Petr Shuvalov

"SUMMARY
The Secret of Justinian’s Army:
The Eastern Roman Army in 491—641 A.D.
by Petr V. Shuvalov
The introductory chapter («The Puzzle of Justinian’s Re-Conquest») is devoted to explaining why under the emperor Justinian (527—565) the Roman army could re-conquer for a while all what had been lost by the Empire for the preceding one hundred years. This matter is really worthy of explanation because during just two decades of the re-conquest (533—552) Justinian restored control over the same territories that had formerly been seized by the Roman Republic after two centuries of extremely hard fighting — from the First Samnite war through the Third Punic war (343—146 B.C.).
The chapters «The Age of Changes» and «The Heritage of the Tetrarchs: the Later Roman Administration and the Army» provide a brief survey of the position of the Empire and the condition of its army as well by the early 6th century. The most terrible defeat of the Later Roman troops by the barbarian peoples took place on August 9, 379 near the city of Adrianople (in Thrace), when the emperor Valens’ army was smashed by the Goths and their allies. Its chief reasons were not only Valens’ own strategic errors, but also the tactical advantage of the Gothic and Alanic cavalry over the Roman mounted force.
The disaster at Adrianople had to make the deepest impression upon the military elite of the Empire and so to lead to a revision of the entire imperial war doctrine. Somewhat later already, the military theoretician Vegetius wrote that the Roman cavalry of his days is organized per sample of the Goths and Alans. To all appearances, after 378 the Romans actively began to adopt the barbarian experiences of conducting a mobile battle with the use of large masses of cavalry, some armed with lances like the Goths and Alans, others — with bows like the Huns. In the text of the later military treatise, «Strategikon» by Pseudo-Maurice, there is the description of equestrian exercises, which rather date from a period of around the 4th — 5th centuries. There are references to five kinds of training, viz. «Scythian», «Alanic», «African», «Illyrian» and «Italic». The origins of the first two exercises seem to go back to the events of the late 4th century. Nevertheless, in spite of these reforms, the Romans lacked their own well-trained light-armed cavalry, as not so many Roman cavalrymen could be compared to the nomads, spending all the life on horseback, in the art of horse-riding and bow-shooting. And so, since 394 up to 439, under the outstanding Roman generals such as Stilicho, Aetius and others in the composition of the Roman army there were mounted troops composed by Hun mercenaries, who repeatedly demonstrated their high martial skills. In the former half of the 5th century, the Roman army would have increased, at last, a role of cavalry; however, in the 470s we can observe again the previous army structure in the Balkans. The catastrophic defeats and failures that occurred in the late 4th and in the mid-5th centuries certainly forced the conservative Roman military elite to revise the obsolete principles of waging war. Nevertheless, this revision process went so slowly that the infantry remained as the main army force until the end of the 5th century. Just the reforms of the next century changed such a situation at last! Since then, the role of infantry became auxiliary only, whereas the main place in the army composition began to belong to cavalry.
In the following chapter («The Barbarians and Barbarian Innovations: auxilia, numeri, foederati, buccellarii») the author joins the opinions expressed by D. Hoffman (1969), R. Schulz (1993); R. Scharf (2001), E. P. Glušanin (1991), M. Speidel (1994), O. Schmitt (1994), J. Haldon (1984), as well as refutes the schemes put forward by F. Aussaress (1909). In particular, he states that the foederati as a kind of armed force must have appeared no earlier than during the reign of Theodosius I (379–395), who organized two or three tens of such new units numbering 10,000—15,000 soldiers in total and consisting mostly of Goths by birth. Indeed in the 6th century, there were normally 10—13 tagmata composed of foederati in the imperial service.
The chapters to go next («Just Before the Spurt (474—518): the Isaurian Zeno and the Reformer Anastasius», «In Chase of the Past Grandeur: the Conqueror Justinian», «Between the Shahanshah and the Kaghan: Tiberius’ Strictness, Maurice’s Economy and Phocas’ Nearsightedness», and «To Deal with the Armenians According to the Avar Scheme: Heraclius as a Warrior and Politician» are devoted to considering both the events at the fronts and the changes in the army administration.
The crisis situation in the Eastern Roman army is reflected by the noted treatise «Strategikon» usually attributed to the emperor Maurice (582—602). However, the best of the surviving manuscripts points at Urbicius as its author. He may have been the same person as Urbicius, the Eastern Roman general in the rank of the magister militum per Orientem, nicknamed Barbatus («Bearded Man»), who acted at the court of the emperor Anastasius (491—518). The text of this treatise is multilayer, and it obviously contains fragments of earlier writings. The oldest layer is a collection of fragments from several treatises dedicated to warfare matters. Close to them is the anonymous treatise «De militari scientia» (or the «Byzantine anonymous»). The main enemies for Urbicius (see the chapter «Perception of the Enemy: Neighbours of the Empire») are the peoples well known to him as good horsemen or even as exceptionally horsemen (nomads). Such are first of all the Hunno-Bulghars («Scythians», but not the Avars!), then the Persians and finally the Germanic peoples («Blond-haired»). As it may be observed from the text of the «Strategikon», Urbicius was very solicitous about how not to cede these foes in the art of fast maneuvering mounted warfare at a distance, with the use of the bow. It is difficult to say for sure when and in which volume within Anastasius’ reign so timely a reform was put into practice in the imperial forces.
Further military reforms were realized in the age of Justinian, perhaps following his cousin Germanus’ initiative. Their traces can be seen in both the Pseudo-Maurice’s treatise and the works of Procopius of Caesarea. The reforms included a scheme of the army array envisaging individual mobile tactical units (the so-called cursores-defensores and plagiophylakes-hyperkerastai), as well as a two- or three-line battle order. It seems quite possible that an idea to detach the cursores and defensores came to the Latin-language milieu of the Roman army from the Alans and the Moors. On the other hand, the two- or three-line battle order with the plagiophylakes and hyperkerastai is rather a study innovation that appeared, judging by the Greek denominations of these units, in the midst of the high nobility of the Eastern Roman Empire; at the same time, this novelty may have been worked out by analogy with some achievements in the Western Mediterranean, in Italy.
In scholarly literature (Mazzucchini, 1981) there is the opinion that such a tactical scheme to be seen in «Strategikon» has no support in other sources. Indeed, the contemporary writings do not contain any of the terms in question. However, the fact is that the author of the «Strategikon» is a very cautious person frequently warning his readers against any broad spread of the available information about the tactical schemes and methods of the imperial army. Therefore, it is not surprising at all that one cannot find in any other texts direct references to all of the tactical details which are in Pseudo-Maurice’s work. Nevertheless, between Procopius’ lines we can discern some traces of these reforms, especially if we carefully examine the structure of a regiment and its armament (see the chapter «A Regiment as it is on Parchment and in Reality: its Nominal Structure, Composition and Armed Elements»), as well as plans of the main battles (see the chapter «The Army on Battle-Field: the Famous Battles in the Age of Justinian»).
The present author shares the conclusion made long ago by the noted Hungarian researcher E. Darkó that the final version of Pseudo-Maurice’s treatise, although it had taken the form close to the modern one in 592—610 already, was composed in the reign of the emperor Heraclius (610—641). It is then that the reforms in the making of a new, universal, cavalry after the Avar model were completed.
"

