Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
Michael O’Rourke
mjor (at) velocitynet (dot) com (dot) au
Canberra Australia
December 2009
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 2
THE GEOGRAPHY AND ADMINISTRATION OF BYZANTINE ITALY............................................................................... 5
THE BYZANTINE ARMY IN 1030......................................................................................................................10
LIST OF 10TH CENTURY EMPERORS.................................................................................................................. 15
THE EARLY CAREER OF GEORGE MANIAKES..................................................................................................... 16
ITALY, 1032-37............................................................................................................................................18
EVENTS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN......................................................................................................................20
LAND, LOCAL RECRUITS AND IMPORTED SOLDIERS IN BYZANTINE ITALY...............................................................21
EVENTS IN THE EAST, 1036-38.......................................................................................................................24
THE SICILIAN EXPEDITION, 1038 .................................................................................................................... 24
LANGOBARDIA, 1039..................................................................................................................................... 31
ARDUIN, THE ‘SECOND LOMBARD REVOLT’ AND THE NORMANS...........................................................................35
EMPEROR MICHAEL V ‘THE CAULKER’, 1041-42..............................................................................................43
SYNODIANOS AND MANIAKES VERSUS ARGYRUS AND THE NORMANS .................................................................... 45
THE REVOLT AND DEATH OF MANIAKES, 1042-43............................................................................................48
ROBERT ‘GUISCARD’ DE HAUTEVILLE............................................................................................................... 54
ARGYROS FAILS AGAINST THE NORMANS, 1051-53............................................................................................56
THE NORMAN CONQUEST................................................................................................................................62
THE CONTEST FOR APULIA, 1062-71...............................................................................................................67
FINAL END OF BYZANTINE RULE IN SOUTHERN ITALY.........................................................................................72
APPENDIX: EQUIPMENT AND DRESS IN MANIAKES’S ARMY....................................................74
SOURCES AND REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................77
1
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Introduction
In the early 11th century, the greatest of the great powers west of India was the
Christian Roman Empire of the Greeks, known to us as ‘Byzantium’. The rulers of
a lesser power, Germany, held the suzerainty over Old Rome, and usually
travelled there to be anointed with the title imperator Romanorum (“emperor of
the Romans”). So the real Empire of New Rome (Ν ε α ‘Ρ ω µ η —Nëa Rhômê—
Constantinople) is ocassionally called the ‘Eastern Empire’ to contrast with a
more titular German Empire in the West.
In this paper I have used mainly the modern adjective ‘Byzantine’ but
sometimes ‘Romaic’ to remind us of the Byzantines’ self-image as the true
Romans, and sometimes ‘Greek’ to underline their differences from the Latins
(Lombards and Normans).
The Empire of New Rome was to reach its greatest territorial expanse in the
middle of the century under the Empress Zoë, d. 1050, and her several husbands,
Romanos III (1028-34), Michael IV (1034-41) and Constantine IX (1042-55). A
further emperor in this period was Zoë’s adopted son, the nephew of Michael IV,
Michael V (1041-42). Not idly did Psellos call Zoë “… she who alone is noble of
heart and alone is beautiful, she who alone of all women is free, the mistress of all
the imperial family, the rightful heir to the Empire …” (Chronographia, 5.26).
As we will see, Zoë’s generals briefly captured eastern Sicily – the eastern
littoral including Taormina, Catania and Syracuse - in 1038-43. Armenia, part of
which emperor Basil II, d. 1025, had annexed, was fully incorporated into the
empire in 1045. Last of all, the Muslim principality of Edessa [modern Urfa,
Sanliurfa] in Mesopotamia was fully annexed in 1052.
In the West, the Greek Empire had lost most its North Italian territories to the
Lombards and Franks during the 8th century, and Sicily had been lost to the
Saracens (Muslims) during the 9th century. In southern Italy, however,
Byzantium continued to rule today’s Calabria, Basilicata and Puglia (ancient
Apulia) which collectively was called ‘Langouvardia’ or ‘Longobardia’
[Λ α γ γ ο β α ρ δ ι α : Latin Longobardia Minor]. ‘Langouvardia’ in the
broad sense meant the whole catepanate (super-province) of southern Italy or in
a narrow sense just the province (theme) whose capital was Bari, i.e. our Puglia
nd eastern Basilicata.
The narrow Strait of Messina between Calabria and Sicily—just three km at its
narrowest—formed the political frontier between Christendom and Islam.
Looking east the Sarakenoi could on a clear day literally see the Rum (Greeks).
And looking west, the Rhomaioi (Byzantines) could see the ‘Arabi and al-Barbar
(Sicilian Berbers), or at least they could see their chimney-smokes. Or probably
we should say that Greeks on both sides of the Strait saw Greek chimney smoke,
because the great majority of the population of east Sicily under Muslim rule
were Greek-speaking Christians.
2
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
The viceroys of Ifriqiya (our Algeria and Tunisia) under the Fatimids were the
Zirid dynasty, a line of Berber emirs. They ruled from Kairouan in inland north-
central Tunisia. The removal of the Fatimid fleet to Egypt (969) made the
retention of Sicily impossible for the Zirids. With the sea-link loosened, the
Kalbid sub-governors in Sicily soon began to rule the island without regard to
their nominal overlords in Tunisia. Then Algeria broke away (1014) under the
governorship of Hammad ibn Buluggin, who allied himself with the Abbasids in
Baghdad.
In Sicily the intra-dynastic conflict intensified under Ahmad al-Akhal b. Yusuf,
who seized power in Palermo in 1019. Some factions allied themselves with
Byzantium, others with the Zirids. With some support from the Fatimids, al-
Akhal defeated two Byzantine expeditions in 1026 and 1031. But his attempt to
raise a heavy tax to pay his mercenaries—many were Sudanese and Slavs—caused
a civil war. Al-Akhal now turned (1035) for support to the Byzantines, while his
brother Abu Hafs, leader of the rebels, received (1036) troops from the Zirid emir
of Ifriqiya, al-Muizz b. Badis. The emir’s 13 years old son Abdallah led, or
3
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
nominally led, an expeditionary force of 6,000 men to Sicily. Abu Hafs’ and
Abdallah’s men stormed Palermo and beheaded al-Akhal (1038) [chronology
from Singh 2002 and Bosworth 2004].
This was the scene into which the imperial general George Maniakes brought
his invasion army.
Unlike the Norman conquest of England (1066), which took place over the course
of a few brief years after one decisive battle, the conquest of Southern Italy was
the product of decades and many battles, few decisive. Many territories were
conquered independently. Only later were they all unified into one state.
4
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Before we go further, it may be useful for the reader to have a short introduction
to the towns and regions of the Mezzogiorno. We assume that they are not as well
known as those of northern Italy, even to many Europeans, let alone to
Jamaicans, Trinidadians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Australians and other
English-speakers.
We also explain some of the military and civil institutions of the Eastern
Empire.
Modern Puglia /Italian and English: “poolya”/ comprises the heel and lower calf
of Italy.
The towns of the Byzantine period included, from north to south, the following.
The largest present-day cities are underlined. 1: Lucera: inland from coastal
Manfredonia (ancient Sipontum). 2: Bovino: south of Foggia. 3: Canosa: inland
from Barletta and Trani. 4: Bari: about one-third down the coast of Puglia. 5:
Matera, which is inland: equidistant from Bari and 6: Taranto. Technically
Matera lies within the modern province of Basilicata. 7: coastal Monopoli: nearer
to Bari than Brindisi. 8: Brindisi itself: about half way up the actual back-ankle.
9: inland Lecce: halfway between Brindisi and Otranto. And 10: Otranto itself,
near the easternmost point of the heel.
Inside the heel we have Gallipoli, Taranto and Mottola. Taranto gives its name
to the great Gulf of Taranto.
Tracing ‘backwards’, NW towards Rome, the ancient military highway called the
Via Traiana ran from Brindisi up the Adriatic coast through Monopoli to Bari.
There it veered inland to Bitonto, Canosa, Ordona and medieval Troia (ancient
Aecae: near Foggia) and thence through the Apennines to Benevento in
Campania, where it joined the Appian Way proper.
Also tracing towards Rome from Brindisi, the Appian Way proper cut across
the upper heel to Taranto and thence inland - north-west for some 200 km - via
Gravina (med. Silvium), Venosa: 10 km S of the Ofanto River, Aquilonia and
Mirabella Eclano (ancient Aeclanum), to Benevento.
BARI:
The coastal town on the calf of ‘the boot’ of Italy. In the middle period, after AD
900, Bari was the capital of Byzantine Italy.
From NE to SE down the Adriatic coast, the key towns of the Italian calf and
heel are: Manfredonia, Barletta, Trani, Molfetta, Bari, Monopoli, Brindisi and
Otranto. As we have said, Brindisi was the terminus of the ancient highway called
the Appian Way, Latin: Via Appia. But a further road ran to Otranto from
Brindisi.
BENEVENTO:
5
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
CALABRIA:
The three major cities today are Reggio di Calabria*, near the southern tip, across
from Sicily; Catanzaro in the centre; and Cosenza in the north, at the top of the
valley of the Crati River. Another important city, Crotone, lies on the east coast
near Capo Colonna, Calabria’s easternmost point.
(*) Founded by Greek colonists in around BC 720. Thus it celebrated its 1,750th
anniversary in about AD 1030.
CATEPAN:
(*) Greek: ho Kat’epano, “the one above (the others)”; “the over-all, foremost”,
i.e. supreme regional commander.
GARGANO PENINSULA:
This was the name of the Byzantine super-province or ‘catepanate’ that covered
the bottom fifth of Italy, i.e. modern Calabria, Basilicata and Apulia. It was
governed from Bari.
This must be a guess, but if each of Calabria, Loukania (see next) and Apulia
was garrisoned with 2,000 soldiers, then the ordinary military strength of
6
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
(*) The name derives from the Longobards or Lombards, a Germanic people who
first settled in Italy in the sixth century. They quickly became Latinised. The
Lombard language died out as they adopted the local ‘proto-Italian’ dialects.
At the time of the Norman conquest of south Italy and Sicily there were
essentially three distinct trading areas: Apulia, Campania, and Calabria. In
Apulia, Byzantine coins were used more consistently than anywhere else, though
their use was challenged by Lombard coins of Salerno and by silver denari of the
north. By the mid-eleventh century, Lombard coinage was used in northern
Apulia; a hoard from Ordona [near Foggia] contained only one histamenon of
Basil II and Constantine VIII [d. 1028] as against 147 taris of either Amalfi or
Salerno, the early types of which cannot be easily distinguished from each other.
—Travaini, 2001.
LUCANIA:
(*) Cassano allo Ionio lies south of the Pollino national park; inland from the west
coast of the Gulf of Taranto
7
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
(**) Tursi lies a little inland from the top (apex) of the Gulf of Taranto and to the
NE of Pollino national park.
Campania is the region centred on Naples. From north to south, the key cities
are: coastal Gaeta, inland Capua on the river Garigliano, Naples, Sorrento on the
Bay of Naples, Amalfi and Salerno. As the crow flies, it is about 70 miles or 110
8
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
The court titles awarded by the emperor were, in descending rank: proedros
(‘president’), magistros, anthypatos (‘proconsul’), patrikios, praipositos [a rank
limited to eunuchs] and protospatharios (‘first sword bearer’). They were
honorific titles, not functional offices; thus a magistros was not ipso facto a judge.
Theme commanders (military governors of provinces) were commonly awarded
the title of protospatharios, but a protospatharios need not be a military man (see
details in ODB: Kazhdan 1991).
As will be seen in this paper, a generalissimo (“catepan”) of Italy was commonly
awarded the higher title of patrikios. Patrikios was rendered in Latin as
patricius; one sees ‘the patrician’ in some English texts.
(a) Maza del Vallo: on the coast near the W point, and Marsala: closer to the W
point.
(b) Northern coast: Palermo, the capital of Muslim Sicily: about a quarter of the
way east from the island’s NW point. Cefalù: halfway on the north coast.
Milazzo: on the coast just west of the NE point.
(c) Enna: effectively dead-middle of the island.
(d) South: Agrigento inland from the central S coast.
(e) East coast: Messina is near the NE point. Taormina: a quarter-way down.
Catania: halfway down. Syracuse: three-quarters of the way to the SE point.
Also Noto: inland SW of Syracuse.
... are different towns in SE Italy. Taranto is located on the inner or western side
of the heel, at the top of the Gulf of Taranto. Otranto, medieval Hydrus or
Hydrontus, is very close to the outer, easternmost point of the heel, i.e. opposite
Greece.
The military provinces of the empire: administrative regions each with its own
locally raised troops. There was a combined civil-military administration under a
strategos or ‘commander-general’.
Several of the Themes were naval or marine districts, supplying the imperial
fleets with oarsmen and marines.
Thematic troops were trained, semi-professional cavalrymen and infantry,
half-farmers-half-soldiers. They engaged in farming when not called out for
battle or training. As part-recompense for their military service, or that of their
9
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
son, they owned land. They also received a salary from the state.
VARANGIANS:
10
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
(perhaps 2,500 men) in the centre with cavalry on either flank (say 1,625 left and
1,625 right). The Varangians commonly formed the centre of the front line. Then
there was a second line made up of a smaller body of infantry archers and
slingers (say 1,250), with two further cavalry regiments (500 left and 500 right),
hidden from view, placed behind the ordinary cavalry in front. The second
infantry line could fire over the heads of the first line, while the hidden reserve
cavalry units could be sent against the enemy’s flanks in a surprise move. (The
numbers in brackets are not from 971; rather they are the sorts of numbers to be
expected in an expeditionary force serving in Italy.)
