the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 had destroyed the professional tagmata, the core of the Byzantine army. At Manzikert, units tracing their lineage for centuries back to the Roman Empire were wiped out, and the subsequent loss of Asia Minor deprived the Empire of its main recruiting ground. In the Balkans, at the same time, the Empire was exposed to invasions by the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, and by Pecheneg raids across the Danube.

The Byzantine army's nadir was reached in 1091, when Alexios I could manage to field only 500 soldiers from the Empire's professional forces. These formed the nucleus of the army, with the addition of the armed retainers of Alexios' relatives and the nobles enrolled in the army and the substantial aid of a large force of allied Cumans, which won the Battle of Levounion against the Pechenegs (Petcheneks or Patzinaks). Yet, through a combination of skill, determination and years of campaigning, Alexios, John and Manuel Komnenos managed to restore the power of the Byzantine Empire by constructing a new army from scratch. This process should not, however, at least in its earlier phases, be seen as a planned exercise in military restructuring. In particular, Alexios I was often reduced to reacting to events rather than controlling them; the changes he made to the Byzantine army were largely done out of immediate necessity and were pragmatic in nature.

The new force had a core of units which were both professional and disciplined. It contained formidable guards units such as the Varangians, the Athanatoi, a unit of heavy cavalry stationed in Constantinople, the Vardariotai and the Archontopouloi, recruited by Alexios from the sons of dead Byzantine officers, foreign mercenary regiments, and also units of professional soldiers recruited from the provinces. These provincial troops included kataphraktoi cavalry from Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace, and various other provincial forces such as Trebizond Archers from the Black Sea coast of Anatolia. Alongside troops raised and paid for directly by the state the Komnenian army included the armed followers of members of the wider imperial family and its extensive connections. In this can be seen the beginnings of the feudalisation of the Byzantine military. The granting of pronoia holdings, where land, or more accurately rights to revenue from land, was held in return for military obligations, was beginning to become a notable element in the military infrastructure towards the end of the Komnenian period, though it became much more important subsequently.

In 1097, the Byzantine army numbered around 70,000 men altogether. By 1180 and the death of Manuel Komnenos, whose frequent campaigns had been on a grand scale, the army was probably considerably larger. During the reign of Alexios I, the field army numbered around 20,000 men which was increased to about 30,000 men in John II's reign. By the end of Manuel I's reign the Byzantine field army had risen to 40,000 men.

Structure

Command hierarchy and unit composition

Under the emperor, the commander-in-chief of the army was the megas domestikos (Grand Domestic). His second-in-command was the protostrator. The commander of the navy was the megas doux (Grand Duke), who was also the military commander for Crete, the Aegean Islands and the southern parts of mainland Greece. A commander entrusted with an independent field force or one of the major divisions of a large expeditionary army was termed a strategos (general). Individual provinces and the defensive forces they contained were governed by a doux (duke) or katepano (though this title was sometimes bestowed on the senior administrator below the doux), who was a military officer with civil authority; under the doux a fortified settlement or a fortress was commanded by an officer with the title kastrophylax (castle-warden). Lesser commanders, with the exception of some archaic titles, were known by the size of the unit they commanded, for example a tagmatarches commanded a tagma (regiment). The commander of the Varangians had a unique title, akolouthos (acolyte), indicative of his close personal attendance on the emperor.

During the Komnenian period the earlier names for the basic units of the Byzantine cavalry, bandon and moira, gradually disappear to be replaced by the allagion (ἀλλάγιον), believed to have been between 300 to 500 men strong. The allagion, commanded by an allagator, was probably divided into subunits of 100, 50 and 10 men. On campaign the allagia could be grouped together (usually in threes) into larger bodies called taxeis, syntaxeis, lochoi or tagmata. The infantry unit was the taxiarchia, a unit type first recorded under Nikephoros II Phokas; it was theoretically 1000 men strong, and was commanded by a taxiarches.