In general outline, F. Curta’s conception can be reduced to the following. In the second half of the sixth century in barbarian communities situated on the left bank of the Lower Danube the processes of social stratification developed very intensively that brought to the rise of military leaders — big-men. The new system of values was formed around them. Among those who would be lately called «Slavs» especial significance was acquired by the markers of social status, namely silver female fibulae and other elements of female dress of the certain style. Women become «symbolic vehicles for the construction of social identity» (P. 309). It was that symbolic style and social competition that formed Slavic «Sñlavinias».
Thus, political and social development was going on in parallel with ethnogenesis. It means that the mixed population was concentrated around centers of power, which «metaphorically cited» (imitated and copied) the prestige centers of their more powerful neighbors. Those, whom Byzantine authors have named «Slavs» were formed in Carpathian and Lower Danube Region under the influence of their neighbors, and did not migrate there from the north: «Archaeological culture do not migrate», Curta argues (P. 307). It is known, meanwhile, that migration is an extremely complicated problem in archaeology that cannot be described by one phrase (see Lev S. Klejn’s detailed analysis of the problem). The idea of the «self-generation» of the Slavs in the Danube and Carpathian region and the negation of their migration can be considered to be the heart of Curta’s conception and his main contribution to studies on the models of Slavic ethnogenesis. To Curta, instead of the Slavs themselves their language spread as lingua franca (P. 345) (however, there is not clear — from where?). But even the language has not played the important role in Slavic ethnogenesis: as Curta argues, «Slavs did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because they were called so by others», i.e. by the Byzantines (P. 346). The Slavs arisen in such a strange, almost magic, way were for some time the neighbors of the Empire, being partially under the authority of the Avar qagan, and limited their external activity to plundering raids on the Balkans. Slavs did not break the Byzantine limes on the Danube, but they also did not infiltrated peacefully through the system of forts. They came on the Balkans after the limes had been already destructed. In Curta’s opinion, «“Sclavenes” was an umbrella-term for various groups living beyond the fron- tier» (P. 118). «What all this suggests, in my opinion, is that the name “Sclavene” was a purely Byzantine construct, designed to make sense of a complicated configuration of ethnies on the other side of the northern frontier of the Empire» (P. 118–119). «In its most strictly defined sense, however, the “Sclavene ethnicity” is a Byzantine invention» (P. 119). However, Curta’s statement contradicts directly the well-known passage from Theophylact Simocatta, where it is described, how three barbarians-ambassadors met by the emperor Maurice’s men near Tzurullum in c. 591, on the emperor’s question of what was their nation and where they lived, answered, that they were Sclavenes by nation and that they lived at the boundary of the western Ocean.
Only one thing remains unclear from Curta’s book: HOW could the Byzantines invent the Slavs? What was the mechanism of influence of this Constantinople armchair invention on the population of such a distant frontier region?

