*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 02:06:47 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1686661
  • Total Topics: 118119
  • Online Today: 815
  • Online Ever: 2235
  • (October 29, 2023, 12:32:45 AM)
Users Online

Recent

Author Topic: History Question: When do late Imperial Romans become Early Byzantines?  (Read 4293 times)

Offline Atheling

  • Elder God
  • Posts: 11906
    • Just Add Water Wargaming Blog
What amazes me is how little we know about these old, Eastern empires, in the US.  We barely mention Byzantium, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and so on.  This si probably not a surprise to anyone else, though.

I'd argue that, for wargaming and miniature-painting purposes, we consider "Byzantine", "Eastern Roman", "Greek-Roman", and "late-Roman" all the same.

For actual historical purposes, this thread is fantastic, please keep posting, folks!!!

Although most history lessons at school were focused upon British history, mainly social history (heavily emphasised in the Late 70's/early 80's), we did look at the Ottoman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. I remember it well as I up until those lessons was not aware there had been an Eastern Roman Empire!  lol The sheer size of the Ottoman Empire was astonishing to me. Funny what you remember :)

Offline pallard

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 184
From a wargaming point of view maybe we should consider ancient representations. For my own needs the most important documents are two Egyptian wood carvings showing actual eastern soldiers. The shields are identical as far as we can see: the one attributed to the Legio Quinta Macedonica in the Notitia Dignitatum, which was actually in Egypt after leaving Dacia and the Danube region. 
The first document is dated from the fifth century, and is now in Berlin ( see page 48 of Osprey Warrior late Roman Infantryman). It shows a column releaving a besieged city from mounted raiders that Phil Barker once designated as Blemmyes. They are either in mail shirt or muscled cuirass, with a crested "ridge" helmet, like many late Roman figures have.
The second document, now in Trier, is dated from the sixth century. It shows another group of marching soldiers, infantry and cavalry, guarding some mounted personality who is making a hand signal. Maybe he is a high-ranking official, or maybe some kind of bishop ( the religious conflicts inside the Church or related to Nubian paganism or Arabian Jews could be linked to the scene). You can see it page 56 of the same Osprey book. The troops are very identical: so-called Attic helmet, with a crest only for the cavalryman, scale armour, and the Quintani shield once again.
In both cases, nobody has pants of any kind: troops are all bare-legged and wearing high boots. The Egyptian desert oblige.
Now, at least for the Legion Quinta Macedonica, we have reliable information to select miniatures for the first two centuries of the Eastern Roman Empire as a separate entity.
I am very attracted to the Aventine range and I just ordered more of these beautiful figures. However I was disappointed not to see any true eastern dressed troops from these documents. I keep with mine, from older lines, with no pants (today every late Roman miniature has pants unfortunately). All are in subarmalis.
But I'll introduce front-liners ( propugnatores or prostates ) using Byz 27 Standing early Byzantine infantry in heavy armour, although the helmet and pants will not match. An alternative could be the guards references, with actual bare legs and boots, but a little too much presentarmish for me.
Other references are ideal for the Danubian front or the Italian, or North African, Justinian campaigns.
Philippe

Offline Atheling

  • Elder God
  • Posts: 11906
    • Just Add Water Wargaming Blog
Percel:
I take it you have seen these from Aventine:

« Last Edit: July 29, 2020, 05:59:16 PM by Atheling »

Offline Griefbringer

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 273
Thanks everyone for some thoughtful and thought provoking answers.  In regards to my intent, I perhaps should have been more specific. Since this is a miniatures group, I was hoping to get a better understanding of how me would determine which figures to use for which period.

So essentially, you are interested in the visual changes in the military from the late antiquity onwards (say 400-600 AD). I think this issue can be approached at various levels.

1.) Individual infantryman or cavalryman: I do not claim great expertise on this subject, but my understanding is that the change on the individual appearance would be quite gradual, and that there would be no great differences between 5th and 6th century units.

2.) Unit level: probably the most noticeable single difference would be the replacement of the Roman style standards with large, more modern-style flags during 6th century. Cavalry armament in the 6th century started to become a combination of bows and spears, where as previously the Roman cavalry had been mainly armed with spears - many of the opponents that Romans/Byzantines faced in the east also contained horse archers, which may have provided some influence.

3.) Army level: there are two main aspects to consider, the ratio between infantry and cavalry, and the presence of "barbarians" in the military. Classical Roman armies had been dominated by infantry, with the cavalry as a supporting arm, though towards the late antiquity the amount of cavalry gradually increased. In the 6th century, cavalry became the dominant arm in field armies, with the infantry declining in quality and quantity in field armies until the reforms of late 6th century would again improve the status of heavy infantry. As regards barbarians, they had become a major presence of Roman field armies in the 5th century, and this trend continues to the 6th century, with Byzantine armies including units of barbarian allies and mercenaries. Reforms towards the end of the 6th century aimed at integrating the barbarian elements to become a part of the regular army.