File:Kremlin Armoury 015.jpg

Steatite icon of St Demetrios as a cavalryman. The saint holds a spathion broadsword and is armoured in an epilorikion-covered klivanion with splint armour for the upper arms and scale kremasmata. Note the large shield, apparently slung across the shoulder. Byzantine, 11th to 14th Centuries

Guards units and the imperial household

Many of the earlier guard units did not survive the reign of Alexios I; the scholai, Immortals (athanatoi), and exkoubitoi are not mentioned in the reigns of his immediate successors. The notable exceptions to this process being the Varangians and vestiaritai, and probably the archontopouloi. The hetaireia (literally "companions"), commanded by the megas hetaireiarches, is still mentioned, though it was always more a collection of individual units under an administrative title than a regiment as such. In this period, the Varangian guard consisted of Englishmen, Russians, and Scandinavians, totaling 5,000 men. Immediately after the Battle of Dyrrhachium, Alexios I recruited 2,000 men to form the tagma of the archontopouloi. The Vardariots, a cavalry unit initially recruited from the Christianized Magyars of the Vardar valley, were a later addition to the guard and were probably raised by John II. They were commanded by an officer with the rank of primikerios. Of increasing importance during the Komnenian period was the oikeioi (οἰκείοι, "those of the household"); this was the emperor's household mobilized for war and was equivalent to the household knights of western kings. It would have consisted of the emperor's retinue, with his relatives and close associates accompanied by their immediate retinues, plus it probably also included the vestiaritai guards unit. It would have been equipped with the finest arms and armour and mounted on the highest quality war-horses available. Although not an entirely formal regiment it would have been a formidable fighting force, however, it would have been available only when the emperor took the field in person. Officers of the vestiaritai, were given the lofty court title of sebastos and two of their number, Andronikos Lampardas and Alexios Petraliphas, were prominent generals. Under Alexios I, and probably subsequently, the oikeioi also served as a sort of "staff college" for training promising young officers. Alexios took 300 young officers into his household, whom he trained personally. In the campaign against Bohemund in 1107-8 the best of these officers commanded the blockading forces keeping the Norman army pent up on the Albanian coast. The victorious outcome of this campaign probably resulted, in part, from the increased discipline the Byzantine forces showed due to the quality of their commanders.

Native regiments

In the course of the 11th century the units of part-time soldier-farmers belonging to the themata (military provinces) were largely replaced by smaller, full-time, provincial tagmata (regiments). The political and military anarchy of the later 11th century meant that it was solely the provincial tagmata of the southern Balkans which survived. These regiments, whose soldiers could be characterized as "native mercenaries," became an integral part of the central army and many field armies of the Komnenian period, the tagmata of Macedonia, Thrace and Thessaly being particularly notable. Though raised in particular provinces these regiments had long ceased to have any local defence role. As regions were reconquered and brought under greater control provincial forces were re-established, though initially they often only served to provide local garrisons. In the reign of Manuel II the historian Niketas Choniates mentions a division of a field army composed of "the eastern and western tagmata." This wording implies that regular regiments were once again being raised in Anatolia. Military settlers, often derived from defeated foes, also supplied soldiers; one such group of settlers, defeated Pechenegs, was settled in the Moglena district and provided a unit to the army; another was composed of Serbs who were settled around Nicomedia in Anatolia. Towards the end of the period pronoia revenue grants, from the income generated by parcels of land, allowed the provinces to be used to raise heavy cavalrymen with less immediate drain on the state treasury. The origins and organisation of the native infantry of the Byzantine army of this period are obscure. It is known that there was an official register of soldiers serving as infantry, but their geographical origins and unit names are not recorded. As the native cavalry were organised into regional units it is probable that the infantry had a similar organisation. It is possible that each native provincial tagma, such as that described in the sources as the "Macedonian Legion" or "Macedonian Division," included an infantry taxiarchia, or possibly more than one, alongside the better attested contingents of kataphraktos heavy cavalry.

Varangian Guardsmen, with prominently displayed Danish axes, arranged around a Byzantine palace. Note the sub-conical helmets of both composite and single-piece skull construction, with attached neck defences and the use of both round and kite-shaped shields

Foreign regiments and allied contingents

The central army (vasilika allagia or taxeis), in addition to the guards units and the native regiments raised from particular provinces, comprised a number of tagmata of foreign mercenaries. These included the latinikon, a heavy cavalry formation of Western European 'knights,' and members of families of western origin who had been in Byzantine employ for generations. Another unit was the tourkopouloi, which, as its name implies, was composed of Byzantinised Turks and mercenaries recruited from the Seljuk realms. A third was the skythikon recruited from the Turkic Pechenegs, Cumans and Uzes of the Ukrainian Steppes.