Рассказ Корнелия Непота о неких «индах», потерпевших кораблекрушение у берегов Германии (восстанавливаемый на основе сравнения текстов Плиния и Мелы и реконструкции изначального текста) позволяет утверждать следующее. Где-то на балтийском побережье, на восток от Германии (на восток от Вислы?), находилась зона расселения некой группы венедов, которые оттуда иногда плавали по делам коммерции. Возможно, некоторые галльские венеты доплывали до балтийских венедов. Язык балтийских венедов, вполне возможно, достаточно сильно отличался от языка/ов кельтов Цизальпийской Галлии и от языка германцев. Скорее всего, германцы не делали большого различия между венедами Балтики и венетами Галлии.
Cornelius Nepos story about some “Indi”, shipwrecked on the coast of Germany (restored on the basis of the comparison of texts by Plinius and Mela) suggests the following. Somewhere on the Baltic coast to the east of Germany (to the east of the Vistula river?) there was a zone of settlement of a group of Venedae, who sailed sometimes for commerce therefrom. Perhaps some Gallic Veneti used to come to the shore of the Baltic Venedae. Language of the Baltic Venedae, quite possibly, was different from the language/s of the Celts in Cisalpine Gaul and from the Germanic language. Most likely, the Germans did not make much difference between the Baltic Venedae and Veneti from Gaul.
Keywords: Baltics, Venedae, Veneti, Indi, Pomponius Mela, Plinius Maior, Cornelius Nepos, Ariovist.

This article deals with the evolution of the terms Scythia and Scythians in the geographical and rhetorical milieu. The article consists of two chapters: (1) Scythia and Sarmatia in imperial Latin and Greek literature of the 1st – 2nd centuries and (2) Scythians in late classic Greek literature of the 3rd – 7th centuries. The syntactical relations between toponyms and ethnonyms in the main geographical texts of the 1st chapter are illustrated with special schemes called syntaxogramms: Strabo (fig. 2–3), Pomponius Mela (fig. 4), Plinius the Elder (fig. 5) and Ptolemy. This method of graphical representation of the geographical text allows us to see more precisely the spatial limits of possible location on the map of each people described in this text. In the 2nd chapter there are investigated different peoples named Scythians – classical Scythians, Goths, Huns, Avars and Turcs. The contextual and quantitative (table 1) analysis of the Greek terms Scythia and Scythians shows that this term was changing the denotated objects many times during the period of Late Antiquity. This allows us to propose the following scheme of the development of the term's meaning: from the time of Dexippos the word Scythians was used to denote the Goths and other barbarians from the northern Pontic region. This model was changed by with Priscus when the new barbarians – i. e. the Huns – not only had come to Scythia but also made there a new empire. Priscus had designated the Huns with the name Scythians, but after the death of Attila and the destruction of Hunnic empire this name slowly disappears from the historical discourse. The new revival of the term Scythians takes place in the works of the historians dealing with the Avars and Turks.

