Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies, 22) Georgios Chatzelis, Jonathan Harris (Transl.) - A Tenth-Century Byzantine Military Manual - The - Sylloge Tacticorum - Routledge (2017)
(Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies, 22) Georgios Chatzelis, Jonathan Harris (Transl.) - A Tenth-Century Byzantine Military Manual - The - Sylloge Tacticorum - Routledge (2017)
Cyprus Between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ca. 600–800)
An Island in Transition
Luca Zavagno
Translated by
Georgios Chatzelis and
Jonathan Harris
First published 2017
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2017 Georgios Chatzelis and Jonathan Harris
The right of Georgios Chatzelis and Jonathan Harris to be identified
as translators and authors of this work has been asserted by them in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Chatzelis, Georgios, translator. | Harris, Jonathan, translator.
Title: A tenth-century Byzantine military manual : the Sylloge tacticorum /
translated by Georgios Chatzelis and Jonathan Harris.
Other titles: Sylloge tacticorum. English | Sylloge tacticorum
Description: Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, New York, NY : Routledge,
[2017] | Series: Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman studies | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017002087 | ISBN 9781472470287 (hardback : alk.
paper) | ISBN 9781315565316 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Military art and science—Early works to 1800. |
Tactics—Early works to 1800. | Byzantine Empire. Stratos—Drill
and tactics.
Classification: LCC U43.B9 S95 2017 | DDC 355.4/749509021—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017002087
ISBN: 978-1-4724-7028-7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-56531-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies Volume 22
To Aristeides and Lemonia, for their sacrifices
Contents
Acknowledgementsviii
List of abbreviationsix
Glossaryx
Conventions used in the translationxii
Introduction1
Translation13
Notes119
Bibliography151
Index165
Acknowledgements
The translators would like to express their thanks to Andy Antzara, Charalam-
bos Dendrinos, David Gwynn, Eirene Harvalia-Crook, and Chrysa Zizopoulou
for their help, advice, and information and to Michael Greenwood of Routledge
and John Smedley of Ashgate for facilitating the acceptance and publication of
the volume. When it came to the production stage, they were fortunate to have
the assistance of Sheri Sipka and her colleagues at Apex CoVantage whose hard
work and eye for detail smoothed the path to the press. Their greatest debt is to
John Haldon, whose careful reading of the translation and introduction yielded
numerous and extremely valuable corrections, suggestions, and improvements.
Lastly, they would like to record their appreciation to the late Frank Trombley
(1947–2015) who, by supervising Georgios Chatzelis’s MA dissertation, helped
to lay the foundations of this translation.
Abbreviations
The manuscript
The Greek text of the ST is preserved in three extant manuscripts. The
oldest, Laurentianus Plut. 75.6 (hereafter L), is in the Biblioteca Medicea
Laurenziana in Florence, a codex measuring 190 by 270 mm and consist-
ing of 278 folios in total. It is a later copy of the work, most probably
dating to the fourteenth or early fifteenth century, several hundred years
after the ST was first composed. The earliest evidence for the existence of
this manuscript dates from 1491. It was one of a number of items which
the Greek émigré scholar Janus Laskaris (1444/5–1534) brought back
from Corfu to Italy when he was on the second of two visits to Greece
which he undertook in search of Greek manuscripts for his patron, the
Florentine statesman, Lorenzo de’ Medici (1449–92). The manuscript did
not directly go to Lorenzo’s collection, however, as it was not until 1508
that it appears in the inventory of guardians of the Laurenziana Library
as number 381. It is also recorded on folio 108v of the so-called list of
Hannover, which is a list of works and authors featuring in the books that
Laskaris brought to Florence when he returned from his travels. It has
remained in Florence ever since.27 The other two manuscripts are more
recent copies. Bernensis 97, in the Swiss National Library in Bern, is a
direct copy of L and dates from the sixteenth century. Parisinus ms grec
2446, in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, is in turn a direct copy of the
Bernensis and dates from the seventeenth century. It is therefore L that
provides the primary authority for the text. It was copied by two different
scribes. The first wrote from the beginning up to the end of chapter 67,
whereupon a second hand continued the work up to the end.28 Daniele
Bianconi has suggested that two scribes from the circle of the Byzan-
tine scholar Nikephoros Gregoras (c.1291–c.1360), Krateros and another
known as ‘Anonymous G’, may have taken part in the creation of L and
that Krateros may even have been one of the copyists of the ST.29 Never-
theless, the exact identification of the hands which copied the ST remains
elusive.