At the Battle of Troina in Sicily in 1040, Maniakes formed up his army in three
lines. Unfortunately we do not know where the various unit-types were placed.
If we follow the 10th C Byzantine military manuals (see McGeer 1995), we might
expect an expeditionary army of 10,000 to be made up as follows, at least for
fighting in the East. It is not known if all of these troop-types were also used in
the same proportions in Italy.
These were lancers wearing plain, one-piece low-conical iron helmets. Their body
armour was a waist-length lorikion or mail corselet and/or a klivanion or
klibanion, the iron lamellar corselet or ‘torso cuirass’ with platelets rivetted to a
shaped shirt of hardened leather. Over this they wore an epilorikon or thick
padded surcoat of cotton or coarse silk.
The lances or light pikes, Greek: kontos, were used for poking, stabbing and
thrusting, not for the couched charge as in later Western—and Byzantine—armies
of the 12th century. The couched charge did not come into use until the period
1100-1150 (see France 1994: 71).
Their secondary weapon was a slashing sword. D’Amato and also Dawson,
2007b: 19, give the length of the spathion or Romano-Greek long sword as about
85 cm [2 ft 10 in]; McGeer offers 90 cm [three feet].
They carried ‘kite-shaped’ shields: almond-shaped or like an inverted tear-
drop, about two feet or 60 cm wide at their widest, or 70 cm. Such shields were
about 105 cm or 3 feet 5 inches high according to D’Amato.
1,200 mounted archers: 40% of the cavalry (McGeer 1995: 68, 213)
The smaller cavalry bow (a ‘Hunnic’ recurve composite bow) could shoot arrows
as far as 130 metres, with a killing range of perhaps 80 metres or 260 feet. The
archers carried on their belt a single large rounded-box quiver with 40-50
arrows. The arrows were inserted point upwards (in contrast to the infantry
quiver).
As Dawson notes, Phokas’s (AD 975) Praecepta Militaria [PM] or
‘Composition on Warfare’ at III.8 says that the horse-archers should wear helms,
body-armour in the form of lamellar klibania and quilted coats called kavadia
which protect their legs and part of their horses. See the photograph of Dawson’s
reconstruction at his Levantia website (“Archer”). There the soldier wears high
11
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
boots folded down, a split kavadion or thick padded coat to just below the knees
worn under a lamellar cuirass (torso only), and a rounded skull-tight dish helmet
with a non-metallic aventail.
Phokas says that horse-archers carried, or should carry, the same large one-
metre shields as lancers.
In emperor Leo’s Taktika, ca. 907 AD, the thematic cavalry are formed up five
deep: the first two ranks were lancers, then two ranks of archers (40%) and
finally another rank of lancers (one bandon = six allaghiai = six x 10 files of five
men = 300).
In the later 10th Century the basic cavalry unit was the new-style bandon of just
50 men, who formed up five ranks deep. In battle formation 10 banda formed one
formation or regiment (parataxis): this created a 100-horse front (500 = 100 x
5). As before, lancers were placed in the first two and also the back rows; horse-
archers made up the 3rd and 4th rows, i.e. 40% were bowmen (McGeer p.284; also
Toynbee 1973: 313).
12
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Their round shields were sometimes quite large: up 140 cm (4 ft 7 in) high,
according to McGeer p.205, i.e. covering from above the shoulder to below the
knee. Dawson 2007b: 23 offers the smaller figure of 95 cm (3 ft) as normal.
Parani, Images p. 125 list the “great round” infantry shield as having a diameter
of 82 cm [2 ft 8 in].
Their primary weapon was a very long spear or thin pike of about four metres
or 13 feet, Greek kontarion, also called doru or ‘spear’ in Leo the Deacon. McGeer
translates kontarion as “spear”. They also carried a “belt-hung” sword (spathion),
i.e. not hung on a baldric from the shoulder as was common for cavalry (McGeer
1995: 206). Also Dawson’s Levantia website under ‘Infantry’.
About a quarter of the infantry force. No armour. They used heavier bows capable
of sending an arrow over 300 metres, with a killing distance of perhaps 150-200
metres (McGeer pp.68, 207, 272).
Nikephoros Phokas specifies that his archers are to have a small shield, two
bows and two quivers: one of 60 arrows, the other of 40 arrows. As we noted
earlier, foot archers stored their arrows point-down in their quivers.
Armed with javelins or slings. The sling is more accurate and has a greater range
than a bow-fired arrow: lead pellets and stones weighing 50 grams will travel up
to 400 metres.
Javeliners carried two or three casting spears (akontia, ‘javelins’ or doration,
‘throwing spear’) up to “2.75” m or nine ft long. The Syllogê Taktikôn of the 10th
century says that infantry javelins must be no longer than 2.35 m or 7ft 9in,
which is surprisingly long; they must have been quite light in their shaft and
heads (Dawson 2007b: 24). We have no information on the range of javelins but
40 metres (half the capability of today’s top 10 Olympic javeliners) can be noted
for discussion.
Light infantry shields were smaller than those of the pike infantry (McGeer
1995: 208). According to Parani, p.126, they were “oblong” (possibly oval) and 94
cm high [3 ft 1 in].
In the East this type defended the infantry square against cavalry charges
(McGeer pp.209, 268). They were armed with very thick pikes or heavy poles,
used to stab the enemy horses. The pikes were possibly three to four metres or
10-12 ft in length with a long 20-inch or 50 cm blade (McGeer’s figures; Dawson
2007b: 61 says just 2.5 metres long, so ‘heavy spear’ might be the best rendering).
The infantry square was symmetrical and seven deep, with spearmen in the
front ranks, foot-archers behind them and the menavliatoi at the rear (Dawson
2007b: 52, 62).
13
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
The manuals prescribed that when entering or crossing enemy territory, the
infantry, marching in three lines or columns, should be surrounded on all sides
by cavalry. Further out were small numbers of cavalry outriders or flank scouts.
In open country this meant that the main body comprised three lines of infantry
flanked on either side by one line of cavalry. The emperor or commander rode
with a second line of cavalry, behind the cavalry vanguard and immediately ahead
of the infantry. The baggage train (supplies and equipment typically carried by
pack-mules and/or in mule-drawn carts) was in the very middle with the infantry
(Haldon, Byzantium at War p.53).
14
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Above: Fresco of Joshua dated to after AD 1150 at the walled monastery Hosios
Loukas near the town of Distomo, in Boeotia [Voiotia], Greece. Curiously he
wears no beard. Note the finely drawn corselet of lamellar armour, the baldric
and the boots. The helmet looks to be shaped from a single piece of metal.
* * * * *
In Greek the title of the emperor was Basileus, pronounced ‘vasilefs’, literally
15
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
‘sovereign’.
Georgios (George) Maniakes first appears, aged 33, in the historical record in
1030 in the post of strategos or military governor of Telouch (Skylitzes 381.38-
16
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
39). Telouch or Teluch was the ancient Doliche, modern Duluk, a little to the west
of the river. The town of that name lies near today’s Gaziantep, north of Aleppo,
on the road from Germanicia (Marash) to Zeugma in ancient N Syria; now just
inside Turkey. Maniakes’ Theme was the lowest down Theme (small province) of
the several on the upper Euphrates River (Treadgold 1997: 585).
Maniakes was proverbial for his size and ferocity. The scholar Michael Psellos,
fl. 1047, describes him thus:
In 1043 at the Battle of Ostrobos he fought at the head of his troops and whoever
was injured by his sword escaped “with half or more of their body maimed, for he
was known to be invincible and firm, a big and broad-backed man terrible in
appearance but an excellent leader” (Attaleiates: History 19.5-10 / 15.19-16.1,
quoted in PBW 1043).
The local Muslim powers in 1030 were the Mirdasids of western Syria, a Shi’a
Arab line ruling from Aleppo, and the Marwanids of northern Mesopotamia, a
Kurdish dynasty whose lands were centred on Diyarbakir, with its seat at
Miyafarqin (Silvan: NE of Diyarbakir). The Mirdasids shifted allegiance back and
forth between Byzantium and the other great power in the nearer East, the
Fatimids of Egypt, who were another Shi’a dynasty. Likewise the Marwanids, who
captured the important town of Edessa in 1026, juggled their relations with
Constantinople and Cairo, and also with Ahvaz, the town in SW Persia that was
the seat of the Buyid emirs, yet another Shi’a line, who ruled the further East
(lower Mesopotamia and Iran).
17
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
The following year the new strategos of ‘the Euphratean cities’ attacked the
major Muslim-ruled town of Edessa—modern Urfa in Turkish Syria—and bribed
its governor Salamanes (Sulayman), who surrendered the town to him. Although
under Muslim rule, the great majority of the inhabitants were Christians.
Apomerbanes was the Greek rendering of Ibn Marwan [Nasr ad-Dawla ibn
Marwan], the Kurdish emir of Miepherkeim [Mayyafariqin], Greek Martyropolis.
Today’s Silvan. He had entrusted Edessa to the Turk Sulayman ibn al-Kurgi (Gk
Salamanes). Maniakes captured much of the town, then bribed Sulayman, who
surrendered all of it to Byzantium. The bribe to Sulayman was obtained by a
request to Romanos III. The emperor sent via Maniakes a letter to Sulayman
appointing the Turk anthypatos and patrikios, and also giving an exalted dignity
to his wife. Salman received an annual pension and a patent of nobility from the
Emperor. Salamanes was appointed anthypatos and patrikios and given estates
in Byzantium.
Maniakes found in the city the famous relics believed to be a letter of king
Abgar to Christ and the autograph letter of Jesus in response. The
correspondence between Christ and the king of Edessa was the palladium or holy
safeguarder of the city. The strategos sent the relics to Romanos III (PBW under
1031, 1032).
In 1032, as we have said, Maniakes sent the famous relics, the letter of Abgar and
Christ’s reponse, from Edessa to the capital, together with Sulayman ibn al-Kurgi,
the Turkish governor from whom he had taken the city. Romanos III came out
with the Patriarch Alexios to receive the precious letters, had them translated
from Syriac to Greek and Arabic, and added them to the palace collection.
In 1033 Maniakes sent to Romanos III Edessa's annual tax of 50 ‘pounds’ [litrai]
of gold (3,600 standard gold coins called nomismata) (PBW citing Skylitzes
388.25-29).
Italy, 1032-37
The Sicilian Arabs, who regularly raided across the Strait of Messina and further
abroad, invaded Calabria in 1032. They captured Cassano and killed Pothos
Argyros, the catepan of Italy, who came out against them. They then made a
naval raid across the Adriatic to Corcyra, where they met defeat at the hands of
imperial forces under the strategos of Nicopolis [our west-central Greece]. The
18
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Arab “pirates” burned Kerkyra but lost heavily in a battle and a storm (Treadgold
1997: 587; also PBW under 1031 and 1032).
The new catepan in succesion to Pothos was Michael, hitherto a high offcial
(protospatharios) holding the offices of household treasurer to the emperor or
epi ton oikiakon and ‘krites of the velon or curtain and of the hippodrome’, which
is to say: manager of imperial audiences. He arrived (1032) in Italy with troops
from the Anatolikon Theme (PBE under 1032).
In this period catepans commonly served brief terms of office. A new catepan
Constantine (Leo) Opus was in place by the summer of 1033 (or 1034). He
proceeded to Calabria with John (Ioannes) the Cubicularius [chamberlain],
commander of the fleet, in order to remove the Saracens (Muslims): the conflict
dragged on for years, punctuated by negotiation and truces.
In the central Mediterranean the ships of the strategos of Nauplia [Nafplion in
the Peloponnesus], Nicephoros Karantenos, and the fleet of the chamberlain
John now began to sweep the seas and effectively eliminated the ‘pirate’ threat
from Sicily and Ifriqiya. According to A L Lewis, by 1100 the fleets of Muslim
Spain, Sicily and North Africa “simply disappeared, leaving only a scattering of
ships that could be mustered for warlike purposes” (1988: 103).
The years 1035-38 saw revolt and civil war in Muslim Sicily. The two main
contending parties were led respectively by the Kalbid emir Apolaphar
Mouchoumet [Abul-‘afar, i.e. al-Akhal] and his brother ‘Apochaps’ [i.e. Abu
k
Hafs]. The contest was coloured by ethnic tension between the Sicilian Arab elite
and the Sicilian Berber peasants.
In the words of the Catholic Encyclopaedia (online), discord broke out among
the Kalbite or Kalbid princes of Muslim Sicily, and anarchy resulted: "every
alcalde and petty captain aspired to independence". Or as Gibbon puts it, “the
emir disclaimed the authority of the king of Tunis; the people rose against the
emir; the cities [read: towns] were usurped by the chiefs; each meaner rebel was
independent in his village or castle; and the weaker of two rival brothers
implored the friendship of the Christians [i.e., Byzantium]”.
Ahmed Al-Akhal, Emir of Sicily, was leader of the "African" (Arab) party. This
time it is Ahmed (al-Akhal) who appeals to the Byzantines for help. Having failed
to suppress a revolution of the "Sicilians" (Berbers) under his brother Abu-Hafs,
he turned (1035) to Constantinople and recognised the old supremacy of the
Greeks.
Once the emperor saw he was dominant on the seas, he felt comfortable in
negotiating with the Arabs of Sicily and their Emir al-Akhal. In August 1035 he
dispatched the diplomat (and eunuch) George Probatas who signed a peace treaty
in name of the Basileus that conceded the titles of Emir and magistros to al-
Akhal.