Скардильи, П. Готы: язык и культура / перев. с нем. А.Д.Сыщикова; науч. ред. перев. Г.А.Баева, П.В.Шувалов. СПб.: Филологический факультет СПбГУ; Нестор-История, 2012. 388 стр. (Перевод книги: Scardigli, P. Die Goten: Sprache und Kultur. München: Beck, 1973.)

After U. Kraft’s publication (2012), it is impossible to solve the problem of the origins of the stirrups without taking into account the linguistic material, which not only sheds light on the areas uncovered by material sources (for example, the sup- posed spreading of the strap loops aspandak/στρόφος from Iran to the west of Europe), but also allows more detailed con- sideration of the process and mechanisms of the spread of stirrup-like devices and the stirrups themselves. Sometimes we can relate the archaeological types and variants to the corresponding concepts of ancient societies reflected in the preserved lexics: e. g., the early nomadic stirrups are in correspondance to the image of the ring-shaped object dörüge. Especially inter- esting are the cases of discontinuity in the spread of innovation, expressed in the interruption of the genetic line, either in the sphere of the language only (B2: the East-Roman “scala” -> the early Lombard stirrup “staffa”; C1: Chinese footstep 鐙 “deng” -> Xianbei stirrup “dörüge”), or in the sphere of both language and material culture (C2: the Ogur stirrup “*jüŋeŋgü” -> the East-Roman stirrup “scala”).

The paper presents the reconstruction of the coin circulation based on the investigation of the representative coin hoards of copper coins – folles and half- folles – from main regions of early Byzantine Empire (Balkans, Danube, Aegaeis and western Asia Minor, as well as Syria and Palestine), minted in the mints of Propontis and Antiochia from AD 498 till 610. At the beginning of this work the hoards were formally classificated according to their structure with the help of the histograms coins-per-year (mon./an). Then the periods of the presence/ absence of the chronological groups of the coins in the finds were invented, e.g. four periods of Maurice: m1, m2, m3, m4. The histogram of each hoard is based on these periods and calculated using the index coins-per-year-of-the-period (mon./ an.per.). The typology of the hoards is based on the seriation of the histograms of the hoards, the types are named according to the more representative finds. In those cases, when we do possess the data about the weight of the coins, it is also taken into the consideration. The model of the development of the circulation is proposed. The role of each hoard type in the circulation is discussed: whether the hoard reflects the circulation or consists of the coins being taken out from it. As a result there is proposed the relative chronology of the types. In some cases the correction of the absolute date of some hoard types is proposed, e.g. type PRA (hoards like Prakhovo, Rafaḥ, Ryakhovets) should be dated to the late years of Justin II, reign of Tiberius and first years of Maurice. Finally a reconstruction of the duration of circulation of main chronological groups of the coins of the mints of Propontis was proposed.

The article deals with issues concerned with a borderline area between archaeology and numismatics. Special attention is paid to the stratigraphic position of the monetary complex and the formation of its structure with reference to various conditions of mone­tary circulation and taphonomy.
Unfortunately is English translation of the title in the printed version not correct. The correct one would be "Coins between Archaeology and Numismatics", what is the exact translation of the Russian title (Monety meždu arheologiej i numizmatikoj).

The article tells that the selection criteria for assemblages of bronze coins of big value were determined, for some of the assemblages, by the societal concepts about worth of the coins produced in a certain, relatively short – three-ten years period. Though each of the periods had its own scale of relation of value of the coin to its weight, the scales were strictly related to each other. In other words, there was a certain general scheme of relations between the value of the coin and its weight, period and place of coinage. All the definitions of the coins, except of Thessalonican coinage before 562, are given in this article according to MIB I, II. A rapidly emerged structure of monetary circulation is related to the same.