In order to increase the size of his army, Alexios I even recruited 3,000 Paulicians from Philippopolis and formed them into the "Tagma of the Manichaeans", while 7,000 Turks were also hired. Foreign mercenaries and the soldiers provided by imperial vassals (such as the Serbs and Antiochenes), serving under their own leaders, were another feature of the Byzantine army of the time. These troops would usually be placed under a Byzantine general as part of his command, to be brigaded with other troops of a similar fighting capability, or combined to create field forces of mixed type. However, if the foreign contingent were particularly large and its leader a powerful and prominent figure then it might remain separate; Baldwin of Antioch commanded a major division of the Byzantine army at the Battle of Myriokephalon. The Byzantines usually took care to mix ethnic groups within the formations making up a field army in order to minimize the risk of all the soldiers of a particular nationality changing sides or decamping to the rear during battle. During the early part of the 12th century, the Serbs were required to send 300 cavalry whenever the Byzantine emperor was campaigning in Asia Minor. This number was increased after Manuel I defeated the Serb rebellion in 1150 to 2,000 Serbs for European campaigns and 500 Serbs for Anatolian campaigns. Towards the end of the Komnenian period Alan soldiers, undoubtedly cavalry, became an important element in Byzantine armies.

The armed followers of the aristocracy

The semi-feudal forces raised by the dynatoi or provincial magnates were a useful addition to the Byzantine army. Some leading provincial families became very powerful; for example, the Gabras family of Trebizond achieved virtual independence of central authority at times during the 12th century. The wealthy and influential members of the regional aristocracy could raise substantial numbers of troops from their retainers, relatives and tenants. Their quality, however, would tend to be inferior to the professional troops of the vasilika allagia. The "personal guards" of aristocrats who were also generals in the Byzantine army are also notable in this period. These guards would have resembled smaller versions of the imperial oikeioi. The sebastokrator Isaac, brother of John II, even maintained his own unit of vestiaritai guards. The guard of the megas domestikos John Axoukh was large enough to put down an outbreak of rioting between Byzantine troops and allied Venetians during the siege of Corfu in 1149. Such units would have been composed of well-equipped, effective soldiers and would often have included kinsmen of the general.

Equipment: Arms and Armour

Steatite icon of St. Demetrios - Byzantine early 14th century (later than the Komnenian period, though showing a continuity of equipment). This icon shows the saint wearing an epilorikion quilted armour, presumably over a klivanion. The arm and skirt defences are shown of inverted lamellar or scale. The saint carries a spear and has a composite bow over his shoulder

Though Georgian and from the 11th century this icon of St. George shows the armour most often depicted on Byzantine heavy cavalrymen of the Komnenian period. Despite being superficially "Classical" in appearance the armour is in fact contemporary: a lamellar klivanion cuirass with tubular splint defences for the upper arms and the kremasmata, a splinted 'skirt,' to protect the hips and thighs; the boots are of a typical knee-length Byzantine type employed by cavalry.

The arms and armour of the Byzantine forces in the late 11th and 12th centuries were generally more sophisticated and varied than those found in contemporary Western Europe. Byzantium was open to military influences from the Muslim world and the Eurasian steppe, the latter being especially productive of military equipment innovation. The Komnenian period, despite almost constant warfare, is notable for the lack of military treatise writing, which seems to have petered out during the 11th century. So, unlike in earlier periods, there are no detailed descriptions of Byzantine tactics and military equipment. Information on military matters in the Komnenian era must be gleaned from passing comments in contemporary historical and biographical literature, court panegyrics and from pictorial evidence.

Arms

Close combat troops, infantry and cavalry, made use of a spear, of varying length, usually referred to as a kontarion. Specialist infantry called menavlatoi used a heavy-shafted weapon called the menavlion the precise nature of which is uncertain; they are mentioned in the earlier Sylloge Tacticorum but may still have been extant. Swords were of two types: the spathion which was straight and double edged and differed only in details of the hilt from the typical ‘sword of war’ found in Western Europe, and the paramerion which appears to have been a form of single-edged, perhaps slightly curved, sabre. Most Byzantine soldiers would have worn swords as secondary weapons, heavy cavalry are described (in slightly earlier writings) as being doubly equipped with both the spathion and paramerion. Some missile-armed skirmish infantry used relatively light axes as secondary weapons, whilst the Varangians were known as the “Axe Bearing Guard” because of their use of the double-handed Danish axe. The rhomphaia a long-bladed, cleaver-like, weapon was carried by guardsmen in close attendance on the emperor. Heavy cavalry made use of maces. Byzantine maces were given a variety of names including: mantzoukion, apelatikion and siderorabdion, suggesting that the weapons themselves were of varied construction.

