Byzantine question

[Leet Eriksson]

I got this from a book i read about the Arab conquests, a warrior by the name of al Qa'qaa noticed a pecular formation formed by the byzantines during yarmouk he called Faranji(note: not franji or foriegner).

Long story short, it sounded exactly like a phalanx, so help me clear this out, where these faranji the skutatoi? or some other unit?

[edyzmedieval]

Faisal, this is indeed something worth reflecting.

First of all, in the 7th century, Heraclius had Romano-Byzantine armies so the phalanx could be out of the discussion. First Skoutatoi units appeared in the 8-9 centuries, as medium equipped spearmen, able to move fast and reinforce the threatened lines. Slowly, their role improved, becoming the backbone of the Byzantine armies in the 10th,11th and 12th centuries.

Faranji sounds very similar to Varangian but this is definitely out of the discussion, as Varangians appeared in the 10th century.

Another thing, which I consider interesting, is the colourfulness of the Byzantine army. Faranji is a sort of a dialect in Africa, and Byzantines definitely had africans in their army, as they still controled Egypt. But, it might be only my imagination.

As to sum up everything, it's very weird. I never encountered this before.

[Leet Eriksson]

He was pretty vague with the equipment though, they carried long shields, and spears, and were armoured. He said they were the best trained foot soldiers they encountered in yarmouk.

There must be something similiar to that during the 6th-7th centuries

[Prince Cobra]

He was pretty vague with the equipment though, they carried long shields, and spears, and were armoured. He said they were the best trained foot soldiers they encountered in yarmouk.

There must be something similiar to that during the 6th-7th centuries

Not sure but it's possible to be some kind of the stratiots ( the peasants recruited for the army from the themes). Heracles was the first emperor to use the themes and the stratiots. Stratiots were not professional soldiers and buld of the bys armies with huge numbers. But at that time maybe theu were not so much .But I'm not sure at all.

[Kralizec]

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html#laterarmy3

The more heavily armed footsoldier, the so-called scutatus wore a pointed steel helmet and a mail shirt. Some of them may have also worn gauntlets and greaves to protect the hands and shins. The scutatus carried with him a large round shield, a lance, a sword and an axe with a blade at one side and a spike at the other. The shield and the colour of the the tuft on the helmet were of all the same colour for each war band.
Once more, just as with the cavalry, we most imagine the Byzantine infantry as a body varying largely in its equipment from each soldier to the other.

Some issues with the term "phalanx":

Originally it means something like "battle line". The archaic hoplite phalanx was really just a dense body of heavily armed spearmen, and very good spearmen at that.
So pretty much you can call any stretched, dense line of spearmen a phalanx but the term is better reserved for the archaic or Macedonian phalanx to avoid confusion. But the application of a dense body of spearmen with large shields is certainly not uniqe to the ancient Hellenes.

[The Wizard]

Indeed. A classic phalanx, as exercized by the hoplites of the Greek poleis, was nothing but a well-ordered and -drilled shield wall. As such this may be exactly what al-Qa'qaa is implying: a dense formation of men with interlocking shields in defensive position.

[Rosacrux redux]

Indeed. A classic phalanx, as exercized by the hoplites of the Greek poleis, was nothing but a well-ordered and -drilled shield wall. As such this may be exactly what al-Qa'qaa is implying: a dense formation of men with interlocking shields in defensive position.

Although modern historians tend to apply the term phalanx only to the hellenic phalanxes (be it hoplites or sarissa-bearers) the Byzantines post 7th century talk about "spearmen phalanx" themselves. The word in Greeks means just "array" and as such it was used by the Byzantines. Of course for convenience sake, anything post 1st century BC is called nowadays "shield wall" or "spear wall", rather than "phalanx" - truth is, it's basically the same thing. I've read the term "phalanx" in regards to the swiss pikemen too...

[Kralizec]

That's interesting. Do you know if it was a conscious throwback, inspired by the works of historians?

[edyzmedieval]

Excuse me, but Skoutatoi are after Heraclius' period.

Normal phalanx, as we know it, it's definitely out of the period. The spearmen Heraclius' used were a sort of Roman Lanciarii with modified equipment, and trained differently, because they were the backbone of the army.

Rosacrux, Swiss Pikemen really formed a modern phalanx, trusting their pikes just like a phalanx, and on their flanks, they had musketeers to guard them.

A shield wall is totally different from a phalanx. A phalanx is a mass of 6m spears or iron Sarissa and men, gathered tight, to attack and defend at the same time. A shield wall is a complex "wall" of spears, which is much vulnerable than the phalanx, but much more mobile.