L contains a number of other works besides the ST. Folios 1–71 con-
tain medical treatises, some of which are dedicated to Emperor Constan-
tine VII. Folios 116–24 preserve a series of military laws and martial
Introduction 9
hymns, which both have since been edited and published.30 After that,
folios 124–247 are devoted the Hippiatrica, a veterinary treatise, which
was probably another of the handbooks written under the auspices of
Constantine VII.31 The remaining folios (247–75) are filled with various
treatises, mostly quite brief, some of which are dedicated to medicine
or geography.32 The ST occupies folios 72r–116r and a table of contents
(pinax) with the title of each chapter appearing on folios 72r–73v. How-
ever, the table of contents continues over to folios 73v–74v to cover not
only the contents of the ST, but also those of the other two works that fol-
low in the manuscript. That would suggest that the table of contents was
not initially part of the ST, but that it was added at a later date, when the
ST was included in a corpus dedicated to military matters that included
all three works, and thus the pinax served as a general table of contents
for the whole codex.33
L clearly does not preserve the work in its entirety as originally written.
In the first place, chapters 68 to 73 and half of chapter 74 are listed in the
table of contents but missing in the text. Second, in spite the fact that the
second title of the treatise states that it will cover strategic deeds of ancient
men in twenty-eight chapters, only twenty-seven appear in the treatise,
suggesting that one chapter has been lost.34 The first scribe, whoever he
was, made a note about the missing chapters in the margins of L, reporting
that they were already missing from the manuscript that he had copied. He
attempted to fill in some of the missing chapters in the margin of the manu-
script, using a lost source. Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that the table
of contents preserved the original titles, the missing chapters were filled up
in the wrong order. To add to the confusion, one of the added chapters (71)
does not correspond with any of the original chapters of the ST, as found
in the table of contents.
Also missing from all three surviving manuscripts are the illustrations.
According to the author of the ST, the manual originally included two
diagrams of infantry formations.35 The first one seems to have depicted
an array consisting exclusively of infantry, while the second one probably
illustrated a battle order in which the infantry were drawn up in a square
and the cavalry was stationed inside the formation. A small figure of the
second diagram is preserved in the lower right margin of folio 95r in L. It
bears little resemblance to surviving diagrams in other military treatises
such as the MS, so it is probably not a direct copy of the original one. More
likely it was designed by one of the later copyists to clarify the guidelines
found in the text and to make up for the absence of the original. The loss
of the diagrams is particularly regrettable.
10 Introduction
Editions and translations of the text
The first modern scholar to draw attention to the existence of the ST was
Angelo-Maria Bandini (1726–1803), the librarian of the Laurenziana. He
included L and the various works preserved in it in the catalogue of the
library’s manuscripts which he published in 1764–70. He did not publish
the text of the ST, however, but merely described some of its contents.36
The first edition of the ST appeared in 1854 when it was included in the
two-volume work of the German philologist, Hermann Köchly (1815–76).
This edition was unsatisfactory in many ways. It only included a selection
of the ST’s chapters (31–5, 38–9, 41–3, and 53–5) and the text was based
not on L but on the later copy, Bernensis 97, to which Köchly had easy
access.37 Nevertheless, for some years Köchly’s was the only available edi-
tion and in 1863 Jacques-Paul Migne (1800–75) included it in the Patrolo-
gia Graeca with the addition of a facing Latin translation.38 Subsequently
three partial editions appeared. In 1887, Johannes Melber, together with
the Swiss classicist Eduard Wölfflin (1831–1908), published an edition of
Polyaenus. Their volume also included those chapters of the ST (76–102)
which ultimately derive from Polyaenus, the text being based on L.39 In
1917, Rudolph (or Reszö) Vári included some previously unedited chap-
ters of the ST as a sort of a critical apparatus, to accompany his edition
of the LT, in order to compare and contrast the information given there.