Abu Hafs or Apochaps has the support of Oumer [Zonaras’ rendering: correctly:
al-Muizz ibn Badis], the Zirid ruler in Africa, who is promised territory on the
19
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
island. The Sicilian rebels called on the Zirid overlord Emir al-Muizz ibn Badis of
Ifriqiya [present-day Tunisia]. The Zirids leap at the chance and dispatch a strong
expeditionary force of 6,000 men under al-Muizz's son, Abdallah ibn al-Muizz
(Norwich 1967: 46).
As we have said, the eunuch George Probatas was sent by Michael IV to conclude
a treaty with the emir of Sicily, Ahmad ibn Yusuf al-Akhal (Cedr. II 513). Thus
alAkhal has the support of Leon or Constantine Opos, the Romaic catepan of
Italy, who commands a force of Lombard mercenaries (or should we call them
‘paid volunteers’?). This Lombard force is able to best (1035 or 1036) the African
mercenaries and hold them in check.
The emir’s ally, the catepan Leo Opos, withdraws from Sicily with his mainly
Lombard forces. Upon this departure, Apochaps’ African ally—‘Oumer’, as
Zonaras calls him—is now free (1037) to despoil Sicily without opposition. The
African ruler—correctly al-Muizz ibn Badis—was in fact represented by his
teenage son Abdallah. With the aid of his mianly Berber troops, the Sicilian rebels
captured Khalisa, the inner precinct of Palermo in 1038. (The Al-Khalisa or Kalsa
contained the Emir's palace, baths, a mosque, government offices and a private
prison.)
There Ahmed al-Akhal (who had asked Constantinople for aid) makes his last
stand. Ahmed's head is sent to the young Zirid prince Abdallah ibn Muizz. The
final result was that the teenaged Abdallah dispossessed both Ahmed and Abu-
Hafs and reigned in person in Palermo.
One of the last west-Muslim (Sicilio-Tunisian) fleets to appear in the Aegean was
defeated in 1035 (Hocker in Gardiner 2004: 93). The patrikios Constantine
Chage, admiral of the Cibyrrhaeots [the fleet and marines of southern Asia
Minor], and other commanders attacked and defeated Muslim Africans and
Sicilians (Zirids/Kalbids) who were raiding the Cyclades and the coasts of the
Thrakesion. Five hundred prisoners were sent alive to Michael IV, while many
others were thrown into the sea or ‘crucified’* along the Asia Minor shore from
Adramyttion to Strobilos (PBW, citing Skylitzes).
Byzantine and especially Italian fleets—Venice, Genoa, Pisa—dominated the
West Mediterranean after this time. Pisa would later aid the Normans in
southern Italy and Sicily. As already noted, A L Lewis says by 1100 the fleets of
Muslim Spain, Sicily and North Africa “simply disappeared, leaving only a
scattering of ships that could be mustered for warlike purposes” (1988: 103).
20
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
(*) Harold Sigurdsson, for example, held the office of Manglabite. It was derived
anciently from the Latin manuclavius, ‘wooden club or bludgeon’. So perhaps
best rendered ‘Mace-bearer’.
The economic base of the territorial army was the strateia, a military duty or
service placed on certain land-owners that from end of the 10th century was
progressively turned into a payment of money. In return for supplying a soldier,
21
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
the land was held tax-free. In practice only rarely did the possessor of a military
holding represent a serving soldier, although the land-owner was responsible for
the cost of the acquisition and maintenance of armaments by the state treasury.
This explains why so frequently we find clergymen in a ktemata (theme) in
possession of stratiotika (military lands) and therefore subject to the payment of
strateia.
In the 11th century, the strateia became a mere tax. This allowed, or compelled,
more and more use to be made of so-called ‘mercenary’ troops, i.e. paid
professionals, including Normans. Any deficiency would be supplied by the
creation of a territorial military service conscripted from the local population, the
so-called kontaratoi or conterati, from kontarion, ‘lance or long spear’: literally
‘spear-carriers’.
In the 1040s especially, the light-armed urban militia of the conterati are
widely recorded in urban politics, especially their behaviour at times of crisis and
revolt. They were conscript militiamen; their spear was provided by the state.
There were large, medium and small landowners. In the Latin sources, the
terminology used for the big landholders was maiores or nobiles: ‘the major ones’
or ‘nobles’; the mediani were middle rankers; and the minores or cunctus
populus were the ‘the lesser ones’, ‘the body of the people’. These labels derived
from the Lombard laws according to which the population was divided in three
classes based on its economic capacity for war.
According to this scheme, [1:] the maiores or ‘powerful’ were those who had, or
could afford, horses plural, armour, helmets and lances and enjoyed the benefit
of at least seven properties. [2:] The mediani or middle class could afford a horse,
a helmet and lance, and held at least 40 jugera or ‘yokings’ of land (Rodriquez’s
figure). One ‘yoking’ or jugerum = two Roman acres, and 80 Roman acres (see
Note 1 below) was 10 hectares. This was about the same area as the average
holding farmed by the better-off half of the peasantry in the Romaic East. Finally
there were [3:] the minores, the small-holders, who were expected to arm
themselves with, or pay for, just a bow and a quiver of arrows. Not that we are
allowed to imagine that a composite recurve bow was cheap; only that it cost
much less than a horse.
The Roman acre was the squared Roman ‘arpent’, 120 pedes by 120 pedes. This
equals 14,400 square feet or about 0.126 hectares. One ‘yoke’ or jugerum =
0.2518 hectares, so 40 iugera = marginally more than 10 hectares.
In the Byzantine East, peasant holdings may have clustered around four to five
ha in the case of boidatoi, those who owned just one ox, and 8–10 ha in the case
of zeugaratoi, those owning a plough-team of two oxen (Lefort in Laiou ed.
2002). For comparison, in pre-modern Western Europe, the average area worked
by one horse-team was around 15-30 ha, but smaller with oxen. A holding over
100 ha was large, and one of 375 ha (925 acres) was a very large farm indeed. —
Data in Grantham 2007.
22
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
(*) Treadgold 1997: 178 proposes that military lands accounted for perhaps a
quarter of the empire's cultivated and grazing land after 840.
As a refinement, let us guess that the cultivated portion of the province was
divided 1/6, 2/6 and 3/6 between large (30 ha), medium (10 ha) and small
holdings (5 ha). We apply this, as before, to 484,150 ha. This yields 2,690 large
holdings; 16,138 medium holdings; and 48,415 small holdings in Puglia, for a
total of 67,243 farms. If just one in five was a military holding, this was enough in
principle to support 13,449 soldiers. (If this result seems too large, remember
that we guessed, perhaps generously, that fully 25% of the province was
cultivated.)
As a further guess we might imagine that large, medium and small farms
supported respectively 16, 8 and four people. Implicit here is the assumption that
a modest number of landless labourers and an even smaller number of slaves are
all dependent on the larger estates. (There were not many slaves in this period:
only the rich could afford them, and so nearly all worked in domestic service.)
The results in raw figures are 43,040 + 129,104 + 193,660 people, for a provincial
total population of 365,804. This is more consistent with McEvedy & Jones’
Italian estimate.(*) And even if we try to be extra-conservative and halve 67,243
farms to 33,622 farms, one in five being a military holding (stratiotika), still we
get an “in principle capability figure” of 6,724 men under arms … But the
strateia, if money, must be collected, or if due in the shape of a human being, the
soldier must turn up when he is called out …
(*) In the first pan-Italian census of 1861, Puglia had a population of 1,335,000;
and Basilicata 509,000 [data at http://dawinci.istat.it/dawinci]. The region was
not yet mechanised in 1861. Wheat was harvested with a sickel or scythe and
hand-threshed. On the other hand, trade had increased vastly by 1861. To this
23
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
In the East, where Maniakes was still commander at Samosata, the Empire in
1036 fought off a joint attempt to retake Edessa by the Kurds (Marwanids) and
the Arabs (the Numayrids of Harran). This demonstraion of Byzantine power
prompted the Fatimids to strike another 10 year peace with Byzantium the same
year. Then in about 1037 the Empire’s pre-eminence in Syria was recognised
when the Mirdasids of Aleppo agreed to become once again an imperial
protectorate, and the Numayrids formally ceded Edessa to Byzantium.
Peace in northern Syria meant that the leading general there, George
Maniakes, could be selected to lead an expedition to Sicily, whose grand aim was
the total reconquest of the island (Treadgold 1997: 587).
We saw earlier that the Sicilian rebels captured Khalisa, the inner fortress of
Palermo in 1038. There Ahmed al-Akhal (who had asked Constantinople for aid)
makes his last stand. Ahmed's head is sent to the Zirid prince Abdallah ibn Muizz.
This prompts emperor Michael to send (mid 1038) George Maniakes [aged
about 40] with an army which contained a few Normans, mercenaries serving the
Lombard princes in Calabria. As we have said, its grand aim to no less than to
reconquer the entire island of Sicily.
24
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
battle of Stikestad, and had taken refuge in Novgorod and then finally ended up
in Constantinople. Within a short time of his arrival in Constantinople, he was
appointed commander of the Varangian Guard.
The forces of the Norman leader Rainulf Drengot, including the Hauteville
family - the brothers of Robert Guiscard - also went to Sicily in 1038. (Robert was
still in Normandy.)
The illustration in the Skylitzes MS of the landing in Sicily can be found here:
http://www.imperiobizantino.com/italia/minia11b.jpg
Maniakes led a composite army whose exact size is unknown, although it was
evidently reasonably large. The sources are carefully cited in D’Amato’s
monograph on Maniakes. Because they do not give good numbers for more than a
few contingents, there is some doubt how large his expedition was. One might
guess: up to 15,000 men.
There were [1:] perhaps 5,000 Easterners from Anatolia in the form of
detachments from the Opsikìon, Thrakesion and Anatolikòn themes; [2:] perhaps
2,000 or more italioi stratiotai, or the local Byzantine troops of Italy, made up of
Lombard conscripts and ‘Italo-Greek’ regulars in the form of thematic [local]
troops from Byzantine Calabria and the Catepanate (Apulia); [3:] a large
detachment (say 1,000) of the best foot regiment, the Varangian Guard,
composed of Russians and Scandinavians, led by the legendary Norwegian prince
25
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
The pro-Norman Italian sources attribute the expedition’s victories largely to the
Norman contingent, but we must reject this, not least because they were so few. It
might be allowed that the average Norman horsemen was a little superior to the
average Romaic cavalryman (none of the elite imperial Tagmata seem to have
been dispatched**), while plainly the Varangians were the best of the infantry.
Norwich, 1967: 54, rightly observes that the decisive factor was Maniakes’ skill as
a general.
(**) Besides the italioi stratiotai, Maniakes’ troops in 1038 probably included
soldiers from Macedonia and the Eastern Themes. Certainly we have mention
soon thereafter – in Cedrenus and the Annales Barenses under 1041 - of troops in
Southern Italy from the Themes of the Opsikion, Thrakesion (“the meros*** of
the Thracesians”) and Anatolikon. Skylitzes under 1041 also mentions troops of
the >>tagmata of the Phoideratoi [Federates] [and] of Lycaonia and Pisidia<< .
This almost certainly meant ordinary thematic troops from the Anatolikon theme
of central Asia Minor, and not (as D’Amato proposes) troops from one of the elite
imperial Tagmata of Constantinople.
(***) A meros was another term for a turma, or the troops of a sub-division of a
Theme. A meros could be as large as 3,000 men or as small as 800. In the 10th
century the Thracesian theme had had four meroi, each with an average of 2,500
men (Treadgold 1995: 97, 101).
The Annales Barenses say that, after the defeat of Montemaggiore (see later),
among the troops called from Sicily against the rebel Normans were “miseri
Macedones” [‘poor’ or second-class or pitiable Macedonians]. They would have
been Thematic troops, to be distinguished, Raffaele D’Amato proposes, from the
élite regiment of the Phoidheratoi (“Federates”) headquartered in
Constantinople. In truth, the troops called the ‘tagmata of the Phoideratoi of [?
26
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
and of?] Lycaonia and Pisidia’ were a thematic corps. The reference is actually to
the turma (district and regiment) of the Federates or Phoideratoi, which (to
repeat) was the senior turma of the three turmai within the theme of the
Anatolics (1: the turma of the Federates, 2: turma of Lycaonia and 3: turma of
Sozopolis or Pisidia) (Treadgold 1995: 99). In this context, then, “tagmata” means
simply ‘battalions’ or ‘regiments’; it is not a reference to the elite guards
regiments of Constantinople.
On Treadgold’s figures, the Federates numbered 5,000 and the troops of Italy
amounted to 2,000 in the 9th century: whether they had the same numbers in
1038-41 we do not know. We might guess that the enrolled troops of Italy (locals
and imports) were more like 6,000 by 1038.
Skylitzes and the Annales Barenses both mention Paulikani et Calabrenses,
i.e. Paulicians from Thrace and Calabrians. The Paulicians are called the
“manichean Tagma” in several sources, an allusion to their dualist creed.
Chronology 1038-41
27
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
mid 1040: Offensive into the interior: battle near Troina/Traina (NE of Enna).
late 1040: Maniakes is recalled. The admiral Stephen takes command in Sicily.
Sicily 1039-41
Maniakes continued to campaign in Sicily. Syracuse was taken, and the Arabs
were badly defeated near Troina. Skylitzes says that following his defeat of the
Sicilian brothers' African (Saracen) troops, Maniakes captured “13 cities”,
meaning the towns in the region south of Rametta, and that his troops occupied
“the entire island” (Skylitzes 403.28-30), but this was an exaggeration. At best
the whole eastern littoral was captured.