[Watchman]

I've seen the word "phalanx" used to describe everything from the shieldwall spearmen of ancient Sumer, Egypt and sundry through the Greek hoplites and Hellenic pikemen to Dark Ages spearmen and eventually the Medieval pikemen. In short, close-order heavy infantry with some sort of spear as the primary weapon, although curiously enough neither the Japanese de facto pikemen of the Sengoku Jidai period nor various spear-toting Chinese and Korean infantry never seem to attract the label. Personally I'd make a point of always defining whether the term is used to describe the "international standard" of spearmen with shields or the rarer pike phalanx, but obviously a fair few authors/translators/whatever don't seem to think likewise which at times leads to some confusion.

[Kralizec]

A shield wall is totally different from a phalanx. A phalanx is a mass of 6m spears or iron Sarissa and men, gathered tight, to attack and defend at the same time. A shield wall is a complex "wall" of spears, which is much vulnerable than the phalanx, but much more mobile.

The classical hoplite phalanx used spears of around 2-2.5 metres in lenght as a longer spear would not be managable single handed. Their argive shields, more generall known as hoplons, formed a wall of shields with the spears sticking out from above.
For other shield wall troops the equipment differed of course (armour and of course the shield), but the general idea is the same. Maybe other shield walls were better used in defense (the hoplite phalanx was definitely an offensive formation), but other then that I don't see any principal differences.

Excuse me, but Skoutatoi are after Heraclius' period.

Hmm, then that poses an interesting question: what were they?
Are you sure that the Skoutatoi were developed after his death, or just after his (wildly succesful) campaigns against Persia? After settling peace with the Persians most of the veteran troops were disbanded. Spearmen are relatively easy to train, maybe once the Arabs attacked they started training lots of infantry wich would later evolve into the Skoutatoi...

[Watchman]

I'm pretty sure the by that time still rather large Byzantine Empire could scratch together a force of decent armoured shieldwall spearmen from somewhere within or beyond its borders, especially since promising foreign mercenaries could if necessary be issued armour from Imperial arsenals. It's not like that sort of soldier was particularly rare or anything.

[matteus the inbred]

Hmm, then that poses an interesting question: what were they?

I'm referring here to a wargaming army list based entirely on primary sources (so, mainly the Strategikon and sources up to Anna Comnena)...the skoutatoi seem to have evolved from what sounds almost like late legionaries:
'...with big shields, short spears, swords and sometimes weighted lead darts...nominal depth for skoutatoi was 16 ranks, Book 12 Chapter 7 of the Strategikon makes it plain that the normal combat depth was eight ranks when resisting cavalry and four when attacking...'

They would apparently fix spear butts and fight overhead with spears when defending and throw spears and then charge with swords when attacking, again, quite 'legionary' in style, rather than phalanx-like. After the Heraclean/Maurikian period, relying on the Taktika of Leon VI, skoutatoi '...were now armed with 14ft pikes and normally formed 16 ranks deep, with front ranks [armoured]...'. They were supported by archers.
By the Nikephorian period, moving into the middle ages, skoutatoi seem to have been more lightly armoured still, with shields and long pikes, and now seem to be deployed in mixed formations with archers, as the Byzantine infantry began to switch to self-supported archers.
By the Konstantinian period in the 11th century, the skoutatoi were now called kontaratoi (although they don't seem to have changed role or armament). Anna Comnena seems to consider them to be poorly equipped spearmen. They now seem to have been deployed separately from the archers, who co-operated more closely with the cavalry. In later lists after Manzikert they seem to have died out. So there you have it...I think they started out as close combat troops with an anti-cavalry emphasis and ended up supporting the archers.

Back to the original query, I can find no mention of 'Faranji' anywhere as a troop type. If this refers to 'foreign' (ie, non-Greek troops) it could be many units as the Byzantines increasingly used mercs and odd foreign troops. I appreciate the point that it's different from 'Franj', or Franks (usually called Latinikon by Greek writers). So if it does refer to a formation, I think it probably is the skoutatoi.

[Kralizec]

Interesting...I thought Byzantine troops never used pikes.

[matteus the inbred]

Interesting...I thought Byzantine troops never used pikes.

Well, so did I! It's possible that these were simply long spears (yes, I know that pretty much defines a pike, but it's more a question of how they were used!). The first couple of ranks apparently were meant to fix the spearbutts into the ground when on the defensive, but phalanx tactics or 'push of pike' are not mentioned.
It could be that this detail comes from visual sources that exaggerate or misrepresent, but I think it's from written sources. It sounds more similar in my mind to the 15th century Italian condottieri civic/militia troops who used a couple of ranks of pikemen with pavises to support archers or crossbows.