Missile weapons included a javelin, riptarion, used by light infantry and powerful composite bows used by both infantry and cavalry. The earlier Byzantine bow was of Hunnic origin, but by the Komnenian period bows of Turkish form were in widespread use. Such bows could be used to fire short bolts (myai, "flies") with the use of an ‘arrow guide’ called the solenarion. Slings and staff-slings are also mentioned on occasion.

Shields

Shields, skoutaria, were usually of the long “kite” shape, though round shields are still shown in pictorial sources. Whatever their overall shape, all shields were strongly convex. A large pavise-like infantry shield may also have been used.

Body armour

The Byzantines made great use of ‘soft armour’ of quilted, padded textile construction identical to the “jack” or aketon found later in the Latin West. Such a garment, called the kavadion, usually reaching to just above the knees with elbow or full-length sleeves, was often the sole body protection for lighter troops, both infantry and cavalry. Alternatively the kavadion could provide the base garment (like an arming doublet) worn under metallic armour by more heavily protected troops. Another form of padded armour, the epilorikion, could be worn over a metal cuirass.

The repertoire of metal body armour included mail (lorikion alysidoton), scale (lorikion folidoton) and lamellar (klivanion). Both mail and scale armours were similar to equivalent armours found in Western Europe, a pull-on “shirt” reaching to the mid-thigh or knee with elbow length sleeves. The lamellar klivanion was a rather different type of garment. Byzantine lamellar, from pictorial evidence, possessed some unique features. It was made up of round-topped metal lamellae riveted, edge to edge, to horizontal leather backing bands; these bands were then laced together, overlapping vertically, by laces passing through holes in the lamellae. Modern reconstructions have shown this armour to be remarkably resistant to piercing and cutting weapons. Because of the expense of its manufacture this form of armour was probably largely confined to heavy cavalry and elite units.

Byzantine fresco of Joshua from the Hosios Loukas monastery, 12th to 13th century. A good view of the construction of the lamellar klivanion. The image also shows the tubular nature of the upper arm defences of the raised arm, that is the defences are not made up of separate strips (pteruges). Unusually, the Biblical figure (Joshua) is shown wearing headgear; the helmet and its attached neck and throat defences appear to be cloth-covered. It is possible that the figure depicts mail manikelia guards for the forearm (the forearms are not shown in the same green as the hem of the tunic and there is no appearance of folds as would be used to indicate cloth).

A 'Caucasian type' spangenhelm

The helmet of a Russian prince dating to the early 13th century - probably very indicative of the appearance of Byzantine helmets with a single-piece skull.

Because lamellar armour was inherently less flexible than other types of protection the klivanion was restricted to a cuirass covering the torso only. It did not have integral sleeves and reached only to the hips; it covered much the same body area as a bronze ‘muscle cuirass’ of antiquity. The klivanion was usually worn with other armour elements which would extend the area of the body protected. The klivanion could be worn over a mail shirt, as shown on some contemporary icons depicting military saints. More commonly the klivanion is depicted being worn with tubular upper arm defences of a splinted construction often with small pauldrons or ‘cops’ to protect the shoulders. In illustrated manuscripts, such as the Madrid Skylitzes, these defences are shown decorated with gold leaf in an identical manner to the klivanion indicating their metal construction. Less often depicted are rerebraces made of “inverted” lamellar.

A garment often shown worn with the klivanion was the kremasmata. This was a skirt, perhaps quilted or of pleated fabric, usually reinforced with metal splints similar to those found in the arm defences. Although the splinted construction is that most often shown in pictorial sources, there are indications that the kremasmata could also be constructed of mail, scale or inverted lamellar over a textile base. This garment protected the hips and thighs of the wearer.

Defences for the forearm are mentioned in earlier treatises, under the name cheiropsella or manikellia, but are not very evident in pictorial representations of the Komnenian period. Most images show knee-high boots as the only form of defence for the lower leg though a few images of military saints show tubular greaves (with no detailing indicating a composite construction). These would presumably be termed podopsella. Greaves of a splint construction also occur, very sporadically, in illustrated manuscripts. A single illustration, in the Psalter of Theodore of Caesarea dating to 1066, shows mail chausses being worn (with boots) by a Byzantine soldier.