The new campaign, in which (as we have said) a number of Norman soldiers
also took part, opened with a series of comfortable victories, and it was not long
before Messina and Syracuse, with all the eastern part of Sicily between them, fell
into the hands of the Greeks.
28
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
When Maniakes reached Syracuse, the Saracen garrison saw their position as
hopeless and capitulated (Norwich 1967: 54). This was 162 years since Byzantium
had lost the town to the Muslims (in 878). But, as we will see, Maniakes in this
hour of triumph was rewarded only by the jealousy and suspicion of his imperial
master and was recalled to the Romaic court, there to languish in disgrace
(Kendrick 1930/2004: 173).
The Norman William de Hauteville, aged about 35, won his nickname Iron Arm—
the Norman chronicler Malaterra says at Syracuse—while fighting for the Greeks,
by single-handedly killing the emir or governor of Syracuse in battle.
Meanwhile a Saracen relief force under Abdullah had come eastwards from
Palermo to try to relieve Syracuse. Malaterra says it numbered 60,000 which is
not credible. Leaving some troops to continue the siege, Maniakes struck inland
to confront Abdullah before Abdullah reached the coast. The river Simeto runs
down to the east coast below Catania from near Troina; no doubt Maniakes’ army
would have proceeded up the valley.
The Arabs were defeated at, or rather near, Troina (medieval Dragina), which is
located west of Mt Etna, NE of Enna. It is known as the highest town in Sicily.
According to the Italian Wikipedia (‘Troina’, 2009), the battle was fought to the
NE of Troina near the village of Cerami. The major road in the region today runs
broadly SE past Cerami through rugged country to Troina.
The Arab battle line was demoralised by the first charge of the Byzantine (and
Norman) cavalrymen, suggesting that they were heavily armoured (Haldon 1999:
223). But the miniatures of Skylitzes do not show any horses with horse-armour.
Thus we may guess that none of Maniakes’ cavalry were ‘true cataphracts’.
At Troina, when in sight of the enemy Maniakes arranged his troops according to
the customary formation in three lines that would be able to enter combat
successively. This was best practice as specified by the military manuals.
In the hand-to-hand combat the Byzantines were helped by the arrival of a
strong storm that raised great dust-clouds which blinded the Arabs.
Disorganised, the rows of the army of Abdallah were incapable of resisting the
first charge by heavy cavalry. Soon the battle became a massacre, with the
Muslim soldiers dying in their thousands, and here again the Normans found
occasion to excel in the fighting (or so the Latin sources say) (thus Rodriquez).
According to Skylitzes 405.80-406.90, in this battle the Greeks slew or
captured “more than 50,000” Muslims (cited in PBW 1040). We moderns will
prefer to belive the true figure was more like 5,000.
The sources describe both Norman and Romaic heavy cavalry charging in order
and riding down the enemy lines at Troina (Haldon 2001: 112); but it is by no
means certain that this was an early instance of charging with couched lances, a
technique that was not routinised until the period 1075-1100. Indeed, the
Skylitzes illustrations, showing the use of long heavy maces, would suggest that
29
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
the older style of poking with the lance was still preferred. The Byzantine would
have used, successively, the bow, the lance, the mace and the sword. Maces wee
not just for hand-to-hand combat but could be thrown as necessary.
When Maniakes was recalled to Constantinople, the Arabs under the Kalbite ruler
Samsam [al-Hasan as-Samsam b. Yusuf] re-took Syracuse.
Michael IV, having recalled George Maniakes [1040], entrusted the leadership
of military operations in Sicily to his uncle Stephen. He gave him as his assistant
the head eunuch Basil Pediaditus, who held the court title of praepositus. Now,
30
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
however, imperial rule in Sicily having devolved upon Stephanos, all the towns
that Maniakes had won back for the empire, save Messina, were again lost (by
early 1041) to the Saracens. The incompetence of the two leaders led to the loss of
the reconquered parts of Sicily. Stephen and Basil had to take refuge in Italy
proper (Guilland, citing Cedr. II 523, 525).
On a positive note for the empire, Katakalon Kekaumenos succeeded in
defending Messina, winning a crushing victory on 10 May 1041 (PBW, narrative
for 1040).
Above: George Maniakes accuses admiral Stephen. See our Appendix for
D’Amato analysis of Maniakes’ dress and equipment.
Further llustration
Langobardia, 1039
31
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
sister of the future emperor Isaac I Comnenus (Anna’s Alexiad I:37, cited by
Cawley 2009).
Note: The border between the Lombard principality of Benevento and the
Byzantine catepanate of Langobardia lay on the upper Ofanto River just west of
Melfi.
32
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Feb 1043: Maniakes leaves Italy for the East, intending to unseat
Constantine IX. In Italy the local forces surrendered to
Argyrus, fled, or joined the rebellion.
33
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
The Italian city of Bari had rebelled against Imperial rule in 1038, to be followed
in 1040 by Mottola. Bari was recaptured the same year.
34
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
The first Lombard revolt, led by Argyros’s father, Melus or Meles of Bari, had
been crushed back in 1018 by Basil Boïoannes. Melus’s young son Marianos
Argyros was sent to Constantinople as a hostage.
In 1040, a new insurrection broke out in Apulia against Byzantium. From 1041
it was led by Arduin, a leader of the Sicilian expedition. On his return from Sicily,
Arduin had become for a moment the official administrator (topoterites:
lieutenant-governor, deputy commander) of the Melfi area on behalf of the
Empire. The stated reason for the revolt, or at least for the Normans joining it,
was the slight offered to them during the campaign in Sicily. Arduin now
attempted to make a place for himself in the region with the help of his former
Norman comrades-in-arms, the Hauteville brothers.
“Among the men enrolled [in Sicily] was Arduin, whose followers were
partly Lombards, as well as Gauls [Normans] who had survived the defeat
by the Greeks and who had fled from the battle against Basil [a back-
reference to 1018].
Returning [from N Apulia, or Sicily?] after his triumph over the enemy,
[Michael] Dokeianos had distributed the booty to his Greek troops at the
town of Reggio, but Arduin had received nothing and the poor man had
remained unrewarded. He angrily summoned his men and denounced the
35
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Greeks for their sordid avarice, who gave to cowards the booty due to men -
since the Greeks were like women. Michael [or perhaps Maniakes] was
angry at these insults and ordered him [Arduin] to be stripped and flogged,
as is the custom of the Greeks, to shame by this punishment the man who
has been flogged for committing such a crime.
Furious at the indignity of this treatment, and determined not to leave
the wrong which had been done him unrevenged, Arduin and his men left
the camp of the Greeks in secret. A band of Greeks sent in pursuit caught up
with him in open country, but when they engaged in battle the Greeks were
defeated and 50 of them killed.”
(*) This was an old-standing Western prejudice. Already in 883-84, in his Life of
Charlemagne, the Monk of St. Gall had written of “the sluggish and unwarlike
Greek king”. Or this from the ethnic Lombard Liutprand, sent to Constantinople
in 968 as ambassador for the German emperor: "How unworthy, how shameful it
is, that these soft, effeminate, long-sleeved, hooded, veiled, lying, neutral-
gendered, idle creatures [the eunuchs and other Byzantines] should go clad in
purple, while you heroes [i.e., the German kings, Otto senior and junior] - strong
men, namely, skilled in war, full of faith and love, reverencing God, full of virtues
- may not!" (The East-Romans forbade Liutprand to take with him the supplies of
purple silk that he had purchased.)
The cynic will observe that those who can outdo us must be disparaged, while
those who fall below our standard may be ignored.
36
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
(*) On the ancient Appian Way east of Melfi. A notional triangle, with Foggia and
Bari as two of its points, has Venosa as a third point. The Ofanto River lies north
of Venosa.
(**) Barletta, halfway between Foggia and Bari, is on the coast. Proceeding up the
Ofanto valley from Barletta, the key sites are, in turn: Cannae, Canosa,
Montemaggiore and Melfi.
On 3 September 1041, they also defeated the new Byzantine catepan, Exaugustus
Boioannes (son of Basil), and took him captive. Soon they were joined by the
Lombards and Normans from Melfi under Arduin.
Styles of Fighting
“The way of fighting of the Normans in the 11th century”, writes Giovanni
Amatuccio, “appears now very far from that described for the ‘blond peoples’
(Franks and Lombards) by the great Byzantine strategists of earlier centuries.
They were [earlier] depicted as tribal hordes that went to the attack without
order, discipline or tactical purpose, grouped in clans around their own leaders.
They were easy prey for the shrewd tactical manoeuvres of the Byzantines.
Now, however, the Normans were very differently organised: formed up in
several lines, use of a rearguard, combined operations between cavalry and
infantry, feigned retreats etc. All the evidence shows a good level of tactical
organization.
Certainly they were still far from the imperial standard, with its rigid division
in units, formed in several lines, and its logistical sophistication etc; but this,
perhaps, constituted more of a handicap than an advantage. The Norman tactical
organisation was ‘lighter’, faster, agile, and it succeeded against the elephant-like
[sic!] military bureaucracy of the Byzantines. But, above all, the fundamental
difference was that the Byzantine army was based on a cohesion and a discipline
due to an intense training that was codified in the rules of the numerous military
treatises. In the Roman tradition, the Byzantine army imposed a sense of duty
37
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
and discipline on the enlisted men through long training and rigorous rules. On
the other side, the Norman cavalrymen had other motivating forces that created
order and cohesion and rendered them trained: the desire to win, the Germanic
sense of honour and fidelity to the leader. The first point was of fundamental
importance. In fact, the strategic superiority of the Normans was due above all to
the fact that they fought for conquest: for everyone, if they won a battle, meant to
earn lands and booty. Their Byzantine and local Italian adversaries were, instead,
simple soldiers, in the literal sense of the term: they fought for their wages, rather
than the mirage of career and honours.” —Giovanni Amatuccio 1998: my trans.:
MO’R, from the Italian.
Venosa lies east of Melfi. The Annales Barenses give the date as 17 March, while
Leo Marsicanus (Leo of Ostia), fl. 1096, says 21 March.
38
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
In line with their ‘scientific’ tactics, the Byzantines attacked in successive waves,
seeking to weaken the Norman cavalry. The catepan, believing he has overcome
the Normans, launches a final onslaught with picked troops, but the Normans
manage to force back the cavalry and counter-attack, decimating the Byzantine
forces:
“After these troops had been thus instructed and placed on each flank, a
column of [Norman] cavalry advanced a little way forward. A column of
Greeks was sent out against them, for it is not their custom to engage all
their forces at the first shock, they rather [as prescribed in their Taktikai or
military manuals: MO’R] send another troop after the first, so that while the
enemy weakens, their own strength increases and their troops are
emboldened. So, when their cavalry commander sees the enemy resisting,
he makes a sudden attack with the bulk of the remaining crack troops, thus
restoring the morale of his own men and usually driving the enemy back in
flight” (William of Apulia, emphasis added).
“ . . . This victory [says William] greatly strengthened the morale of the Gauls,
and from now on they no longer feared to fight the Greeks.”
(**) We explained earlier that Pisidia and Lykaonia were regimental districts
(turmai) within the Asian theme of the Anatolics. Each had had 5,000 men in the
9th century (Treadgold 1995: 129). But again we cannot believe that the
detachments in Italy were very large. In the discussion that follows, we guess that
Dokeianos fielded only about 5,000 men altogether.
On the other side, the Norman-led Italian force was perhaps 2,000 including 700
horse-soldiers and former imperial mercenaries turned rebels, William ‘Iron-
Arm’ de Hauteville among them. They proceeded to defeat a polyglot Byzantine
39
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
“Michael Dokeianos refused to come out in full force against the rebellious
Normans, mobilising only troops from two themes. [William of Apulia
mentions three: Anatolikon, Opsikion and Thrakesion.] He was badly
defeated, with heavy losses in Russian troops [Varangians] and those from
[the] Opsikion. Michael and the survivors fled [inland, south] to
Montepeloso” (PBW).
William of Apulia:
(*) Norwich 1967: 61 says that Dokeianos’ troops included local Lombard Italian
peasants and villagers press-ganged into service.
The Annales Barenses also say (the sources are not independent) that, after the
defeat of Montemaggiore, among the troops called from Sicily against the
Normans were “miseri Macedones”: ‘wretched’ or second-class Macedonians.
They were Thematic troops, to be distinguished, D’Amato imagines, from an élite
regiment, the Phoidheratoi (‘Federates’). In truth, as we suggested earlier in our
discussion of the 1038 campaign, the ‘tagmata of the Phoideratoi [and] of
Lycaonia and Pisida’ is almost certainly a reference to the turmai (district
regiments) of the Anatolikon. As we know from Treadgold, 1995: 99, the
Phoideratoi was the senior turma of three within the theme of the Anatolikon.
That is to say: not an elite unit but rather an adequate, but run-of-the-mill
thematic regiment. Evidently the only elite troops present were the Varangians.
In the 9th century, as we have said, the Federates had numbered 5,000 and the
40
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
troops of Italy amounted to 2,000: whether they had the same numbers in 1041
we do not know. We would expect the army of Italy to be larger by the 1040s
because the armed forces overall had increased in size and the empire’s reach in
Italy was broader and deeper. We have already seen that a third Italian theme,
Lucania, was created before 1042, perhaps in 1035. We may therefore guess that
at least 6,000 troops were now enrolled in, or on secondment to, Italy.
Italian Wikipedia: ‘Amatus writes* that the Normans captured all the
wagons [carriaggi: carts pulled by mules] used by the Greeks to carry the
supplies [masserizie, ‘furnishings’] needed by their army, a practice
unknown to [sconosciuta], and which provoked wonder in, a Latin observer.