The training of the cavalrymen called Scythian in the 6th book of Ps.-Maurice’s Strategikon consists in the circular movement of the cavalrymen, “when ... the right wing is outside, and the left inside”. The main purpose of this movement of cavalrymen is “to enclose an appropri- ate space” where the supposed enemy stands. But quite strange is the fact that the cavalrymen ride around the enemy in a clockwise direction: in this type of encirclement, the riders will turn to the enemy their right side not protected by the shield. There is a parallel locus in the 3rd book which is a condensed summary of the ‘Scythian’ chapter. There is another similar text in the 12th book, but this time with tactically correct movement of the cavalry, which is counter-clockwise. At the end of the description of this manoeuvre it is written that this ma- noeuvre is in use among the Scythians. To explain this following construction is proposed: the ‘Scythian’ chapter was first copied to XII D (Phase 1); at that time, perhaps, was the text of the ‘Scythian’ chapter with the yet tactically-correct movement of the cavalry; words ἐσώτερον — ἐξώτερον were changed by their places as a result of the mental error of the copyist (Phase 2a); words τουτέστιν ... διῃρημένα and καὶ οὐκέτι ... διαιρεῖν were added perhaps as marginalia (Phase 2b); the newly revised text of the ‘Scythian’ chapter became source for III. 5 (Phase 3).

The scheme of the hyperkerastai of `Strategikon' has support in Procopius' text (de- scriptions of the battles of Dara and Scalae Veteres). The passages of `Strategikon', where the hyperkerastai are described, the author supposes to be written by one redactor, who is designated as Hyper. The 2nd book of `Strategikon' was summarized in VIIB.16–17. Dur- ing this work some leafs were torn out and removed to new places, probably by the author of the chapters 16 and 17. He begins the chapter 16 with the epitome of the text II.3, which is a part of the interpolation, done by Hyper. It may be supposed, that the author of the VIIB.16–17 was the redactor Hyper who is identical with Germanus.

One can distinguish three layers in the text of the “Slavic” chapter of the Strategikon (Mauricius XI.4): (1) very specific big passages which could be seen as citations from some text (Sclav-1) about customs of the Slavs and about how to plun- der them, (2) passages written by some redactor with many words borrowed from the “Persian” and/or “Scythian” and/or even “Germanic” chapters of the same book (Mauricius XI.1—3) with the same order of main items, (3) some specific word groups or small passages written by the same redactor (Sclav-2), who borrowed words from the first three chapters. The Sclav-2 worked before the next redactor (Abar), who added to the text of 11th book passages on Avars and connected themes, but after the extension of the original text of chapters 1—3 (Pers/Scyth/Xanth) by the redactor Harm/Mach, who preferred to use words μάχη and ἁρμόζειν. Sclav-2 was not familiar with Theophylaktos Simokatta’s chapters dealing with the wars with the Slavs. These three text layers show us three somewhat different images of the Slavs.

The textological comparison of the Strategicon of Pseudo-Maurice with the anonymus Muelleri (de militari scientia) shows three places, where the difference between two texts is to be explaned with the help of the following hypothesis. The scribes of both texts were using the same uncial Vorlage, where the length of the lines was 19, 20 and 21 letters.

"Keys: European Sarmatia, Ptolemy, maps, Old Roman Cursive, Slavs, Karelians, Estonians, Tarandgräberkultur

According to the European Sarmatia, Ptolemy had almost no information about the ratio of peoples with rivers. Reconstructed map has clear zone of the "loose coupling" between the names: a map is divided into the Baltic and the Black Sea areas. There were three different maps: map of peoples along the way near or along the Vistula and the coast of the Gulf of Venedae (map "Vistula-Baltic" as part of the map "Germany-Baltic"), a map of the peoples of the South Sarmatia, Dacia and the Carpathian Mountains to Rhipaean (map " Carpathians-Rhipaeoi") and the map "mountains-rivers-settlements" from Vistula to Maeotis, which may already have contain information on the coordinates. At the very least, the northern part of the third map used by Ptolemy, was written by the Old Roman Cursive. This hypothesis may help to identify two peoples: Stavanoi and Kareotai. Indeed, judging by the plates from Vindolanda, one of two common forms of the Latin letter L, namely the so-called "Short" form could easily be confused with the letter T. The form *careolae can be compared with the Karelians – one of the eastern branch of the Baltic-Finnish population. This "Karelian" hypothesis can be correlated with the "Tarand" hypothesis, which states that "Karbones" ('coals'), geographically related, according to Ptolemy, with Kareotai are to be designated to the people or culture of the cemeteries with stone fences (Tarandgräberkultur) – common ancestors of Livonians, Estonians and Finns.