Helmets

Icons of soldier-saints, often showing very detailed illustrations of body armour, usually depict their subjects bare-headed for devotional reasons and therefore give no information on helmets and other head protection. Illustrations in manuscripts tend to be relatively small and give a limited amount of detail. However, some description of the helmets in use by the Byzantines can be given. The so-called ‘Caucasian’ type of helmet in use in the Northern Pontic Steppe area and the Slavic areas of Eastern Europe is also indicated in Byzantium. This was a tall, pointed spangenhelm where the segments of the composite skull were riveted directly to one another and not to a frame. Illustrations also indicate conical helmets, and the related type with a forward deflected apex (the Phrygian cap style), of a single-piece skull construction, often with an added brow-band. Helmets with a more rounded shape are also illustrated, being of a composite construction and perhaps derived from the earlier 'ridge helmet' dating back to Late Roman times. An almost unique find of a helmet in Yasenovo in Bulgaria, dating to the 10th century, may represent another example of a distinctively Byzantine style. This helmet is horizontally divided: with a brow band constructed for the attachment of a pendant mail defence, above this is a deep lower skull section surmounted by an upper skull-piece raised from a single plate. The upper part of the helmet has a riveted iron crosspiece reinforcement.

In the course of the 12th century the brimmed ‘chapel de fer’ helmet begins to be depicted and is, perhaps, a Byzantine development.

Most Byzantine helmets are shown being worn with armour for the neck. Somewhat less frequently the defences also cover the throat and there are indications that full facial protection was occasionally afforded. The most often illustrated example of such armour is a sectioned skirt depending from the back and sides of the helmet; this may have been of quilted construction, leather strips or of metal splint reinforced fabric. Other depictions of helmets, especially the ‘Caucasian’ type, are shown with a mail aventail or camail attached to the brow-band (which is confirmed by actual examples from Russia and elsewhere).

Face protection is mentioned at least three times in the literature of the Komnenian period, and probably indicates face-covering mail, leaving only the eyes visible. This would accord with accounts of such protection in earlier military writings, and later illustrations. Such a complete camail could be raised off the face by hooking up the mail to studs on the brow of the helmet. However, the remains of metal ‘face-mask’ anthropomorphic visors were discovered at the site of the Great Palace of Constantinople in association with a coin of Manuel I Komnenos. These are similar to the visors found in grave sites associated with Kipchak Turks from the North Pontic Steppe, and could indicate that the references to face-protection in Byzantine literature describe the use of such solid visors.

Horse armour

There are no Byzantine pictorial sources depicting horse armour dating from the Komnenian period. The only description of horse armour in the Byzantine writing of this time is by Choniates and is a description of the front ranks of the cavalry of the Hungarian army at the Battle of Sirmium. However, earlier military treatises, such as that of Nikephoros Ouranos, mention horse armour being used and later, 14th century, Byzantine book illustrations show horse armour. It is therefore very likely that horse armour continued to be used by the Byzantines through the Komnenian era; though its use was probably limited to the very wealthiest of the provincial kataphraktoi, aristocrats serving in the army, members of some guards units and the imperial household. The historian John Birkenmeier has stated: "The Byzantines, like their Hungarian opponents, relied on mailed lancers astride armored horses for their first charge."

Equipment: Artillery

A counterweight trebuchet.

The Komnenian army had a formidable artillery arm which was particularly feared by its eastern enemies. Stone-firing and bolt-firing machines were used both for attacking enemy fortresses and fortified cities and for the defence of their Byzantine equivalents. In contemporary accounts the most conspicuous engines of war were stone-throwing trebuchets, often termed helepolis (city-takers); both the man-powered and the more powerful and accurate counterweight trebuchets were known to the Byzantines. The development of the trebuchet, the largest of which could batter down contemporary defensive walls, was attributed to the Byzantines by some western writers. Additionally, the Byzantines also used long range, anti-personnel, bolt firing machines such as the 'great crossbow,' which was often mounted on a mobile chassis, and the 'skein-bow' or 'espringal' which was a torsion device using twisted skeins of silk or sinew to power two bow-arms. The artillerists of the Byzantine army were accorded high status, being described as "illustrious men." The emperor John II and the generals Stephanos and Andronikos Kontostephanos, both leading commanders with the rank of megas doux, are recorded personally operating siege engines.

Troop types

The Byzantine Empire was a highly developed society with a long military history and could recruit soldiers from various peoples, both within and beyond its borders; as a result of these factors a wide variety of troop types were to be found in its army.