Some of his quoted sections from the ST are no more than a word or a
sentence long, however.40 The last partial edition appeared in 1932, when
Jean-René Vieillefond edited chapters 57 to 75 as part of his study of the
work of Julius Africanus, one of the possible sources of the ST. He also
added a useful study regarding the sources and the date of the ST.41
The first and only complete edition of the ST, based on L, was published
by Alphonse Dain (1896–1964) in 1938. He included all the chapters of
the manual in his edition, as well as the chapters that were added by the
copyists in the margins of the manuscript. It is worth noting here that Dain
was one of the most influential scholars to have shaped our knowledge of
the ST and of Byzantine military manuals in general. He was the author
of numerous related books on military manuals from antiquity up to the
eleventh century, and investigated the thorny issues of lost works, adapta-
tions, and interpolations. His work is also of vital importance to the study
of manuscripts that preserve military treatises either as prototypes or as
later copies. Although now outdated in some respects, his books and arti-
cles still remain invaluable and among the standard works of reference.
A monumental article, published posthumously with Jules-Albert de Fou-
cault, provides a synopsis of a lifetime of scholarship.42
Introduction 11
As regards translations, some parts of the ST have been rendered into
modern European languages. In 1939, Dain produced a French transla-
tion of the five chapters that the copyist of L inserted into the margins to
complete the missing part of the ST and in 1994 Everett Wheeler pub-
lished the first partial English translation, which included chapters 76 to
102. Wheeler’s translation was based on the text of Wölfflin and Melber
rather than that of Dain but an appendix with the different readings was
included.43 This book presents the first complete translation into English
and it is based on Dain’s text.
Translation
By Leo [VI] the Emperor, Ruler of the Romans, in the Year 6412 [903/904 CE]1
6 Secret plans should not be shared with the rank and file 29
25 Concerning spies 44
26 Concerning envoys 45
35 What the officers of the army and the tagmata under their
command are named, according to the Romans 50
70 How the so-called liquid fire may be put out and how it
might not burn wood or walls when it is cast
upon them 96
87 How the general could give the impression that his army is
numerous, if he has a small one 107
91 How the general could make his army vigilant at night 109
102 The general must fight more boldly on occasions when not
fighting presents evident danger 117
BEGINNING OF THE TREATISE ON STRATEGY
6 Secret plans should not be shared with the rank and file51
He who shares secret plans, not only with the very best men, but with all
the soldiers, would be considered by me as senseless and with imperfect
intelligence. Because it is especially during this situation that malcontents
defect, believing at this time that they will gain gifts and honours from the
enemy by revealing and pointing out the secrets to him. There is no army
from which both slaves and free men do not desert, especially before battle.
17 The general should punish the offences of the rank and file
moderately, but he should take action properly against
those of individuals
1 The general must be moderate towards the offences of the rank and file
and he should not aim his punishments at the masses so that common
discontent may not unite them in revolt.81
2 At any rate he should only inflict sentences and punishments on those
who were the ringleaders of indiscipline. When the trial is for all the
soldiers, it is suitable for the general to display fatherly affection to all.82
[He should] often advise and discuss those things which will be profit-
able by common consent, and always take thought for the gathering of
the necessary provisions and for the expenses of the so-called custom-
ary gratuities, without which it is impossible to lead the army with dis-
cipline. However, during the individual punishments, it is right for the
general to be seen as severe by the offenders, because evil acts must be
cut out by the roots right from the beginning, and not [be neglected] until
they [are] fully grown, or else a worse turn of events must be expected.83
3 Therefore this [is] also a quality of a general, to appear fearsome and
undaunted to the soldiers, but also to be solicitous not only of everyone
in the camp, but also of the so-called syntelestai,84 for they must also be
kept unmolested.