As regards figures marketed as Byzantines, my understanding is that the main interest of miniature manufacturers and wargamers has traditionally been in the Byzantine Empire at the peak of its military prowess circa 750-1050 AD, often known as Thematic Byzantines, with much less interest in the earlier or later Byzantines.

Offline pallard

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 184
Thanks Atheling. I recon that I have made a mistake in my order :'(
I intend to duplicate my force to the other terrains of operation, so not a great issue.
Hoping not to bother anyone in going into detail, I would like to ask your and others' opinion about the subject of dual armament for the 6th and mostly seventh century prostates. The Strategicon mentions both bow and spear. They put the spear down when shouting, then take it back when the enemy closes.
Nice but what about the cumbersome large shields?
We have a possible clue in Procopius, describing a 50 infantrymen force placed on high ground to face repeted gothic cavalry charges. Now 50 men corresponds to three full lochagiai of sixteen men plus two officers, maybe a centenarius and a standard bearer? But they may also have been made up of the five sub-officers of ten lochagiai, for these would have been the best armed. Anyway, Procopius details their fighting mode:
in the front ranks (s) are the pure spearmen, heavy ones, and directly behind are archers in mail.
Now some of these move in open order in the front, put down their sword says Procopius, not their spear, and fire very effectively at the Goths.
Some of these archers then take back their sword and fight heroïc duels, therefore with probably at least medium sized shields, with some of the disorganised foe.
Two are named individually by the author, so that must have been an uncommon behaviour.
So I would say that one line of heavy infantrymen with spear and large shield backed by one line of archers in mail ( all available with Aventine) would simulate these troops quite well. They could be backed by more lightly equiped javelinmen. But did you have other informations about it?
Philippe

Offline Atheling

  • Elder God
  • Posts: 11906
    • Just Add Water Wargaming Blog
Hi Phillipe,

Thanks Atheling. I recon that I have made a mistake in my order :'(
I intend to duplicate my force to the other terrains of operation, so not a great issue.
Hoping not to bother anyone in going into detail, I would like to ask your and others' opinion about the subject of dual armament for the 6th and mostly seventh century prostates. The Strategicon mentions both bow and spear. They put the spear down when shouting, then take it back when the enemy closes.

This would be my instinctual view too. They are indeed mentioned as being bow and spear armed. I suppose that a shield technically could be slung on the back when mounted and using a bow. Same with a lance as illustrated from art contemporary to the time period.

I think that the thing to really take into consideration is who Maurice's armies were fighting. Mainly the Bulgars, Avars and Slavs who generally didn't stand in formation and wait for melee. Obviously I'm no scholar when it comes to the Eastern roman Military but the conception of multiple arms does at least on the surface be probable.

Unfortunately, today, I don't have time to check any sources.


Offline Andreas Johansson

  • Assistant
  • Posts: 33
There are a number of lines of "Justinianic" or "Belisarian Byzantines" out there; I don't offhand recall seeing figures for that period marketed as "Roman".

So miniatures manufacturers appear to think the Roman/Byzantine cutoff is somewhere around AD 500. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is in agreement with the WRG army lists, which have the switch between "Patrician Roman" and "Early Byzantine" in AD 493.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 08:44:47 AM by Andreas Johansson »

Offline Atheling

  • Elder God
  • Posts: 11906
    • Just Add Water Wargaming Blog
There are a number of lines of "Justinianic" or "Belisarian Byzantines" out there; I don't offhand recall seeing figures for that period marketed as "Roman".

So miniatures manufacturers appear to think the Roman/Byzantine cutoff is somewhere around AD 500. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is in agreement with the WRG army lists, which have the switch between "Patrician Roman" and "Early Byzantine" in AD 493.

They were written a long time ago.

I don't think there is any clear cut off point, nether militarily or culturally. Change is gradual, most of the time. :)

Offline Andreas Johansson

  • Assistant
  • Posts: 33
They were written a long time ago.

I don't think there is any clear cut off point, nether militarily or culturally. Change is gradual, most of the time. :)
I do believe you misunderstand me. I wasn't speaking of when the (East) Roman Empire became Byzantine, or if any such thing ever happened, I was speaking of how miniatures manufacturers tend to label their products. If you find a range labelled as "Late Roman" it's probably meant for the fourth or fifth century, if as "Early Byzantine" probably the sixth. This is perhaps not the best terminology, but it's the de facto standard among manufacturers.

As for the WRG lists being old, that's part of why they're influential. Plenty of manufacturers across the decades have been influenced by them when decided what figures to make and what to call them.