Infantry

With the notable exception of the Varangians, the Byzantine infantry of the Komnenian period are poorly described in the sources. The emperors and aristocracy, who form the primary subjects of contemporary historians, were associated with the high-status heavy cavalry and as a result the infantry received little mention.

Varangians

The Varangian Guard were the elite of the infantry. In the field they operated as heavy infantry, well armoured and protected by long shields, armed with spears and their distinctive two-handed Danish axes. Unlike other Byzantine heavy infantry their battlefield employment appears to have been essentially offensive in character. In both of the battles in which they are recorded as playing a prominent role they are described as making aggressive attacks. At Dyrrachion they defeated a Norman cavalry charge but then their counterattack was pushed too far and, finding themselves unsupported, they were broken. At Verroia the Varangians were more successful, with John II commanding them personally, they assaulted the Pecheneg wagon laager and cut their way into it, achieving a very complete victory. It is likely, given their elite status and their constant attendance on the emperor, that the Varangians were mounted on the march though they usually fought on foot.

Native heavy infantry

Heavy infantry are almost invisible in the contemporary sources. In the Macedonian period a heavy infantryman was described as a skoutatos (shieldbearer) or hoplites. These terms are not mentioned in 12th century sources; Choniates used the terms kontophoros and lonchephoros (spearbearer/spearman). Choniates' usage was, however, literary and may not accurately represent contemporary technical terminology. Byzantine heavy infantry were armed with a long spear (kontos or kontarion) and large shields, and were given as much armour as was available. Those in the front rank, at least, might be expected to have metal armour, perhaps even a klivanion. The role of such infantrymen, drawn up in serried ranks, was largely defensive. They constituted a bulwark which could resist enemy heavy cavalry charges, and formed a movable battlefield base from which the cavalry and other more mobile troops could mount attacks, and behind which they could rally.

Peltasts

The type of infantryman called a peltast (peltastes) is far more heavily referenced in contemporary sources than the “spearman”. Although the peltasts of Antiquity were light skirmish infantry armed with javelins, it would be unsafe to assume that the troops given this name in the Komnenian period were identical in function; indeed, Byzantine peltasts were sometimes described as “assault troops”. Komnenian peltasts appear to have been relatively lightly equipped soldiers capable of great battlefield mobility, who could skirmish but who were equally capable of close combat. Their arms may have included a shorter version of the kontarion spear than that employed by the heavy infantry. At Dyrrachion, for example, a large force of peltasts achieved the feat of driving off Norman cavalry. Peltasts were sometimes employed in a mutually supportive association with heavy cavalry.

Light infantry

The true skirmish infantry, usually entirely unarmoured, of the Byzantine army were the psiloi. This term included foot archers, javelineers and slingers, though archers were sometimes differentiated from the others in descriptions. The psiloi were clearly regarded as being quite separate from the peltasts. Such troops usually carried a small buckler for protection and would have had an auxiliary weapon, a sword or light axe, for use in a close combat situation. These missile troops could be deployed in open battle behind the protective ranks of the heavy infantry. The light troops were especially effective when deployed in ambush, as at the Battle of Hyelion and Leimocheir in 1177.

Cavalry

The earlier Byzantine heavy cavalryman, who combined the use of a bow with a lance for close combat, seems to have disappeared before the Komnenian age. The typical heavy cavalryman of the Komnenian army was a dedicated lancer, though armoured horse-archers continued to be employed.

Heavy cavalry

The heavy cavalry were the social and military elite of the whole army and were considered to be the pre-eminent battle winners. The charge of the lancers, and the subsequent melee, was often the decisive event in battle. The lance-armed heavy cavalry of the Komnenian army were of two origins, firstly ‘Latin knights’ from Italy, France, The Low Countries,Germany and the Crusader States, and secondly native kataphraktoi. The Latins’ equipment and tactics were identical to those of their regions of origin; though the appearance of such troops must have become progressively more Byzantine the longer they were in Byzantine employ. Some Latin soldiers became thoroughly integrated into Byzantine society and their descendants, such as the general Alexios Petraliphas and the naval commander Constantine Frangopoulos (“son-of-a-Frank”), remained in military employ.