21 Concerning day and night outposts and how fires should be lit
1 The general should assign some of the cavalry as guards at night and
post them in strategic positions. If the night is especially moonless
and with absolutely no stars or light, the guards should approach
each other and the camp’s trench not only vertically but also horizon-
tally, so that it would not escape their notice if some spies slipped in
between them.94 Each outpost should consist of six men (for it seems
that an outpost of only two men [is] far too small and [capable of]
almost nothing remarkable, for when it is observed, it rather indi-
cates a severe shortage of men). But whenever it is divided into three
38 Translation
through the course of the night, some of them take turns to sleep and
the others keep watch. One must neither compel men, nor trust those
who volunteer, to stay up all night long for, contrary to popular belief,
it is likely for sleep to come spontaneously when limbs submit.95
2 Additionally at night, three picked men must run between the afore-
mentioned guards, meet with one another and rouse them to vigilance.
At the same time, having been informed by the guards about what has
happened during the night, they must report to the general.96
3 It is appropriate for the outposts to light the fire further than the army
and further from one another. Because in this manner, due to the fire,
the outposts will surely see from a great distance those whom the
enemy has placed nearby, but the enemy will not observe those who
are in the darkness.97
4 So if there is an infantry army in the camp, the cavalry outposts may
be sufficient in this manner, since the trench becomes very secure. If
the camp is established, and if the infantry tagmata diligently spend
the night near the trenches, as is the custom, there [is] no need at all for
more watches. However, if the camp is neither very safe, nor are the
infantry tagmata vigilant in the camp’s trench, in this case only, there
is need for a very large number of cavalry outposts to be present at
night. For now, the outpost which is close to the enemy will not consist
of only six men, but of at least ten, and sometimes even more, when it
is separated from the camp at a distance of approximately three or four
miles, or in proportion to the location of the site and the preparations
of the enemy, as I have said.98
5 Since all hope for safety will rest entirely with these very guards, all
the units will remain awake alternately; especially [if] the camp [is]
slightly far off, approximately at a distance of two bowshots, and, in
fact, sometimes more or less, namely depending on the location of the
site and the state of affairs during the night. But sometimes half of
the army will remain awake, namely if a night battle is expected; that
is when half of the men inside the camp will also be at arms through
the whole night, naturally in accordance with the numbers of our own
army and with the enemy’s strength and preparation.
6 Between the furthest outpost and the one which is closest to the camp,
there will be others successively, each keeping intervals from one
another of approximately one or two bowshots at most. Each of them
should comprise six men as has been said, or even eight. But, again
[in case of emergency] they should draw up at a distance of a third of
a bowshot, in the interests of greater safety, rather than at the same
[distance] of two [bowshots].
Translation 39
22 Concerning the camp and what the general should do
when the enemy attempts to attack it99
1 As regards the camp and wintering, a site with especially level ground
must be chosen, where the army will live without fear. The site should
neither [be] rocky nor swampy (for both [are] useless). In addition,
it should not [be] too close to rivers either, for if the horses become
accustomed to drink frequently, they will suffer at times when water is
scarce.
2 Still, however, the army must not dwell for many days on the same
site, due to pestilential diseases which break out from putrefaction
among both horses and men, especially during spring and summer, as
well as autumn, but not during winter because [then] there is no such
apprehension, due to the frozen temperature of the season. Besides,
when cold weather is expected, the soldiers cannot easily move
wooden huts and dwell under roofs made of grass. And as I discussed
then, this shall be how the army dwells without anxiety in the camp
during winter or any other time.100
3 In dangerous places, however, when the attack of the enemy is
expected, or if the army is short of men, or is weak in some other way,
the roughest and most hilly location must be chosen. But if the army is
in a sufficient state, having a large number of men fit for combat and
possessing great resources, a location must be chosen which [is] level
and suitable for horsemanship and has drinking water nearby: a place
which is neither densely forested nor has high and easily accessible
places nearby, because from such spots the enemy may easily crush
those who are in the camp, especially at night. Therefore, for up to
three days the general [must] keep an eye on hostile territory, bearing
in mind that he should seek particularly the safest locations, where
there will be a canyon or an inaccessible river or some other rough
ground at the rear of those who encamp.101
4 The general should surround the remaining site with an artificial trench,
which is approximately five or six feet wide, and seven or eight feet
deep. The gathered soil from the trench should not be thrown outside but
inside, that is to say towards the side of the encampment. Whenever the
ground is hard and cannot be easily dug, he should secure the camp in
every direction either with a wall made of bricks, stones or tree trunks,
or with fences102 or with a large number of wagons, due above all to
enemy surprise attacks and especially ones at night, as I said.103
5 It seems that a rectangle [is] the best shape for the camp. Yet, as
I already said,104 it [is] advantageous to throw iron caltrops, attached
to one another by the so-called wire,105 all around from each part of the
40 Translation
trench at a distance of approximately eight or even ten fathoms. Next,
it [is] better to make the so-called horse breakers,106 namely round pits,
not in straight lines, but alternately, each being a foot wide and two or
even three feet deep.107
6 In addition, a very sharp stake with bells hanging from cords [should
be] fixed into the same pit, so that if an enemy were sent to spy on
the camp and manages to pass through the aforementioned caltrops
or pits, the bells would provide the guards of the camp with precise
information about the spies. Of course mounted guards should also be
present at a short distance beyond the trench and the camp, keeping
such vertical and horizontal intervals from one another, as are enough
to prevent any of the enemy spies from slipping in between [them].