The Byzantines fought in friendly territory, and were self-sufficient as an
army and, as an indispensable element of their deployment, they used the
tuldon [Gk: touldon, baggage train**], the wagons that transported the
extra equipment and supplies. The wagons were managed by a dedicated
unit and escorted by the troops of the rearguard’ (Amatuccio, quoted in
Italian Wikipedia, 2009, sul ‘Battaglia di Montemaggiore’: my translation,
MO’R).
(*) In the original Old French: "Quar l'usance de li grex est, quant il vont en
bataille, de porter toute masserie necessaire avec eux" (Amatus II, 23).
—‘For the practice of the Greeks is, when they go into battle, to carry all the
necessary supplies with them’.
(**) The nature and deployment of the Byzantine baggage train is discussed
by Haldon 1999: 160 ff.
41
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
captured and places that used to belong to the Greeks and to the emperor
Michael, who in this year Constantine succeeds.’
Montepeloso is, or was, in upper Basilicata (as it now is); it lay SE of Melfi and S
of Venosa. The Normans camped at nearby Monte Serico or Siricolo which is 20
km NE of Acerenza.
The new catepan Exaugustus Boioannes ‘the Younger’ decided on trying to isolate
the Lombard and Norman rebels in Melfi by camping near Montepeloso, between
Potenza and Gravino. Led by Atenulf, brother of the Lombard prince of
Benevento, the Normans (no doubt along with some Lombards) sortied from
Melfi and camped in a fortress on the Monte Siricolo near Montepeloso.
Boioannes junior had arrived from the East with only a Varangian contingent.
Amatus, II: 26, mentions “Varangians, Apulians and Calabrians” among his
army. As noted, a heterogeneous force of regulars or semi-regular troops had
been called back to the mainland from Sicily, and he also had available some local
“indigenous auxiliaries of Greek descent” including men from Calabria. William
of Apulia says “the Greeks had left many allies in the mountains, to the safety of
which they could return if it should be necessary. These [Greek-speaking] natives
came down to help them”. He also mentions Paulicians, i.e. thematic troops from
Thrace. As also noted above, the Annales Barenses speak of “poor Macedonians”
among Boioannes’ troops, “poor” meaning perhaps second-class, or perhaps
pitiable: “all the poor Macedonians were killed”.
Thus - here we must guess - Boioannes’ field army may have numbered of the
order of 5,000 men. The Barenses say that “10,000” imperials—not a credible
figure—were defeated by “700” Normans. We may guess that the latter figure
covered only the Norman cavalry, and that (say) 2,000+ Norman foot and allied
Lombards should be added, for a total of perhaps 3,000 men.
The Normans captured a convoy of livestock meant for the Greek camp, and
forced a battle on 3 September 1041. Boioannes was defeated and captured and
taken to Benevento (Norwich 1967: 61).
42
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Michael IV died in late 1041 and was succeeded by his nephew and adopted son,
Michael V, aged 26. The latter’s sobriquet ‘the Caulker’ was taken from his
father’s first employment, for Psellos says that the admiral Stephen had started
out as a very humble sealer of ships-planks.
The new emperor promised to rule in subordination to his adopted mother Zoe
and under the guidance of his uncle, the eunuch chief minister John ‘the
Orphanotrophus’. Psellos describes John as “a man of mean and contemptible
fortune, but endowed with an extremely active and ingenious mind". Wanting to
be his own master, however, in early 1042, Michael exiled his uncle and
reinstated many of those John had exiled or imprisoned. This included George
43
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Chronology 1042-43
Exaugustus Boioannes is freed from captivity (Feb 1042) but is not restored to his
command as Catepan. The Byzantines pay a large ransom to the Lombard leader
Atenulf to free him from captivity. Atenulf embezzles the treasure, abandons the
Lombard rebels and flees into Byzantine territory. Argyros succeeds him. —
Norwich 1967: 62.
44
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Passing over Arduin, the Norman and Lombard rebels now (February 1042)
choose Melus’s son Argyros as their new leader. According to the Annales
Barenses, Argyros’s rebel forces amounted to some 7,000 men, including those of
the Normans William ‘Iron-arm’ and Rainulf of Aversa and the Lombard Rudolf
Trincanocte of Benevento.
Soon, however, Argyros will re-defect (August-September 1042) and again
become a loyal imperialist. The Annales Barenses 56.16-20 record that "Argiro"
was granted "patriciatus an [sic] cathepanatus vel vestati honoribus" [invested
with the office of patrikios and catepan] in 1042 (quoted by Cawley 2009).
In the wake of the Byzantine defeat by the Normans, Melus’s son Argyros seized
control of Bari. He soon came to an understanding with the Norman chiefs, and,
in February 1042, was elected jointly by the Normans and the militia of Bari as
“Prince and Duke of [south] Italy” (Annales Barenses 55.23-29; Angold 1984:
27):
“The people of Bari and Matera, defenceless against the Normans, made
treaties with them. The combined forces of Bari and the Normans made
Argyros son of Melus their commander, hailing him as princeps and duke of
Italy” (PBW, narrative for February 1042).
The Normans thus became the rulers of Melfi and the whole area to the west of
Apulia, from the upper Ofanto valley - the Melfi region - to Matera, located NW of
Taranto in modern Basilicata, near the latter’s border with Puglia/Apulia. All of
Apulia save Trani and the heel itself below Taranto-Brindisi was in the hands of
the rebels.
The Byzantine government sends Maniakes back to Italy (April 1042). After
taking Taranto and Matera, Maniakes totally defeats (June 1042) Argyros and the
Normans, who had sought to conquer southern Italy, in the Battle of Monopoli,
SE of Bari.
45
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Maniakes arrived back in Italy bearing the title and offices of “magistros,
catepan and autokrator [sole ruler] of Italy and strategos of the tagmata of
Italy”, i.e. ‘master, supreme governor, commander of Italy and general of the
regiments of Italy’. He disembarked in the major port-town of Taranto at the end
of April 1042 with a new army reinforced with Arvanitai or ‘Albanian’
contingents. They were troops from the theme of Dyrrhachium [modern western
Albania], and (says Rodriquez) were one of the ‘permanent foreign regiments’ in
the imperial army. This may imply that they were ethnically non-Greek.
At this time Byzantium still controlled only Otranto, Oria, Taranto and
Brindisi, along with Trani in the north.
When Maniakes was sent by Zoe (or Michael V) to Italy, which had fallen out of
Byzantine control, he had no battle-worthy army, yet nevertheless managed to
drive back the insurgent ‘Franks’ (Normans) to Capua, Benevento and Naples. He
attracted many other Franks to his service, appeased those who had been
wronged by Michael Dokeianos, and, being feared for his cruelty and courage, he
established peace in the Italian themes (PBW, 1042):
Having landed at Taranto in April 1042, Maniakes campaigned up and down the
heel of Italy from Matera* to Otranto and Bari - until February 1043, when he
departed from Otranto for the Balkans (map in Rodriguez).
(*) Matera, Bari and Taranto form the points of a nearly equilateral triangle.
Taranto is the port and coastal town at the top of the inside heel, that is: at the
top of the Gulf of Taranto. It is not to be confused with Otranto, on the outside or
back of the heel opposite Greece.
46
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
“He left his fleet at Otranto, and encouraged his evil army to attack the
towns which had made agreements with the Franks. His forces first invaded
the Monopoli district. Maniakes had many people executed, having some
hanged from trees, and others beheaded. The tyrant dared [even] to commit
a hitherto unheard of crime; he buried captured infants alive, leaving only
their heads above ground. Many perished like this, and he spared no one.
After this Maniakes marched on Matera, . . . . Maniakes in his anger
murdered 200 peasants who had been captured in the fields there. Neither
boy nor old man, monk nor priest, was safe - this wicked man gave mercy to
none” (William of Apulia).
— This reads like a trope of Norman propaganda, but the medieval period
saw many cruel acts, and we cannot say these atrocities did not take place.
Within a year the Lombard-Norman cause was virtually lost, but at the last
minute Maniakes again became a victim of Byzantine politics and was recalled to
Constantinople (July 1042). The Norman threat, however, was curtailed for a
decade – until 1053, the events of which we describe later.
(August:) Meanwhile the rebel Argyros, son of Melus, went (August) from Bari by
sea to besiege nearby Trani, though the people there had not harmed Bari. He
and his rebels had a variety of siege-machines, including an ‘enormously tall’
wooden tower. However, after 36 days of siege, he received (Sept:) a letter from
Constantine IX via the messenger Theodoretos, who offered him an amnesty and
high Byzantine honours, probably the dignity of patrikios. He accepted the bribe,
burned his siege-engines and returned to Bari (PBW). That is, he defected from
the side of the rebels back to Byzantium.
47
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
(Sept:) (2) Argyrus returns to Byzantine service. Empress Zoe takes a third
husband, a senator in his seventies who becomes the new emperor of Byzantium
with the name of Constantine IX Monomachus. They offer to Argyrus, among
other things, the post of commander of the Imperial Armies in Italy.
Emperor Constantine IX
Michael’s relegation of his adopted mother Empress Zoe to a convent led to his
being deposed. She was the foremost member of the centuries-old Macedonian
dynasty, while Michael’s family were common-born provincials. The populace of
Constantinople exercised their popular veto. Michael was deposed and killed.
The reinstated empress now chose as her husband and emperor a well-born
widower named Constantine Monomachus. (The latter was his family name, not
a nickname.) Constantine already had a mistress, Maria Skleraina. And her
brother Romanos Skleros was an enemy of George Maniakes. To please her,
Constantine IX appointed a new catepan of Italy, Pardos by name, to replace the
great general (Treadgold 1997: 592).
Psellos on the Battle of Ostrobos 1043: “Knowing that victories are won
not by numbers but by skill and experience he [Maniakes] selected those
48
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
most experienced in war with whom he had besieged many cities and
acquired great wealth and many prisoners”. —Psellos: Chronographia VI
83.4-8, in PBW 1043.
Pardos the patrikios arrived in Italy, landing (September 1042) at Otranto with
two colleagues and a large sum of gold and silver, to replace Maniakes, who had
declared revolt when he learnt he was being replaced. Pardos brought a
guaranteed pardon for Maniakes if he immediately gave up his rebellion. But
Maniakes killed Pardos and later his deputy the protospatharios Tubachi.
Romanos Skleros took vengeance on Maniakes in the Anatolikon theme,
attacking the general’s estates and his wife.
Maniakes went to Bari, but the town ignored him. He then crossed with his
troops to Dyrrhachion (Albania: February 1043) and won a first battle. Later in
Macedonia, at the Battle of Ostrobos, he is mortally wounded and dies at the
moment of victory (PBW, Narrative for 1042-43).
(*) The reign of Basil II, 976-1025, had seen a titanic struggle between Byzantium
and ‘West Bulgaria’ in which Bulgaria finally went under. The eastern part of
Bulgaria had already been conquered and turned into imperial themes before
976. Thus the name of ‘Bulgaria’ was applied to the imperial theme that covered
the western portions of the former Bulgarian empire, namely today’s inland
Albania, southern Serbia and FYROM. The Albanian littoral constituted a
separate theme named for the town of Dyrrhachium (modern Durres).
In the Balkans Maniakes’ army proceeded eastwards along the ancient military
highway, the Via Egnatia, towards Thessalonica. In Macedonia they clashed
(1043) with an Imperial army under the sebastophorus Stephen at Ostrovo
49
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Maniakes' head was dispatched to the capital so that it could be paraded through
the streets to prove the outcome of the battle. Victory services were held, and the
head was attached to the top of the Hippodrome.
When Constantine celebrated his triumph, the empresses Zoe and Theodora,
his wife and sister in law, sat on either side of him, though it was not usual for
empresses to be present at triumphal ceremonies: their presence highlighted the
fact that (as purple-born princesses) they were the source of Constantine's
imperial authority (thus Garland’s article on ‘Zoe’).
The victory parade itself focused on the bazaar precinct at Constantinople, i.e.
the area between the Forum and the Arch of the Milion. The loyalist forces
opened the parade. In the triumphal procession through Constantinople, the
Varangians, axes on shoulders, marched ahead of the victorious general, while
another contingent marched behind Maniakes’ severed head. First came lightly
armed troops, moving as an unorganised crowd. Next came the heavy cavalry
fully armed but observing strict military order. Behind them came
representatives of the rebel's army, with their heads shaved, seated backwards on
asses (McCormick 1986: 181, citing Psellos: see next).
To quote Psellus, Chronographia, VI 87:
50
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
(*) The meaning of the word rhomphaia at this time is controversial, as a quick
Internet search will reveal. Some say it was a spear, others an axe, others again
say a scimitar-like sword.
No fewer than three victory celebrations were held in 1042-44, partly aimed at
cementing Constantine's rule.
Rodriquez notes that in 1043 Byzantium still controlled Calabria, Taranto and the
‘Land of Otranto’, but in Apulia proper only the coastal towns recognised
Byzantium. In the interior only some isolated fortress-towns such as Troia (until
1048) and Lucera (until 1060) had evaded the Norman dominion.