Mace-wielding Byzantine cavalry in pursuit - Skylitzes Chronicle

The native kataphraktoi were to be found within the imperial oikeioi and some guards units, and in the provincial tagmata. The level of military effectiveness, especially the quality of the armour and mount, of the individual kataphraktos probably varied considerably, as both John II and Manuel I are recorded as employing formations of “picked lancers” who were taken from their parent units and combined. This approach may have been adopted in order to re-create the concentration of very effective heavy cavalry represented by the ‘imperial tagmata’ of former times. The kataphraktoi were the most heavily armoured type of Byzantine soldier and a wealthy kataphraktos could be very well armoured indeed. The Alexiad relates that when the emperor Alexios was simultaneously thrust at from both flanks by lance wielding Norman knights his armour was so effective that he suffered no serious injury. In the reign of Alexios I the Byzantine kataphraktoi proved to be unable to withstand the charge of Norman knights, and Alexios, in his later campaigns, was forced to use stratagems which were aimed at avoiding the exposure of his heavy cavalry to such a charge. Contemporary Byzantine armour was probably more effective than that of Western Europe therefore reasons other than a deficit in armour protection must be sought for the poor performance of the Byzantine cavalry. It is probable that the Byzantine heavy cavalry traditionally made charges at relatively slow speed, certainly the deep wedge formations described in Nikephoros Phokas’ day would have been impossible to deploy at anything faster than a round trot. In the course of the late 11th century the Normans, and other Westerners, seem to have evolved a disciplined charge at high speed which developed great impetus, and it is this which outclassed the Byzantines. The role of the couched lance technique in this process is obscure but may have had some impact. Also there is evidence of a relative lack of quality warhorses in the Byzantine cavalry. The Byzantines may have suffered considerable disruption to access to Cappadocia and Northern Syria, traditional sources of good quality cavalry mounts, in the wake of the fall of Anatolia to the Turks. However, by the reign of Manuel I the Byzantine kataphraktos was the equal of his Western counterpart. Although Manuel was credited by the historian Kinnamos with introducing Latin 'knightly' equipment and techniques to his native cavalry, it is likely that the process was far more gradual and began in the reign of Alexios. Manuel’s enthusiastic adoption of the western pastime of jousting probably had beneficial effects on the proficiency of his heavy cavalry. The kataphraktos was famed for his use of a fearsome iron mace in melee combat.

Light cavalry

The light cavalry of the Komnenian army consisted of horse-archers. There were two distinct forms of horse-archer: the lightly equipped skirmisher and the heavier, often armoured, bow-armed cavalryman who shot from disciplined ranks. The native Byzantine horse-archer was of the latter type. They shot arrows by command from, often static, ranks and offered a mobile concentration of missile fire on the battlefield. The native horse-archer had declined in numbers and importance by the Komnenian period, being largely replaced by soldiers of foreign origins. Turks from the Seljuk and Danishmend realms of central and eastern Anatolia, and those Byzantinised Turks settled within the empire, such as the Vardariots, supplied the bulk of the heavy horse-archers of the Komnenian army. Towards the end of the period Alans were also supplying this type of cavalry. Such horse archers were often highly disciplined. The Byzantine horse-archers (termed doryphoroi – indicating guard status) at Sozopolis in 1120 performed a feigned flight manoeuvre, always demanding the greatest self-confidence and discipline, which led to the taking of the city from the Turks. Given that they were usually armoured, even if it was comparatively light armour, this type of horse-archer also had the capability to fight with melee weapons in close combat. Skirmish horse-archers, usually unarmoured, were supplied by the Turkic Pechenegs, Cumans and Uzes of the steppes. These troops were ideal scouts and were adept at harassment tactics. They usually attacked as a swarm and were very difficult for a more heavily equipped enemy to bring into close combat. Light horse-archers were also effective as a screening force, preventing an enemy discerning the dispositions of other troops (for example at the Battle of Sirmium).

Development

Under John II, a Macedonian division was maintained, and new native Byzantine troops were recruited from the provinces. As Byzantine Asia Minor began to prosper under John and Manuel, more soldiers were raised from the Asiatic provinces of Neokastra, Paphlagonia and even Seleucia (in the south east). Soldiers were also drawn from defeated peoples, such as the Pechenegs (cavalry archers), and the Serbs, who were used as settlers stationed at Nicomedia. Native troops were organised into regular units and stationed in both the Asian and European provinces. Komnenian armies were also often reinforced by allied contingents from Antioch, Serbia and Hungary, yet even so they generally consisted of about two-thirds Byzantine troops to one-third foreigners. Units of archers, infantry and cavalry were grouped together so as to provide combined arms support to each other.