This in fact must be kept in mind particularly during a moonless night,
when there is very much scope for the ruses of the enemy. We have
already discussed these in detail in chapter 21.108
7 What has been said about the outside and the perimeter of the trench
should be sufficient. Now, inside the trench and the camp, after first
gathering all the wagons throughout the encampment, the general must
array these around the camp. After the wagons, the tents of the infantry
will also be arrayed from all sides around the perimeter of the trench.
Then, there should be an empty space, of about three hundred feet all
around, so that the horses and the men in the tents may not easily be
slain by the enemy.109 Immediately after this empty space, the tents of
the tourmarchai and of the other officers will be arrayed, each in the
middle of their own tagma. However, the tent of the general should
be separated, being neither mixed with the rest of the multitude, nor
placed close to a road. For if the tent is kept this way, it will be free of
noise.110
8 There should be four straight roads in the camp, from east to west, and
from north to south, each measuring fifty feet, so as for five horsemen
to traverse them simultaneously without trouble. The gates should
number the same as the roads, not being straight but bending like the
[letter] gamma [Γ]. There should also be dividers between the tagmata
ending at the aforementioned roads, in the manner of an alley. In addi-
tion, the more excellent of the kometes or the ekatontarchoi should
be detached close to the very gates of the camp, together with their
tagmata, in order to prevent those who wish to go in or out whenever
they desire, especially when the sun is setting. Each of the taxiarchoi
should have his own messenger who stays beside the general’s tent, in
order to be reliably informed by the general about important matters
during the night.111
Translation 41
9 During the early morning and evening [service] it is always proper for
the so-called extended litany to take place.112 After dinner, it is suit-
able to call for silence and to suspend every kind of noise, in short,
every kind of fluting and dancing. It is fit to deal with all indiscipline
leniently.113
10 Each of the tagmata should gather rations of food in the camp for three
or four days: fodder, chaff, and barley, so that the rank and file may not
fall into mortal peril in collecting them, since, in fact, it is customary
for the enemy to lie in ambush at such times.114
11 Above all, however, the general must always keep an eye with devo-
tion on this: that neither he, nor any of the picked officers with the
stronger tagmata under their command, should dismount from their
horses before the camp is safely completed and the watches set one
or even two hours before sunset, as is customary. This is because
the greatest misfortunes befall the army precisely during such times,
namely when it is occupied with establishing the camp or with the
release of the horses for grazing, or when it is dismounted and almost
unfit for battle.
12 After dinner, the general should always command everyone through
messengers that nobody among the men should dare to mount a horse
if the enemy attacks the camp during the night. For this is risky and
causes casualties to the whole army. Therefore, when everybody is
ready, they [must] bear the burden of battle as infantry until the fol-
lowing morn, which is when the army may array itself for a cavalry
battle. So much for the camp.
25 Concerning spies123
1 Spies must be at least thirty years old and have children, parents,
or siblings so that they may not easily desert to the enemy and give
counsel against us. In addition, they must be prudent and bold, know
the customs and the language of the enemy and also have a precise
knowledge of the roads and the topography. Furthermore, they must
be steady in spirit and seek glory rather than money, and carefully
guard the Roman race with all honesty and goodwill.