[Leet Eriksson]

I think, take it with a grain of salt though, that faranji could have been the arabic term of phalanx or phalange.

He named the unit based on the formation however. It could have a different name in greek/byzantine terms.

[L'Impresario]

I think, take it with a grain of salt though, that faranji could have been the arabic term of phalanx or phalange.

That's the first thing that crossed my mind. After all I haven't read many historiographical works that use consistently "unit names" for the bulk of an army, but rather general descriptors and overall formations. And a phalanx is a quite general formation.

[matteus the inbred]

Surprisingly the Wikipedia page on Byzantine battle tactics is quite extensive and references all the same primary sources. It's possible that al Qa'Qaa was even referring to a Byzantine infantry attack in wedge formation. Further cross references on the subject of phalanxes bring up references to the skoutatoi using it, or something very like it. That's good enough for me.

Some evidence from these references also suggests that Imperial Roman legionaries could and did use phalanx tactics in the eastern theatres of war, so I think it's likely a continuation or innovation of the tactic rather than an invention.
Presumably the Greek term remained the same, or they used the term for a wedge, whatever that might be (since their cataphracts also usually fought in wedge formation), as the Byzantine Empire was Hellenized in language terms by Heraclius.

[L'Impresario]

Phalanx is a very general term as I've already said. Depends on the context as well. Anna Comnena uses it about 60 times in "The Alexiad" and remember that it was written in the 12th century, so not that many "skutatoi" around.

BTW, when referring to a wedge, the classical term for a narrow front attacking formation is "keras" (κέρας), which literally means horn.

[matteus the inbred]

Phalanx is a very general term as I've already said. Depends on the context as well. Anna Comnena uses it about 60 times in "The Alexiad" and remember that it was written in the 12th century, so not that many "skutatoi" around.

Yes, a good point. I recall from doing Crusades history that Anna Comnena had a habit of 'archaizing' sometimes in her work, ie. using archaic and out-of-date terms for things, and also romanticizing on occasion.

[edyzmedieval]

The classical hoplite phalanx used spears of around 2-2.5 metres in length

My bad, that's 6 feet.

Hmm, then that poses an interesting question: what were they?
Are you sure that the Skoutatoi were developed after his death, or just after his (wildly succesful) campaigns against Persia? After settling peace with the Persians most of the veteran troops were disbanded. Spearmen are relatively easy to train, maybe once the Arabs attacked they started training lots of infantry wich would later evolve into the Skoutatoi...

Skoutatoi were developed after his death, evolving from normal spearmen infantry, to backbone army soldiers in the time of Basil II Bulgaroctonus and Alexius I Komnen.

What I'm saying is the fact that Skoutatoi weren't the Skoutatoi we all know, they were still Roman-Greek spearmen, armed like Roman Lanciarii. Heraclius slowly transformed the army into one big Greek army, but he ONLY STARTED THE HELLENIZING PROCESS.

[Kralizec]

Surprisingly the Wikipedia page on Byzantine battle tactics is quite extensive and references all the same primary sources. It's possible that al Qa'Qaa was even referring to a Byzantine infantry attack in wedge formation. Further cross references on the subject of phalanxes bring up references to the skoutatoi using it, or something very like it. That's good enough for me.

Some evidence from these references also suggests that Imperial Roman legionaries could and did use phalanx tactics in the eastern theatres of war, so I think it's likely a continuation or innovation of the tactic rather than an invention.
Presumably the Greek term remained the same, or they used the term for a wedge, whatever that might be (since their cataphracts also usually fought in wedge formation), as the Byzantine Empire was Hellenized in language terms by Heraclius.

I don't think we can speak of continuity between late imperial legionaries and the skutatoi that later evolved. The Eastern empire went heavy on cavalry after the battle of Adrianopolis and the infantry that they kept became fewer and lighter. By the time of Heraklious almost all Byzantine infantry would have been archers.

My best guess is that when the Arabs started nibbling away Byzantine possesions, they raised a host of spearmen ad hoc, maybe with a touch of inspiration of earlier Roman or Hellenic infantry, but that these were not called skutatoi- Romans, including the Byzantines seem to have had a conservative attitude when it comes to military terminology, so such a name would not come into existence overnight. Compare the Roman hastati, who did not use the hasta spear- the terminology probably stems from the classification a specific segment of the population had when Rome was still employing hoplites.

[Watchman]

I once read the manipular front-line guys first carried a javelin called something like hasta lancea (fairly literally "throwing spear", if my very poor Latin skillz are even close to the truth), as different from the larger close-combat hasta used by the heavier troops. The name apparently stuck around to cause some confusion later on when the only folks with something called hasta were the triarii...