The emperor Manuel I was heavily influenced by Westerners (both of his empresses were 'Franks') and at the beginning of his reign he is reported to have re-equipped and retrained his native Byzantine heavy cavalry along Western lines. It is inferred that Manuel introduced the couched lance technique, the close order charge and increased the use of heavier armour. Manuel personally took part in 'knightly' tournaments in the Western fashion; his considerable prowess impressed Western observers.

Permanent military camps were established in the Balkans and in Anatolia, these are first described during the reign of John II. The main Anatolian camp was at Lopadion on the Rhyndakos River near the Sea of Marmora, the European equivalent was at Kypsella in Thrace, others were at Sofia (Serdica) and at Pelagonia, west of Thessalonica. Manuel I rebuilt Dorylaion on the Anatolian plateau to serve the same function for his Myriokephalon campaign of 1175-76. These great military camps seem to have been an innovation of the Komnenian emperors and may have played an important role in the improvement in the effectiveness of the Byzantine forces seen in the period. The camps were used for the training of troops and for the preparation of armies for the rigours of campaign; they also functioned as supply depots, transit stations for the movement of troops and concentration points for field armies.

Legacy

The Byzantine empire c.1180, at the death of Manuel I.

When the Komnenian dynasty came to an end in 1185, the Komnenian army did not immediately disappear. However, under the Angeloi, the Byzantine empire declined rapidly, and the result was a diminution of the fighting power of the army. When Constantinople fell to the Fourth Crusade in 1204, the Byzantine successor states established at Epirus, Trebizond and especially Nicaea based their military systems on the Komnenian army. The success of the empire of Nicaea in particular in reconquering former Byzantine territories (including Constantinople) after 1204 may be seen as evidence of the strengths of the Komnenian army model. However, there is reason to restrict the term Komnenian army solely to the period of the rule of the Komnenian emperors; the Byzantine army after the recovery of Constantinople in 1261 was sufficiently distinct from its earlier form to deserve a separate identity as the Palaiologan army.

The Byzantine Empire enjoyed a major economic and cultural renaissance during the 12th century, the Komnenian army played a crucial part in providing the political and territorial stabilty which allowed this cultural flowering.

Notable generals

Under Alexios I:

• Manuel Boutoumites
• Nikephoros Bryennios
• Nikephoros Melissenos
• George Palaiologos
• Tatikios

Under John II:

• John Axoukh

Under Manuel I:

• Alexios Axouch
• John Doukas
• Isaac Komnenos
• Andronikos Kontostephanos
• John Kontostephanos
• Andronikos Lampardas
• Michael Palaiologos
• John Vatatzes

Under Andronikos I:

• Alexios Branas

Bibliography

Primary sources

• Choniates, Niketas (1984). O City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniates. transl. by H. Magoulias. Detroit. ISBN 0-814-31764-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Kinammos, Ioannes (John Cinnamus), Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, trans. Charles M. Brand. Columbia University Press, 1976.
• Komnene (Comnena), Anna (1969). "XLVIII-The First Crusade". The Alexiad of Anna Comnena translated by Edgar Robert Ashton Sewter. Penguin Classics. ISBN 0-14-044215-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Secondary sources

• Angold, Michael (1984). The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204. Longman, Harlow Essex.
• Birkenmeier, John W. (2002). The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081-1180. Brill. ISBN 9004117105.
• Brand, Charles M., The Turkish Element in Byzantium, Eleventh-Twelfth Centuries, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 43, (1989), pp. 1–25.
• Dawson, Timothy (2007). Byzantine Infantryman. Eastern Roman Empire c.900-1204. Osprey. ISBN 9781846031052.
• Haldon, John F. (1999). Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world, 565-1204. Routledge. ISBN 1857284941.
• Haldon, John F (2000). The Byzantine wars. Tempus. ISBN 0752417959.
• Harris, Jonathan (2006). Byzantium and The Crusades. Hambledon & London. ISBN 978-1852855017.
• Heath, Ian (1995). Byzantine Armies: AD 1118-1461. Osprey. ISBN 978-1855323476. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Magdalino, Paul (2002). The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521526531.
• Nicolle, David (1996). Medieval Warfare Source Book Vol. II. Arms and Armour. ISBN 1860198619.
• Treadgold, Warren (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804726302.

External links

Reconstructions of Byzantine armour and weapons: http://livinghistory.co.uk/homepages/Levantia_light/militarycontents.html