2 Now, when we want to send them to conduct espionage, we take each
one privately and suitably instruct them one by one about those things
which they should know, so that they may communicate with one
another under the pretence of buying or selling when they are in hos-
tile territory, and thus reveal what is happening.
Translation 45
3 The spies must not associate with the more prudent and curious men
of the enemy for long, but with the more straightforward and simple
[folk], and must bivouac close to them.
26 Concerning envoys124
1 Envoys should always be received with honour and every kind of care
should be shown to them. Nevertheless, as regards those who serve
them, every kind of precaution [should] be taken, so that they are not
easily able to observe what state our affairs are in.
2 If they who sent the envoys are stronger [than us], it is neither fit to
show them wealth, nor the beauty of women, or anything else of that
sort; but only the firmness of the walls, the weapons and the multi-
tudes of armed men. On the other hand, if they are weaker, it is then
permissible to display everything in order to amaze and intimidate
them.
3 The envoys that we despatch must above all be pious and it is neces-
sary that they have not been convicted of any crime against the coun-
try. In addition, they must be prudent and preserve a good will towards
the Roman race, of the kind that Roman history describes in the case
of Regulus.125
35 What the officers of the army and the tagmata under their
command are named, according to the Romans
1 Undoubtedly the first of all the officers is the general, next the tour-
marchai (who are also called merarchai), after them the droungarioi,
next the kometes, [and] then the kentarchoi (they are also called eka-
tontarchoi). After them, they are the lochagoi, the dekarchoi, and
the pentarchoi, and besides also the so-called tetrarchoi.143 The aux-
iliaries of each tagma are the standard-bearers,144 the messengers,145
both the auxiliaries and the kribantes,146 and those who are called
responsible for the baggage train; in addition, [there are] doctors,
trumpeters, and those called surveyors or minsouratores.147
2 The general is the leader of the whole army. He has been entrusted
with absolute authority by Our Majesty, and so he rules over all the
officers. The tourmarches [is] he who has three droungoi under his
command. The droungarios [is] he who commands a droungos, for
droungos should be a corps which has up to three thousand men.
Therefore, a corps of more than three thousand men may not be a
droungos, nor may a corps of less than one thousand. Because, the
tourmarches should be the leader of at least three thousand men and
up to nine thousand; likewise, the droungarios should be the leader of
one thousand men at the least, and up to three thousand. The komes
[is] the leader of a bandon.148
3 According to the ancients, bandon, in its proper sense, should be des-
ignated what is unofficially known as a banner.149 In a non-strict sense,
however, an assembled corps of two hundred to four hundred men is
called bandon. For a corps of two hundred men and more is deemed
worthy enough to display some kind of authority for itself and to raise
its own banner. The komes, therefore, will be the leader of at least two
kentarchoi.
Translation 51
4 Nowadays then, as far as the infantry tagmata are concerned, a ban-
don [is] a corps of two hundred men and more, up to four hundred. As
regards the cavalry though, [a bandon is] a corps of at least fifty men,
that rises up to 350 or four hundred, which is effectively identical to
what is nowadays called allagion.150
5 Because, at present, a corps of fifty men is also called allagion. The
regular allagion extends as high as 150, and the so-called royal allagia
extend up to 320, 350, or four hundred men at the most, such as nowa-
days are the Thrakesion of 320 men, the Charsianon of 350,151 and in
turn some of the western tagmata, which comprise up to 400 men.
6 The ekatontarchos is also called kentarchos and kenterion, in the same
way that the pentekontarchos is he who commands fifty men.152
7 The lochagos is he who commands those who are arrayed by the depth
or file of the tagma, which used specifically to comprise sixteen men.
For in a proper sense, a lochos denotes a corps of sixteen men but in a
non-strict sense, a corps of up to thirty-two men is also called a lochos.
In fact, the lochagos is also called file-leader and first-fighter.