Skilful Rule
“How little oppressive the Greek rule was”, writes Curtis, “and how skillfully the
Catepans yielded to the difficult conditions of their Apulian command, is
strikingly illustrated by a document of the date 1043 relating to Bari. The Catepan
Eustathius, wishing to reward the fidelity of the Judex Bisantius of that city to the
Emperor during the rebellion of Maniakes [see details below] and afterwards
against the "Franks" (the Normans), concedes to him the administration of the
village of Foliano (or Foliniano) and its surrounding district; he is permitted to
plant strangers there as colonists, and may collect tribute from them, himself and
51
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
his heirs, without any interference from the imperial authority. Finally the
Catepan concedes to him that his new subjects should be governed by him
according to Lombard law,* except, however, in case of assassination of the
Sacred Emperors or the Catepan himself; such a case could only be judged [only]
by an imperial official and by imperial law.” —Curtis, ‘Robert Guiscard, 1015-
1085’.
(*) The communities of South Italy were governed under either Imperial law
(Justinian’s Code: ‘Roman’ law) or Lombard law, The latter was a fusion of
Germanic and Roman law first codified in the seventh century (see Drew 2004).
Roman or Byzantine (Justinianic) law was in force in Calabria and part of Apulia
and at Gaeta, Naples and Amalfi. Rome too followed the Justinianic code. Most of
the South, however, including Benevento, lived under Lombard law.
Wisely or otherwise, the Greek Emperors allowed the maintenance of Latin
bishoprics in many towns, tolerated the practice of Lombard law, and admitted
many native officials into the local administration. One may guess that this was
part of the reason it took the Normans so long to defeat Byzantium. Conversely, it
is possible that, if Constantinople had imposed the Greek rite and Greco-Roman
(Justinianic) law already from before AD 900, the Normans may never have
succeeded and the Mezzogiorno might eventually have become mostly Greek-
speaking.
(*) Or at least what would become a great castle. Early ‘motte and bailey’ castles
were not as grand as later stone-built ones, which were uncommon before 1200.
The motte (“mound”) and bailey (enclosed courtyard or stockaded village) castle
consisted basically of a wooden tower or “keep” on a high mound or low hill,
ringed by a wooden palisade and surrounded by two ditches or a double moat.
Because so little archaeological work has been done, it is not known how soon
stone castles appeared in Norman Italy. But Guiscard is known to have built the
high, 18 metre, pentagonal stone tower at Gargano (Monte Sant’ Angelo) called
the "Tower of Giants" or Torre dei Giganti. He died in 1085, and this tower was
likely built towards the end of his reign (Kennedy 2001: 15; Gravette & Hook
2004: 58).
It would appear that the castle at Stridula was located so as to block aid to
Byzantine Calabria coming from Byzantine Apulia and vice-versa. Schlumberger
writes thus in his ‘L'épopée Byzantine à la fin du dixième siècle’:
52
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Meanwhile “Argyrus the Barian, the imperial catepan and duke of the Greeks,
came against the Normans in Tarentum [Taranto] and defeated them [1045].*
Next he came to Tranum [Trani] and was defeated by them under William
Ferrebrachius [Iron-Arm], who [earlier] was made [intitulatus est] the first count
of Apulia” (BCN).
(*) This was one of the last imperial victories over the Normans until 1066.
Hereafter, the Greeks are on the defensive and the Normans commonly beat
them in battle. The very last Byzantine success will come in 1066 when the
catepan Maurice will briefly recapture Taranto and Brindisi.
53
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Aged in his early 30s, William's younger brother, Robert de Hauteville [Italian:
Roberto D'Altavilla], arrived in Southern Italy in 1046 (Lupus Protospatarius
1056; Malaterra I.12, 16; and Amatus III.7). Anna Comnena describes him as a
very big man with a ruddy complexion and fair hair (Anna trans. Sewter p.54).
Unlike his shaven-faced son Bohemund, and also unlike William the Conquerer,
Robert wore—unusually for a Latin—a full beard in the Byzantine style. Anna says
that the son’s hair was yellowish and his eyes blue, which no doubt Robert also
had.
Robert came to Italy in 1046, at first fighting for Pandulf Prince of Capua until
the latter's death in 1049. His half-brother Drogo, putative Count of Apulia, gave
him the command of the garrison of Scribla* near Castrovillari in north-east
Calabria in 1049, but he abandoned it in favour of San Marco Argentano, closer to
Cosenza.* San Marco Argentano lies in a bleak mountainous region of inland N
Calabria, NW of Cosenza, from where he terrorised the neighbourhood. This
period of banditry (1046-53) earned him his nickname of Guiscardo ‘the Wily’ or
‘the [cunning] Weasel’ [Latin: Viscardus]. This is sometimes rendered as ‘the
Patient’. He will become the greatest of the Norman warlords.
(*) Just to the south of today’s Pollino National Park. Both Scribla and San Marco
Argentano overlooked the main road from Campania, the ancient Via Popilia,
that runs into and up the Crati valley to Cosenza.
54
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
John Raphael or Rafayl was catepan from 1046 to 1049. He replaced Eustathios
Palatinos and arrived with a detachment of Varangians at Bari in 1046. Rapahel’s
Varangian force captured Stira and Lecce and took Bari (1047) after a further
rebellion, but could not hold it; they were able to release the interned katepanos
Eustathios Palatinus only by agreeing to let the town remain free. Because the
Varangians were not well-received by the Bariots, John spent his governorship at
Otranto (Wikipedia, 2009, ‘John Raphael’).
In October skirmishes at Lecce and Ostuni favour the Byzantines.
The catepan Raphael moved from town to town with the Varangians, then
made peace with Bari. Raphael sent away Eustathios the (ex-)catepan and,
leaving Bari to the Lombards, the army returned to Otranto (thus PBW).
Byzantium did not regain control of Bari until 1051.
Meanwhile, in February 1047, the German Emperor Henry III, Conrad's son,
came south and made the (Norman) Drengot and the Hauteville possessions
around Melfi and Aversa his direct vassals. At Capua, he also restored the hated
Pandulf for the last time.
Henry made Drogo de Hauteville, William's successor in Apulia, a direct vassal
of the Western imperial crown. Drogo’s title was dux et magister Italiae
comesque Normannorum totius Apuliae et Calabriae, that is, ‘Duke and lord of
Italy and Count of the Normans of all of Puglia and Calabria’. He did likewise to
Ranulf Drengot, the count of Aversa, who had been a vassal of Guaimar as Prince
of Capua. Thus, Guaimar was deprived of his greatest vassals, his principality
split in two, and his greatest enemy reinstated. But Henry lost popularity
amongst the Lombards with these decisions, and Benevento, though a papal
vassal, would not admit him.
In 1048 the Normans under Drogo occupied Bovino and Troia, the Byzantine
fortress-towns NE of Benevento in the direction of Foggia. They were the most
important points on the connecting roads between Benevento and Apulia. They
also attacked the Byzantines in Tricarico in modern Basilicata, between Potenza
and Matera, and began the conquest of Calabria. This created the core of the
future Norman kingdom.
Drogo commanded an expedition in the valley of Crati, near Cosenza, and
pushed further into Calabria:
55
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
The enterprise of expelling the Byzantines proceeded slowly at first. After 1053,
however, success will come more quickly. In 1059 Pope Nicholas II, who needs an
ally against the German emperor, will invest Guiscard with the presumptive title
to Byzantine Apulia, Calabria, and Arab Sicily. Sicily will be wrested (1061-91)
from the Arabs by Robert's brother Roger, and meanwhile the Normans gain
Calabria (by 1060), Bari (the last Imperial stronghold, 1071), Salerno (1076) and
eventually most of Benevento, inland from Naples.
In 1081 Robert will assault the East Roman mainland, conquer Corfu, and
defeat (1081-82) emperor Alexius I in present-day Albania. In 1084 he aids Pope
Gregory VII against the German emperor Henry IV. Robert then resumed his
Balkan wars but died, aged about 70, of fever at Cephalonia. He was succeeded in
Apulia by his youngest son, Roger.
But we are already far ahead of our story.
56
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
hand, his father seems to have identified as a Lombard and his mother was
Lombard by birth. It is known that Argyros maintained differences with the
patriarch of Constantinople Michael Kerularios who considered him a foreigner
and heretical, being too Latin in his Catholicism, if such a term is not
anachronistic. —Von Falkenhausen in Magdalino 2003: 155; also Rodriquez.
“Anno 1051. Descendit Argyrus Magister Vesti, et Dux Italiae filius Meli
mense Martij et abiit Barum et non receperunt illum Adralistus, ac
Romoaldus cum Petro eius germano sed non post multum temporis
Barenses receperunt eum fine voluntate Adralisti, et aliorum. Sed
Adralistus fugit Romoaldus vero, et Petrus fratres ad Argyro sunt
comprehensi et catenis vincti Constantinopolim deportati sunt” (Lupus).
— ‘Argyros, Master of the (imperial) Robes and Duke of Italy, the son of
Meles, arrives [at Otranto] in March, and departs for Bari, (but) they -
Romoaldus with his full brother Peter [the anti-Greek faction] - do not let
him in; but after a little time the [pro-Greek] Bariots let him [Argyros] in
without the consent of Adralestus and the others. But Adralestus flees [to
the Normans]. The brothers Romoaldus and Peter are arrested and brought
to Argyrus, and, bound in chains, are taken away to Constantinople.’
In 1052 the Normans routed a Byzantine force under Argyrus in Apulia and at
Crotone in Calabria:
“He [the Norman leader Humphrey] joined battle with Argyrus, the
catepan of the Greeks, and his army [Argyrus’s] was again put to flight by
the Normans around Tarant0. Battle was also joined about Crotone in
Calabria, and Sico [the] Protspata [Gk: protospatharios] was defeated. The
Normannic lordship [dominium Northmannum] is expanded in Calabria
and Apulia and their power is recognised and fear of them grows up in all
the land.” —BCN; also ODB under ‘Crotone’.
57
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Disturbed by these events, Pope Leo IX, a German, with the help of his relative,
the German Emperor Henry III, and an alliance of Lombard noblemen,
undertook a political and military initiative. Their aim was to force out the
Normans, going as far as to make a pact with the Byzantines.
Gibbon describes Leo IX as “a simple saint, of a temper most apt to deceive
himself and the world”. He and the emperor Constantine IX were allied through
the mediation of the catepan of Italy, Argyrus, a Lombard who had spent years in
Constantinople, originally as a political prisoner.
Pope Leo had been to Saxony and asked Henry III to help him in the fight
against the Normans. In 1053 the Pope returned to Italy with only a guard of 700
Swabians and some volunteers from Lorraine. On the way through northern Italy
to Benevento, he had collected a large number of Italian volunteers without any
particular military skill: Gibbon’s “vile and promiscuous multitude of Italians”
(Decline, Vol 5, chap. LVI). With this polyglot army, Leo used his alliance with
the Byzantines to arrange a joint attack on Siponto (modern Manfredonia), an ex-
Byzantine town that had been held by the Normans since 1039 (‘Fanaticus’
2009). (Inland Benevento, coastal Manfredonia and coastal Bari form the points
of a large triangle; Manfredonia is on the Adriatic coast at the southern base of
the Gargano peninsula.)
Leo and Argyros led their respective armies against the ravaging Normans, but
the papal forces were defeated at the Battle of Civitate in 1053, which resulted in
the pope being imprisoned at Benevento.
Civitate is a town and crossing point on the lower Fortore River northwest of
Foggia, which is to say: inland, west from the bump that is the Gargano
peninsula. The precise site is not clear from the Internet sites I consulted in
2009. It may be San Paolo di Civitate, near San Severo.
No Byzantine troops were present at Civitate: their army was still approaching.
The Normans wished to force a battle before the Byzantines could join the allied
Papal-Lombard-German expedition. So it was that the allies clashed with the
Normans near the river Fortore, not far from Civitate, NW of Foggia in
Capitanata.
Before the Papal-German army could link up with the Byzantines, it was
routed at Civitate by some 3,000 or more Norman horsemen and others, led by
Count Humphrey de Hauteville, with brother Robert Guiscard commanding the
left wing.
The general of the Papal-German army was Geoffrey, Duke of Lorraine, or (more
likely) Rudolph, Prince of Benevento. It was probably twice as large as
Humphrey’s: say 8,000 troops, but it included many untried soldiers. The elite
force was 700 German (Swabian) mounted infantrymen. They specialised in
fighting on foot with large two-handed swords. “These swords were very long and
keen, and they were often capable of cutting someone vertically in two” (William
of Apulia). As for the rest: “The Italians [on the papal side] stood all crowded
together on the other side because they neglected to draw up a battle line in the
proper manner”, writes William.
58
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
On the Norman side there were probably fewer than 4,000 men in all, both
Normans and Calabrians. Specifically, William of Apulia says the Normans had
“almost 3,000 horsemen and a few infantry”. The latter were probably mostly
archers. Robert 'Guiscard', "the wily", now aged 37 or 38, led the left wing and
was initially held back as a reserve.
The figure of “3,000” knights incidentally reveals the limit of the overall
strength of the Normans, or rather their lack of strength, as presumably this was
the strongest force that could be assembled while leaving behind some minimal
garrisons to safeguard against Greek or Lombard risings.
Despite an offer of negotiation from the Normans, the battle took place on 18
June 1053. Pope Leo observed the battle from the walls of Civitate.
According to one story, the Normans took unfair advantage by attacking when
a parley was in progress.
“The Swabians drew up their line of battle against the arms of the valiant
Humphrey. First Humphrey attacked them at long-range with arrows, he in
turn was harried by the arrows of his enemies. Finally both sides charged sword
in hand . . .” (William of Apulia, emphasis added). The papal army was
annihilated, and the Pope was imprisoned and kept captive for nine or 10 months
in Benevento. He occupied himself by trying to learn Greek.