Offline HappyChappy439

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1043
I do believe you misunderstand me. I wasn't speaking of when the (East) Roman Empire became Byzantine, or if any such thing ever happened, I was speaking of how miniatures manufacturers tend to label their products. If you find a range labelled as "Late Roman" it's probably meant for the fourth or fifth century, if as "Early Byzantine" probably the sixth. This is perhaps not the best terminology, but it's the de facto standard among manufacturers.

As far as I can tell, sometimes late Romans are marketed under an "Arthurian" label, but I'm not sure whether the figures in those ranges necessarily work as stand-ins outside of a Romano-British setting, or if they'd be appropriate for the Danube, and the Middle East!

My understanding on the miniature manufacturing periods they tend to be grouped under:
  • "Arthurian" Romans (for the 4th and 5th centuries)
  • Belisarian Byzantines (6th century, around the time ol' Belisarius was knocking around)
  • Thematic Byzantines (a more vague bunch from the 8th century to the 11th century)

In terms of a historiography perspective, as others have said, it's pretty vague (and often slightly arbitrary!), personally I agree with OB here in the thread, and put the demarcation line between ERE -> Byzantine Empire to after the 7th century, when the language is definitively Greek, and the territory is more regionally focused....but again, it's a pretty arbitrary choice!

Offline Atheling

  • Elder God
  • Posts: 11906
    • Just Add Water Wargaming Blog
I do believe you misunderstand me. I wasn't speaking of when the (East) Roman Empire became Byzantine, or if any such thing ever happened, I was speaking of how miniatures manufacturers tend to label their products. If you find a range labelled as "Late Roman" it's probably meant for the fourth or fifth century, if as "Early Byzantine" probably the sixth. This is perhaps not the best terminology, but it's the de facto standard among manufacturers.

Right, Got you. I understand. I think I was thrown buy the original question and your response.

As for the WRG lists being old, that's part of why they're influential. Plenty of manufacturers across the decades have been influenced by them when decided what figures to make and what to call them.

True. The WRG lists have been influential with the caveat that research into uniformology, armours and weaponry etc moves on too. :)

Offline SteveBurt

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1283
Re: History Question: When do late Imperial Romans become Early Byzantines?
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2020, 08:33:39 AM »
Right, Got you. I understand. I think I was thrown buy the original question and your response.

True. The WRG lists have been influential with the caveat that research into uniformology, armours and weaponry etc moves on too. :)
But so do the lists. The DBM lists incorporated much new research compared to the 7th lists, and the DBMM lists also benefited from up to date info from the likes of Duncan Head

Offline Atheling

  • Elder God
  • Posts: 11906
    • Just Add Water Wargaming Blog
Re: History Question: When do late Imperial Romans become Early Byzantines?
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2020, 09:34:27 AM »
But so do the lists. The DBM lists incorporated much new research compared to the 7th lists, and the DBMM lists also benefited from up to date info from the likes of Duncan Head

With all due respect to Duncan Head, who deserves the praise he receives, he isn't alone on the research front for Ancient and Medieval Armies. Off the top of my head take Tobais Capwell, John Feench, Peter Abbot, Chris Peers, John Haldon, Colonel Mike Snook..... OK, different periods of interest but my point is that research is not a singular pursuit, in an academic sense. Is research not made better by peer review ie updating?

I think we're kind of veering away from the original mark of the thread so that is last I will say in this regard :)

Offline Zopenco

  • Assistant
  • Posts: 22
Re: History Question: When do late Imperial Romans become Early Byzantines?
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2020, 08:17:31 AM »
I haven't got sources at hand, but I remember reading that the term "Byzantine Empire" was coined in modern times.

Byzantium was razed to the ground in a Roman Civil war and when rebuilt years later nobody used its old name anymore. It was called Constantinople, New Rome, or just "The City". Their inhabitants called themselves Romans.

Offline Andreas Johansson

  • Assistant
  • Posts: 33
Re: History Question: When do late Imperial Romans become Early Byzantines?
« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2020, 10:28:38 AM »
I haven't got sources at hand, but I remember reading that the term "Byzantine Empire" was coined in modern times.
Acc'd WP, the term was first used in the sixteenth century, and didn't become generally adopted until the nineteenth. Certainly it was never used by the Byzantines themselves.

(Unlike some, though, I don't think this is itself a good reason to avoid the term. They're far from the only ancient people or state for which we use a term they wouldn't have used themselves, and our chief aim should be to be understood by fellow moderns.)

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
5992 Views
Last post November 12, 2012, 10:41:31 AM
by Tellus
15 Replies
5633 Views
Last post January 01, 2014, 04:18:06 PM
by jamesmanto
3 Replies
2077 Views
Last post February 18, 2014, 08:29:41 AM
by former user
4 Replies
2327 Views
Last post September 08, 2014, 01:12:49 PM
by krimso
14 Replies
5690 Views
Last post January 04, 2015, 11:57:47 AM
by archiduque