8 The dekarchos is not the leader of ten men, but the first among ten.
This is because if there are ten men, one commands the remaining
nine, exactly like the pentarchos, who is not the leader of five men, but
the first among five, and likewise the tetrarchos.153
9 Sometimes, not only the lochagos, but also the dekarchos is called
first-fighter and file-leader, because if the depth or the file of the tagma
is not of sixteen men, but of ten, then the dekarchos is also called file-
leader and first-fighter. He who stands second after either the lochagos
or after the dekarchos is called the epistates. He [who stands] last in
the file of the tagma [is called] the file-closer.154
10 In addition, it must be known that the taxis is also part of the for-
mation, just like the tagma, and so the tagmatarches is also called
taxiarchos. In [my] opinion, the tagma should compose of at least
two hundred men, because anything which is smaller should no longer
be called a tagma, but a portion of one. The main body [of the army]
which is numerous and already arrayed is called the formation.
11 The central part of the formation, where the general is placed together
with the standards, is called the mouth and navel. The first rank, of the
so-called first-fighters, is called the front, just as the last rank of each
unit is called the tail, as we have said.
12 The depth or file of each tagma is called kontoubernion. And so much
for the officers.155
52 Translation
13 Those who support each tagma [are:] the standard-bearers who carry
the commonly called banners; the messengers, who convey the orders
of the officers to the soldiers; and the auxiliaries and kribantes who
follow behind, quickly retrieve the wounded, and carry them to the
doctors.156
14 They who are entrusted with the baggage train of the whole army
are called [men] of the touldon, because the baggage train is named
touldon.157
15 Those who go out before the battle, rousing the enemy to fight, [are
called] prokoursatores. Those who are dispatched to loot and to plun-
der the enemy’s land [are called] koursatores. Those who are always
behind the prokoursatores, and receive them if they turn to flight, as
well as fight in their defence, [are called] defensores.
16 Those who stand at the right end of the formation in order to encircle
the enemy are called out-flankers. On the other hand, those who stand
at the left of the formation in order to guard against enemy encir-
clements and, as far as possible, to resist and fight back, are called
flank-guards.158
17 Those who are detached from the army to advance ahead, smooth the
roads, and look for the horses’ pasturage159 and for water and addition-
ally for the disposition of the camp and every other service [are called]
surveyors or minsouratores.160
57 How the soldiers may easily be prevented from falling ill from
sun and fatigue
1 In the spring and summer and especially in the autumn, the soldiers
must not eat just twice but many times a day and in small amounts,
because this is better for digestion. It is also useful for them to boil rue
and wild marshmallow, to mix its broth with wine which has already
started to taste like vinegar and to drink it between meals, once or
twice at most, or to mix milk with wine and water and to drink it
before the meal. The so-called squill-flavoured wine [is] also useful
before the meal, and the vinegar of squills after the meal, but only in
the spring, summer, or autumn, as we said.338
2 Oven-baked bread [is] useful. It is moulded thin and plain then, after
it has been baked, it is dried in the sun for a short time. Wine is also
beneficial, especially that which is made in marshy lands. Since the
water in these areas is unhygienic, however, the soldiers must boil it
up over fire first, until a tenth vanishes. They cool the rest and then
they must drink it in this manner.339
62 How drinking wine makes those who consume it sleepy for two
or three days, and how they wake up346
When somebody thoroughly grinds and smooths two litra of Theban
poppy juice, myrrh, one part of lettuce seed, one part of henbane juice
and two parts of mandrake juice, then pours them into wine, he will make
those who drink it sleepy for two or three days. On the other hand, when
somebody puts vinegar in their noses, he will cause them to recover.
70 < How the so-called liquid fire may be put out and how it might
not burn wood or walls when it is cast upon them >359
* How we can put out fire – If the enemy sets alight to the wall or some-
thing of that sort with artificial fire, we will put it out by pouring vinegar
[on it]. However, if you know beforehand what things are likely to be
Translation 97
burned, you should coat their surface with vinegar and the fire will not
touch them.*360
73 < How both horses and mules may not become infected by
pestilential disease >364
88 And likewise in turn how the general could give the impression of
a small army if he has a large one
1 Fighting against the Gauls, Caesar established a very narrow encamp-
ment and ordered that fewer camp fires than necessary be lit. At the
same time, he took the larger and more powerful part of his army and
encamped in a strategic place. Since the enemy had become contemp-
tuous of Caesar due to the smallness [of his army], they surrounded
his camp and, with great confidence, captured and thoroughly plun-
dered it. When Caesar appeared with his army, he utterly defeated the
Gauls.434
2 Since Onias’s fleet was very large, the enemy hesitated. As they did
not dare to engage in a naval battle, Onias ordered his officers to hoist
only half their sails. After he provoked the enemy to an engagement in
this manner, he was victorious.435
92 In addition, how one could safely defeat the enemy through sleep
deprivation
When Epaminondas, the Theban general, intended to conduct an invasion
of Spartan territory, he allowed his army to rest, since he had learned that
Ionion had been occupied in advance by the Spartans and that the passage to
Sparta was impossible for the entire force. However, he conducted assaults
throughout the night by sending in a moderate number of men in relays.