Gibbon loc cit.: “[The Normans] climbed the hill of Civitella, descended into
the plain, and charged in three divisions the army of the pope. On the left,
and in the centre, Richard count of Aversa, and Robert the famous
Guiscard, attacked, broke, routed, and pursued the Italian multitudes, who
fought without discipline, and fled without shame. A harder trial was
reserved for the valour of Count Humphrey, who led the cavalry of the right
wing. The Germans have been described as unskillful in the management of
the horse and the lance, but on foot they formed a strong and impenetrable
phalanx; and neither man, nor steed, nor armour, could resist the weight of
their long and two-handed swords. After a severe conflict, they were
encompassed by the squadrons returning from the pursuit; and died in the
ranks with the esteem of their foes, and the satisfaction of revenge”.
Seeing the Papal army destroyed, the inhabitants of Civitate handed the Pope
over to the Norman army. The pope was taken prisoner and kept in polite
captivity for nine months. In the following months, he was forced to ratify the
past and future conquests of the Normans in Southern Italy. Humphrey then
personally escorted him on the way to Rome as far as Capua, but the experience is
thought to have contributed to Leo's death a month later (see Cavendish 2003).
The battle was effectively the founding moment of the Norman empire in the
south and the future kingdom of the Two Sicilies.
Later in 1053 “Argyros, son of Melus, went by sea [from Bari] to Siponto. There
he was attacked by count Humphrey, count Petrone [Peter] and their Normans;
he was defeated, and escaped half-dead to Viesti [modern Vieste, at the tip of the
Gargano peninsula].” —PBW.
59
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Sico or Sicone, died 1054, was a Byzantine protospatharios (high official) leading
troops in Italy from about 1052. He had a Lombard name, though he was a Greek
official. He was an official under the catepan Argyrus. Sico was killed in battle
(1054) outside the walls of Matera fighting the Normans of Onfroi (Humphrey) of
Hauteville (Lupus protospatharius 59.22).
xxx
60
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
1058 Anti-Norman -
revolt by Italo-
Greeks and
Lombards.
1065 - -
61
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
1067 - -
“It [the Norman conquest] was not simply due to that peculiar combination of
qualities displayed by the Normans, for it was only afterwards [i.e., after 1053]
that their drive, military flair and lack of scruples became apparent. . . . The root
causes of Byzantine failure are to be explained differently. At the local level, the
mechanisms of Byzantine rule had been allowed to run down, as power passed
into the hands of leading urban families. Their interests were not identical with
those of the Empire as a whole. The circulation of the tari [the Muslim Sicilian
coin] in S Italy, rather than the official Byzantine coinage, suggests that the
region was developing economic interests which separated it from the rest of the
Empire” (Angold 1984: 32).
Nearly all of lower Apulia was lost (for a period) to the Normans in 1055-56. The
key inland towns of the heel—Oria, Lecce and Nardo—capitulated in 1055, or by
1056; and Guiscard captured the fortress-village of Minerva and the towns of
Otranto (briefly) and Gallipoli. The following year, now elevated to Count Robert,
he leads his troops into Calabria (Norwich 1967: 107). Guiscard was seen as a
usurper by some, as his nephew Abelard had a better claim to be Count.
62
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
In central Calabria the Normans took (1056 or 1057) the upper Crati valley:
Cosenza; Bisignano to the N of Cosenza; Martirano between Cosenza and
Nicastro; and Nicastro which is further S of Cosenza. In Apulia they captured
most of the lower heel—‘the Land of Otranto’—including Gallipoli and Lecce by
1056. But Byzantine rule continued in the upper heel and ankle including Bari,
Brindisi and Taranto:
The following year, 1057, now aged about 42, the new Count Robert begins the
conquest of Byzantine lower Calabria. He moves (1057-58) against the few
remaining Byzantine garrison-towns in Calabria. He proceeded first to Cariati on
the western or Calabrian side of the Gulf of Taranto, which capitulated. By the
end of the year he captured nearby Rossano and then - further south, inside the
tip of the toe: Gerace. In the words of William of Apulia, Book II, “mighty
Rossano [in N Calabria], warlike Cosenza, then wealthy Gerace [S Calabria]
surrendered to him, and so nearly the whole of Calabria was made subject to
him”. (Norwich prefers to date these events to 1059.) The only sizable town left in
Byzantine hands was the old thematic capital of Reggio (Norwich 1967: 132).
Malaterra describes the campaigning in Calabria thus:
63
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
“He [Guiscard] raised an army and after making all the necessary
preparations for the expedition, he led his troops into Calabria. He crossed
into the territory of Cosenza and Martirano, and then remained for two days
near the hot springs close to the River Lamita, to allow his army to relax
after a hard and tiring march and to reconnoitre the land ahead. Then he
went on [i.e. south-east] to the castrum [fortress-village] called Squillace,
and from there marched along the coast [the sole of the Italian front-foot
and toe] until he reached Reggio. He spent three days in a reconnaissance of
this city, but when he realised that neither by threats nor by promises could
he make its citizens surrender, and with a number of matters requiring his
attention in Apulia, he prepared to withdraw. On his return journey,
Neocastro [Nicastro], Maida and Canalea made peace and surrendered to
him.”
A general revolt against the Normans in southern Italy in 1058 prompted Robert
Guiscard to seek his younger brother Roger's help. Previously he had spurned his
arrival. Roger agreed to join forces in return for territory.
In Calabria, Leon Thrymbos, the Byzantine doux of Italy and strategos of
Calabria, had the Scribones* executed (1058) at the diocesan town of Crotone
[either officials or perhaps members of a prominent local family*] (PBW,
narrative for 1058). Why he did so is not known, but this caused so much
discontent in Calabria that Thrymbos was forced to flee, and made his escape to
emperor Isaakios I. Robert Guiscard was able to exploit the situation by
capturing Reggio.
(*) In earlier centuries a scribon was a senior officer in the elite regiment of the
Excubitors; presumably this was the origin of the family name. Rodriquez says
that in the 11th C they were civil magistrates.
The military successes of the Normans aginst Byzantium did not go unnoticed. In
1059, the Italian prelate Hildebrand, the chief councillor of the French-born Pope
Nicholas II [Gérard de Bourgogne] sought to shield the papacy from the attacks
of the adversaries of ecclesiastical reform by entering into an alliance with the
French-speaking Normans. This was also an alliance against Byzantium and
Germany.
The increasing desire of the reformist popes to free themselves from (as they
saw it) the oppression of the two empires made an alliance with the Normans the
only feasible solution, thanks above all to the diplomacy of the abbot of
Montecassino, Desiderius (who became Pope Victor III).
The Pope recognises Norman secular authority in southern Italy in return for
their recognition of his spiritual authority (Fouracre et al. 2005: 107). Just six
years after the debacle at Civitate, in a synod held at Melfi in 1059, Nicholas II
64
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
confirmed the investiture of Guiscard with the title of duke, as well with his
possessions in Apulia and Calabria (and Sicily, when this had been conquered);
Richard of Aversa was recognised as prince of Capua.
Guiscard declared himself the vassal of the Holy See, pledged himself to bring
about the observance of the decrees of the Council of Lateran with regard to the
election of popes, and received in exchange the title of Duke with the investiture
of his conquests in Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily. The Pope also decreed that future
popes would be elected by the cardinal-bishops, the aim (as with the alliance with
the Normans) being to free the papacy from the influence of the Roman nobles
and the German emperor.
This was a decisive institutional turning-point for Norman power in southern
Italy.
In May 1060 the Normans under Guiscard captured Taranto from the
Byzantines. Towards the end of 1060, however, the new emperor Constantine
Ducas sent new troops commanded by ‘Miriarca’, as he is called in the sources.
They retook the town.
‘Miriarcha’ is probably to be interpreted as his military rank: Merarcha. The
later Byzantine form was meriarch (sic) or senior turmarch, the commander of a
force of 800-3,000 men. Evidently the title was equivalent to ‘deputy strategos’
or second in charge of a theme: in modern terms a brigadier (Rodriquez; also
Treadgold 1995: 97, 99, citing Leo VI’s Taktika).
It is not certain that he held the title of catepan: according to Hofmann, p.771,
after Argyrus, the catepans were in turn: “Alexius, cognomine Charon (1058),
Trombus [Thrymbos]” (1058), Marules (1061) and Sirianus (1062). Others
propose that a “Scinuro” (“1054-60”) came before Marules (Petroni 1857: 74;
Blasiis 1864). ). ‘Scinuro’, which can be sourced to the Anonymi barensis
chronicon, quite possibly is a just a translation or transcription error. Others
again say the post was vacant between the time of disappearance of Argyrus from
the record (1057) to the appointment of Marules (1061).
65
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Such reverses were rare for Guiscard, after 1059 as before it.
Meanwhile, in the autumn of 1060, having taken Byzantine Brindisi and Taranto,
the Normans had laid siege finally to Reggio in Calabria. After a bloody
resistance, the town capitulated (1061), and its two Byzantine officials—probably
the strategos of Calabria and the krités or chief judge—locked themselves inside
neighbouring Scilla, a coastal town further north, with part of the Byzantine
garrison. Soon after, they were forced to embark for Constantinople when the
population concluded a deal with the Normans.
Robert Guiscard set up residence in Reggio, where he was recognised as Duke
of Calabria.
The Byzantines had already become demoralized and adopted a much more passive
attitude, possibly reflecting the limited military resources they had. For that reason, the
successive catepans in Bari, Marules in 1061 and Sirianos in 1062, were forced to stay
mostly on the defensive (thus Rodriguez). Cf 1063.
Catepans of Italy: (a) Sirianus, 1062; then (b) Apochara, 1064. The latter’s
66
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
name is given as Apochara in the Anon. Bar; Crawford uses ‘Abul Kare’. At a
guess, it may be a rendering of the Arabic name Abu-l-Khair or Abul-Khayr
[abu, ‘father of’]. Cf Yousef abu Yasu: ‘Joseph, father of Jesus’.
“Mense aprili mortuus est Gauffredus comes, et Goffridus filius eius cepit
Tarentum, deinde ivit super castrum Motulae, et comprehendit eam, et
castellum eius” (BCN under 1063).
— ‘In April count Geoffrey dies and Geoffrey his son takes Taranto, then he
proceeds against the fortress of Mottola, and seizes it and its citadel.’
After three years, in 1063, the Norman count, a different Geoffrey, son of Petron
I, re-entered Taranto, but he will be obliged to flee from it on the arrival - in
1066: see later - of the Byzantine admiral Michael Maurikias (Wikipedia, 2009,
under ‘Taranto’).
67
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
The new catepan or doux of Italy in 1064 was Apochara, Abulchare(s), Abulcaré
or Abdul Kare, as his name is variously rendered. It is presumed he was of Arab
descent. Sailing from Dyrrhachium in today’s Albania, the new catepan
disembarked in Bari and was able to send some reinforcements to the towns that
still resisted the Normans. Byzantium still controlled part of the coast, from the
peninsula of Gargano to the neighbourhood of Brindisi, although the catepan
could not prevent the people of Bari arriving at a truce with Guiscard due to the
shortage of supplies.
Skylitzes Continuatus has Apochara organising the defences of Horai [Monte
Maggiore], Bari, Brindisi, Taranto, Apulian Gallipoli and Otranto.
68
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
A mostly Varangian force came (late 1066) to Bari from Dyrrhachium under a
new catepan Michael Mauricas or ‘Mabrikias’: It. Mabrica, Lat. Mabrix, Gk
Mavrikias, English: Maurice. (In medieval Greek the letter ‘b’ was pronounced as
‘v’.) They retook Brindisi and Taranto and established a garrison at the former
under Nikephoros Karantenos, an experienced Byzantine soldier from the wars
with the Bulgarians. Mavrikias also recovered Castellaneta in modern-day
Basilicata, NW of Taranto:
69
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
“Anno 1066. Goffredus Comes filius Petronii voluit ire in Romaniam cum
multa gente sed obstitit illi quidam ductor Graecorum nomine Mabrica”
(Lupus).
— ‘Count Geoffrey son of Petronius decides to go into the empire/Byzantine
territory (“into Romania”) leading many men, but he is withstood (opposed)
by a certain leader of the Greeks named Mabrikias/Maurice’.
In 1068 Robert Guiscard crushes the last of the Norman rebels in Apulia. He then
lays siege to Byzantine-held Bari. Otranto surrenders to him.
Guiscard besieged Montepeloso, but was making little headway. Thus he took
some of his forces and went off and took Uggiano [SE of Otranto]. Returning to
Montepeloso, he and Godfrey won the rebel-held town with the help of treachery
from a certain Geoffrey. At this point he began the siege of Byzantine Bari by land
and sea:
The Normans begin (1068) a siege of Bari, the isolated capital of what remained
of Byzantine South Italy. The Pisans, who had ealier heleped the Noramsn aginst
the Muslism in Sicily, agsin assisted the Norman side with ships and
crossbowmen (J France 1994: 62). The siege lasted from 5 August 1068, through
three winters, to 16 April 1071.
Guiscard reunited all to his vassals for a supreme effort. As narrated in the
70
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Conscious of the gravity of the situation, the besieged population of Bari again
requested aid from Constantinople (1068).
The emperor himself was occupied at this time in the preparations for a new
campaign in the East against the Turks, but the government in the form of the
Empress could not ignore the request for aid from the major surviving bastion in
Italy. She hastily ordered prepared a fleet with arms and provisions under the
control of the newly designated catepan Stephen Pateranos (Lat. Patrianus). The
Normans managed to sink or capture 12 supply transports off Monopoli, the port-
town SE of Bari, but the rest of the ships made it through. The fleet arrived at
Bari in January 1069. But the Normans continued the siege into 1070 (Norwich
1967: 170).
