Byzantine question

[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.

[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.

[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.