Apparently the Byzantines (who seem to have had a habit of recycling old words, probably because they thought those were prestigious or something) also happily called about three different types of siege engine helopolis over some three or four centuries. Go fig.

[matteus the inbred]

I don't think we can speak of continuity between late imperial legionaries and the skutatoi that later evolved.

No, I think you're absolutely right, I don't think there's any evidence that direct or conscious continuity was involved. They were equipped to deal with different enemies I think. Probably more a case of institutional memory resulting in a recycling of terminology, as Watchman says.

[Rosacrux redux]

Scutatoi or Scutarii the Byzantines called all the basic infantrymen armed with the Scuton (hellenized form of the Roman Scutum), the typical oval shield we see all around in the Byzantine world.

So, no, they did not appear after Heraclius. They have been mentioned in sources from the 5th to the 11th century, either as Scutatoi or as Scutarioi (basically meaning the same thing). The difference of the post 7th century Scutatoi with their predecessors is the length of the spear. Apparently, in the early 7th century the Scutatoi reequiped with a much longer spear, up to 3,5 meteres long (they had a variety of weapons previously, even darts - martzibaboula - and their spear was not longer than 2 meters, and in many occassions they didn't even have a spear!), the Skuton "grew" considerably and the Skutatoi of the era looked more than Greek hoplites/phalangites than anything else.

But I have to insist: the ancient Greek phalanx (hoplite or macedonian) is just a shield wall/pike wall respectively, with some unique qualities, not something completely different altogether.

[edyzmedieval]

I don't think we can speak of continuity between late imperial legionaries and the skutatoi that later evolved

There's only a small continuity(if it can be called like that). Byzantine armies evolved from Roman Lanciarii to the Skoutatoi we know.

It's a matter of time and technological progress.

[ArnoldLol]

Not sure but it's possible to be some kind of the stratiots ( the peasants recruited for the army from the themes). Heracles was the first emperor to use the themes and the stratiots. Stratiots were not professional soldiers and buld of the bys armies with huge numbers. But at that time maybe theu were not so much .But I'm not sure at all.

stradiots were mounted units from the balkan weren they

[matteus the inbred]

stradiots were mounted units from the balkan weren they

yes, Albanian refugee cavalry taken into Venetian service after 1468 were called stradiots, elite light skirmishing cavalry.

I think what Stephen Asen was talking about was the Stratiotai, native Byzantine cavalry (often reservists) holding grants of land rents and called up for service whenever necessary. They probably would have fought in fairly deep formations early in the medieval period, but seem to have increasingly relied on skirmishing.

[Seleukos]

Stratiotai is the greek word used to describe ,both the native Byzantine medium cavalry of the late period,and the Greek,Albanian and Dalmatian light/medium cavalry used mainly by Venice.(stradioti in italian translation)

Its reasonable for someone to think,that there was a connection between them,so after the collapse of Byzantine Moreas-Peloponesos in 1460,they continue to exist,serving the Venetians,or acting sometimes by themselves
(as during the local revolution in 1480,in Mani)

Another explanation would be ,that the word was used for different units.Its interesting that the exact word :"Stratiotis-es" ,means "soldier" in modern Greek-a very common word,used for every type of fighter.

[Kraxis]

Heh... Revival... We are pretty good at that here in the Monastery.

I once read the manipular front-line guys first carried a javelin called something like hasta lancea (fairly literally "throwing spear", if my very poor Latin skillz are even close to the truth), as different from the larger close-combat hasta used by the heavier troops. The name apparently stuck around to cause some confusion later on when the only folks with something called hasta were the triarii...

Yup, that is basically what went down.
The Hastati were only guys to carry throwing spears (there is some debate wether they were truly javelins or some special heavy javelin, or even an early version of the pilum). And their primary combatrole was to cause shock. A hefty volley of javelins and a swordcharge to send the enemy into confusion and hopefully rout. But they were not meant to fight protracted battles, that was the job of the primary troops, the Principes. So while the primary troops had a spear to fight with it would make better sense to call them by their battlefield function. The first troops into combat would then be open to be called by their primary weapon, which would also give a short description of their battlefield function, just like the Principes. So it was logical at the time.
But just like we still call certain formations of armour, cavalry, advances in technology and tactics changed the troops but the names were easier to keep, and even at the time of Caesar (don't know about later periods) the three lines were still called Hastati Principes and Triarii despite being armed similarly.

So it is very much possible that what we have here is an outdated name for a 'modern' unit.
But of course I personally lean towards the author not really knowing what we wrote about and generally formed somethign that would fit historical texts. That wasn't too uncommon a few hundred years previously.