The years 1069-71 saw the final phase of Byzantine resistance. As noted, a relief
fleet from the East arrived at Bari in the first months of 1069. Subsequently an
imperial army was defeated in the hinterland by the Normans still commanded
by Robert Guiscard, and this caused the fall also of Gravina and Obbiano:
Robert did not return immediately to Bari, but in January 1070 he headed to
Brindisi in order to help the Normans already there to besiege it. Brindisi was the
only major town other than Bari still in Byzantine hands, and it capitulated in
71
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
When the Normans put Brindisi under siege in 1070, Nikephoros Karantenos
feigned surrender and then attacked the Normans as they were scaling the walls
on ladders. He beheaded “100” corpses and crossed the sea to Albania with the
heads, thence shipping them off to Constantinople to impress the emperor.
Alternatively Karantenos pretended to treat secretly with Guiscard for the
betrayal of the town, and at the appointed hour and place the Normans were
admitted, one by one, by a ladder. As each one then passed through a door, he
was silently killed by the Greeks, and so 100 perished before those behind knew
what was happening (Crawford, Rulers p.221).
“This year in the month of January there was a great slaughter in the town of
Brindisi; for while the Normans wanted to capture it, 40 of them were captured,
along with 43 others, their sergeants (ministris, ‘attendants’); and the heads of all
these men were carried off to the [Byzantine] Emperor.” —Lupus.
In 1070 Pisa and the Normans defeated, or at least they mauled, a second major
Imperial fleet sent to aid Bari:
“On his [the emperor’s] order, pirate ships were suitably prepared to
transport grain, and arms [also] by which the fleet could be protected
during the voyage to the town. (Hence the sailors would be freed from fear
and the town from want.) The emperor ordered that Joscelin [a Norman
opposed to Guiscard] be put in command of this fleet. He had fled from
Italy in fear of the duke, who hated him because he had conspired against
him. Joscelin came in haste with his warships to encourage the tremulous
citizens. He was already close to the town, hoping to enter it in safety during
the night, when suddenly Robert's fleet encountered the Greek fleet which
had come to strengthen his enemies. The duke's ships willingly entered on a
night action, thinking that this was more favourable to them than to the
enemy since they knew these waters while their opponents did not. After a
great deal of effort Joscelin's ship was defeated and captured, and he
himself brought prisoner before the duke. Another Greek ship was sunk, the
rest just managed to escape” (William of Apulia).
72
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
The Greek/East Romanic presence in Italy ended with the fall of Bari on 15 April
1071.
Norman ships were lined up across the mouth of the harbour and linked
togehther and with the mainland by a bridge or bridges so as to prevent aid
reaching the town from the sea and also to enable land-troops to assert pressure
from another quarter. A third naval relief expedition having failed, the anti-
Norman faction inside Bari lost power and the town surrendered to Guiscard. —
Roberts 1997.
The town had held out for two years and eight months and had received two
relief fleets (the second in 1070), but in the end its people saw Robert Guiscard's
army swell with the arrival of Roger and his army from Sicily. They had also
witnessed the catastrophic routing (1071) of a third Byzantine relief fleet by
Roger's navy. Of the 20 Byzantine ships involved, nine were sunk and not one
was able to penetrate into the harbour of Bari. Thus the inhabitants, now with no
hope of relief and with mass starvation in the town, opened the town gates on 15
April and let Guiscard into the town (Norwich 1967: 171-73).
During the siege by the Normans there was civil strife in Bari. Bisantius
Guirdeliku or Gunderlich (?) was murdered by the leading Greek-Bariot
Argyritzos, son of Ioannakes, on July 18; then the houses of the Malapezza family
were burned and destroyed (PBW, citing William of Apulia; Lupus dates this to
1071).
73
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Part II
Raffaele D’Amato (2005) has studied in detail the illustrations in the manuscript
known as the Skylitzès Matritensis or ‘Madrid Skylitzes’ in order to analyse the
clothing, equipment and weapons of the army of generalissimo George Maniakes
in the period 1038-43. D’Amato interprets the miniatures in the light of narrative
records from the era.
74
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
except for that provided by a shield. His soft leather boots reach almost to his
knees, but unless padded they would not have afforded much protection.
Cavalrymen of course used their shields to guard their bent legs. Unless one was
very tall, a shield of 100-110 cm [up to 3 ft 7 in] would cover almost the whole
height of a horseman riding crouched with short stirrups, certainly from ankle to
shoulder.
In his last battle in the Balkans (1043), where he took part in the hand-to-hand
fighting, Maniakes is shown carrying a so-called “three cornered” or kite-shaped
shield. More exactly, its shape is that of an inverted teardrop. Such shields were
about 70 cm [2 ft 4 in] wide at the widest point and about “105.3 cm” [sic: 3.5
feet] high. In the Sylloge Tacticorum, s. 39.1, this type is called ‘the cavalry
shield’, 93.6-117 cm [median 105 cm: 3 ft 5 in] high in that source; also in the
Praecepta Militaria, IV, 36-37.
There were two straps rivetted to the back of the shield, near its top, with which
to hold it. One strap went inside the forearm elbow bend and the other was
gripped with the hand (D’Amato p.67).
The general is shown wearing his sword strapped on a second outer belt rather
than a baldric. But most troops did use the baldric: Greek váltidion, Latin
baltidium. Dawson 2007: 19 and D’Amato give the length of the spathion
(Roman long sword) as about 85 cm; McGeer offers 90 cm.
Finally D’Amato supplies Maniakes with a ‘battle-flail’, i.e. a short war-whip
apparently about 60 cm [2 ft] long whose several leather thongs carry heavy
metal weights at their tip. This may have been the weapon used to humiliate
Arduin (in 1040).
The illustrations in Skylitzes depicting the Sicilian campaign of 1038-40 show the
Byzantine troops carrying triangular, tear-drop or “kite”-shaped shields, while
the Muslims have smaller round shields. In the illustration of the battle near
Troina, the Byzantines’ long maces are much in evidence.
In the 9th C, the bardoukion was a fighting mace, which could be also thrown.
The same can be said for the matzoukion, another type of mace. Bardoukia and
matzoukia were thrown against the enemy by both infantrymen and cavalrymen,
at certain distances. Emperor Leo, ca AD 907, mentions the cavalry mace, saying
that it should have a spiked head. The head featured spiked projections designed
to inflict serious wounds. D’Amato, citing Kolias, says that the shaft, normally of
wood, had a length between 60 and 80 cm [up to 30 inches] (D’Amato, ‘The
Mace’).
75
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
An Infantry Officer
The Varangians joined the Romanic (‘Greek’) army in the late 900s. We
summarise here D’Amato’s analysis of the dress and equipment of a Varangian
officer in 1038.
D’Amato imagines that Varangian officers would have worn much the same
equipment as non-Varangian infantry officers, e.g. the waist-length corselet of
downward overlapping scales or or upward overlapping lamellar. He notes that in
some sources it is said that Harald Sigurdsson, the Varangian commander under
Maniakes, wore long East-Roman armour called emma. This armour, which
protected him down to the calves, should be read as a mail coat, even though
made in Byzantium.
The officer’s helmet in D’Amato’s illustration is conical and made of segments
rivetted together with reinforcing bossed plates: the so-called ‘segmented
spangenhelm’ type. D’Amato calls it the ‘directly rivetted frameless
sprangenhelm’. (The one-piece plain flat-conical cap-style helmet was more
common in Byzantine armies.) Nape protection was given by a cuir-bouilli
(boiled or hardened leather) aventail whose strips or strap-tops were sewn to the
inner lining of the helmet.
The cuirass, worn over the mail tunic in the case of officers, was a waist-length
scale klibanion of Greek-Hellenistic style, i.e. with a slightly muscled-body-
shaped base. D’Amato thinks the shape was supplied by the shaped leather
backing or interior side of the corselet; the platelets were rivetted on. He depicts
scale armour with 10 rows of quadrangular iron lamellae.
The officer wears leather pteruges as additional protection for his upper arms.
His sword or spathion of about “86” cm, nearly three feet, is worn in what
emperor Leo VI called ‘the Roman fashion’, i.e. hung by a baldric (Gk váltidion,
Lat. baltidium) - transverse from the right shoulder -with the top of the sword
76
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Lombard Infantryman
A ‘Pelthastis of the Thema of Longobardia or Laghouvardhìa’
In this case D’Amato uses for his analysis a miniature called “The Temporal
Authorities” of Exultet 2, today preserved in Pisa Cathedral, but produced in
Southern Italy, probably at Capua, in 1059.
On his head our infantryman wears a metal, single-piece kassidion or very high
conical-pointed helm over a mail coif. The latter is in effect a hood.
D’Amato gives him body armour in the form of a waist-length sleeveless scale
corselet with 16 rows of non-overlapping square platelets, rivetted to a leather
backing. Or perhaps it should be called ‘lamellar’. The corselet is worn over a
knee-length, long-sleeved tunic that was probably padded for comfort and
protection. That is, the corselet stops at the waist; the tunic continues nearly to
the knees.
He carries only a long spear of about 8 ft or 2.5 metres and no sword because
that is what the source illustration shows; but almost universally (except for
temporary conscripts) infantry also carried swords.
The shield was medium-small, about 60 cm [about 2 ft] in diameter, with a
circular, very convex shape and without a central boss.
There is no additional leg protection; high soft leather boots reaching nearly to
the knees provide the footwear.
Giovanni AMATUCCIO, 1998: "Fino alle mura di Babilonia". Aspetti militari della
conquista normanna del Sud [‘To the Walls of Babylon’: Military aspects of
the Norman conquest of the South], Rassegna Storica Salernitana, n.30
(1998). Online, 2009, at
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/amatuccio1.htm#_ftnref6
77
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Richard CAVENDISH, 2003: ‘The Battle of Civitate: June 18th, 1053’, History
Today, Vol. 53, June 2003. Online 2009 at www.questia.com.
Charles CAWLEY, 2009: Website of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy: see
below under FMG.
78
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Edmund CURTIS, 1912b: Roger of Sicily and the Normans in lower Italy, 1016-
1154, London: AMS Press.
H R E Davidson, 1976: The Viking Road to Byzantium. London: Allen & Unwin.
---, 2007: Infantry of the Eastern Roman Empire, c.900–1204, Warrior Series,
Osprey Publishing, Oxford, 2007.
79
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SICILY.htm#_Toc174790026;
accessed 2009.
Paul FOURACRE et al. 2005, eds, New Cambridge Medieval History vol. IV.
John FRANCE, 1994: Victory in the East: A Military History of the Crusades.
Cambridge, UK.
George GRANTHAM, 2007: ‘What’s Space Got to Do with It? Distance and
Agricultural Productivity before the Railway Age’, McGill University,
August, 2007: online at
www.mcgill.ca/files/economics/whatsspacegot.pdf.
Christopher GRAVETTE & Adam HOOK, 2004: Norman Stone Castles (2):
Europe 950-1204. Osprey Publishing.
John F. HALDON, 1999: Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world, 565-
1204. Routledge.
John F HALDON, 2001: The Byzantine Wars, Battles and Campaigns of the
Byzantine Era. Stroud, UK: Tempus.
80
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
F.M. HOCKER, 2004: ‘Late Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic Galleys and Fleets’,
in Gardiner, Robert, ed., The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared
Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times. London: Conway.
LEO the Deacon: English translation: A.-M. Talbot and D. Sullivan, The History
of Leo the Deacon. Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century.
Washington DC, 2005.
81
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Paul MAGDALINO, ed., 2003: Byzantium in the Year 1000. Leiden: Brill.
Geoffrey MALATERRA. The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria and Sicily and of
Duke Robert Guiscard, his brother, trans. From the Latin by Graham
Loud (unpub). Online at
www.leeds.ac.uk/history/weblearning/MedievalHistoryTextCentre/Malat
erra%201.doc - 2006-12-13.
Charles McEVEDY & Richard JONES, 1978: Atlas of World Population History.
Penguin.
Eric McGEER, 1995: Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the 10th
Century. Washington, Dumbarton Oaks.
Giulio PETRONI, 1857: Della storia di Bari dagli antichi tempi sino all'anno
1856. [The History of Bari from ancient times … .] Fibereno, 1857.
Accessed 2009 at http://books.google.com.au.
Michael PSELLOS, Chronographia, ed. & tr. E. Renauld, 2 vols. Paris: Budé,
1926-8; English translation by E. R. A. Sewter, Michael Psellus. ‘Fourteen
Byzantine Rulers’. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966.
R ROBERTS, 1997: Latin Siege Warfare in the 12th Century. Oxford University
Press.
82
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Patricia SKINNER, 1995: Family Power in Southern Italy: The Duchy of Gaeta
and Its Neighbours, 850-1139. Cambridge University Press.
Paul STEPHENSON, 2003: ‘The Balkan frontier in the year 1000’, in Magdalino
2003.
Lucia TRAVAINI, 2001: ‘The Normans between Byzantium and the Islamic
World’, Dumbation Oaks paPers no.55 [2001]:
www.doaks.org/publications/doaks_online_publications/DOP55/DP55ch
09.pdf.
Warren TREADGOLD 1995: Byzantium and its Army. Stanford University Press.
83
O’ROURKE: BYZANTINE ITALY 1030-71
Vatican Anonymous. Also called ‘Historia Sicula’. Cod. Vat. Lat. 4936. Muratori,
L. A., ed. Anonymi Vaticani Historia Sicula a Normannis ad Petrum
Aragonensem. R.I.S. [Rerum italicarum scriptores], 8. Milan, 1726.
84