Ключ.: Европейская Сарматия, Птолемей, карты, староримский курсив, славяне, карелы, эсты, таранды


По Европейской Сарматии Птолемей почти не имел сведений о соотношении народов с реками. Реконструируемая по тексту карта явно имеет зоны “слабой связанности” названий между собой: карта разделяется на балтийскую и причерноморскую зоны. За этим стоят три разных карты: карта народов вдоль пути рядом или вдоль Вистулы и побережья Венедского залива (карта “Висла–Балтика” как часть карты “Германия-Балтика”), карта народов юга Сарматии от Дакии и Карпат до Рипейских гор (карта “Карпаты–Рипеи”) и карта “горы-реки-поселения” от Вистулы до Меотиды, возможно, уже содержавшая сведения о координатных привязках. По крайней мере, северная часть третьей карты, использовавшейся Птолемеем, была написана староримским курсивом. Эта гипотеза может помочь идентифицировать два народа: ставанов и кареотов. Действительно, судя по табличкам из Виндоланды, одна из двух распространённых форм латинской буквы L, а именно т.н. "короткая" форма легко могла быть спутана с буквой T. Реконструированная форма *careolae может быть сопоставлена с карелами – одной из восточных ветвей прибалтийско-финского населения. Эту "карельскую" гипотезу можно соотнести с "тарандской" гипотезой, согласно которой "карбоны"(‘угли’), территориально связанные, по Птолемею, с кареотами, являются обозначением  населения или области культуры могильников с каменными оградками (тарандов), оставленных предками ливов, эстов и финнов. "

The Greek text of the famous late Roman compendium of the classic art of war, the Strategikon of Pseudo-Maurice, can be divided into different chronological layers, dated from the fifth to the seventh centuries. The basis for this division is the analysis of textual unity, of inner citation, of the described strategic and tactical schemes and used terms. The main three phases of the development of the text coincide with the three great military reforms – introduction of the Hunnic mobile cavalry tactics of "hippotoxotae" (the so-called defensors and cursors), the secret “hyperkerastae” reform of Justinian’s brother Germanus, and the reform according to the Avarian scheme of time of the emperor Heraklios. All three reforms are based on the deep contemplation of the ethnographical data gathered by imperial intelligence services.

In answer to question of the appropriateness of using the term «tribe» in relation to the Slavic societies of the early Middle Ages, A. Gorskiy and A. Pleterski said that they did not use the term in this context, while V. Puzanov said that he uses the term to refer to both Slavic pre-state formations in general and those Slavic ethnic groups that based their cohesion on real or fictitious kinship. P. Shuvalov said that he prefers to use the term «tribe» rather as a literary concept, than a scientific term. According to Gorskiy, the use of the term «tribe» in reference to the early medieval Slavs is incorrect because, first, the word is not used in this sense in primary sources, and, second, the Slavs in the early Middle Ages were at the stage of chiefdoms, and not at that of tribes. A. Pleterski, while pointing out that many Slavic tribal names are only attested in late sources and mainly the result of the identification from the outside, thinks that the basic social unit of the early Slavs was župa (zhupa). According to Pleterski, župa as the basic unit of the early Slavic society was a social, economic, religious and legal entity. Puzanov points to the uncertainty of correlation of the terms «tribe» and «chiefdom» in relation to the early medieval Slavs, noting that in historiography the term chiefdom used to be used to what was known earlier «tribal principality». Meanwhile, Puzanov notes, the presence of a («tribal») leader does not automatically mean that the question is of a chiefdom. In answer to the question of mechanisms of the emergence and reproduction of tribal identities in the Slavic community, Shuvalov said that in contrast to the Germanic tribes, Slavs, apparently, had no strong traditions of aristocratic ancestral memory with its emphasis on proximity to the world of gods. According to Shuvalov, the princely power among the Slavs in what concerned the formation of their tribal identities based on the folk presentation of history as well as the memory of three to five previous generations within the real ancestral memory.