Since the Spartans who were guarding the narrow passages were exhausted
throughout the whole previous night, they unwisely went to sleep the follow-
ing morning. Epaminondas suddenly attacked them while they were sleep-
ing and, forcing his way through, he safely captured the narrow passes.446
97 Concerning traitors
1 When Iphicrates, the Athenian general, learned that some people in
Chios were favourable to the Spartan [interests], he resolved to find
them. The next day he ordered his men to dress in Spartan armour and
in this guise to attack the city of the Chians. When the Spartan support-
ers saw this, they joyfully hurried out to the harbour. After Iphicrates
had arrested them for treason, he sent them to Athens in fetters.471
Translation 115
2 Seeing most of the cavalrymen in his camp defecting to the enemy,
Abradatas convinced his infantry that he had sent the horsemen as
fake defectors to the enemy camp. And so, filled with courage, the
soldiers fought eagerly and put the enemy to flight.472
3 Arsames had his army already prepared [for battle], when he heard
that the commander of the bodyguard [planned] to defect to the enemy
with three hundred of the most valiant [men]. He immediately relieved
him of his command and promoting one of his most loyal [men] to
commander [of the bodyguard], he ordered him to feign a defection
with three hundred men and to attack the enemy from the rear when
the battle was in full swing. When this happened, Arsames won a most
decisive and excellent victory.473
Introduction
1 A new translation and a detailed studied of MS is forthcoming by Philip Rance under
the title The Roman Art of War in Late Antiquity: The Strategikon of the Emperor Mau-
rice, to be published by Routledge.
2 For the Arab-Byzantine frontier and warfare see among others: Dagron and Mihăescu
1986: 139–287; Haldon 1999; Haldon 2013: ii. 373–93; Haldon 2014: 312–18; Haldon
and Kennedy 1980; Stouraitis 2009: 54–169; Decker 2013: 137–43; Whittow 1996:
175–81; Lilie 1976: 287–360; McMahon 2016: 22–33; Asa Eger 2011; Asa Eger 2014;
Kennedy 2001: 105–7; Bonner 1996; Cheynet 2001.
3 Shepard 2001: 20, 34–40; Luttwak 2009: 409–18.
4 Theophanes Continuatus 1838: 415–16; Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1967a:
206–7; Vasiliev 1935–68: ii. 258–61, 264–5; Bikhazi 1981: 366–7, 414.
5 Canard 1951: 383; Bikhazi 1981: 410–14.
6 Theophanes Continuatus 1838: 416–17, 432; Canard 1951: 735–7, 748–53; Vasiliev
1935–68: ii. 268–70; Bikhazi 1981: 429.
7 Shepard 2001: 34; Bikhazi 1981: 787, 843, 854–6; Canard 1951: 762.
8 For the character of Byzantine offensive and expansion, see Shepard 2001: 19–40;
Holmes 2002: 83–104; Garrood 2013: 20–34.
9 Treadgold 1984: 75–98.
10 Skylitzes 1973: 101; Skylitzes 2010: 102; Genesios 1978: 69–70; Genesios 1998: 86.
11 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 702.
12 Theophanes Continuatus 1838: 3–4.
13 For the debate on the dating of the work, see Dennis 1985: 2–4; Zuckerman 1990: 216;
Cosentino 2000: 262–80; Rance 2007: 719–37; Baldwin 1988: 290–3; Haldon 2014:
18–20.
14 Shepard 2001: 37–8; McGeer 1992: 228; McGeer 1995a: 262, 272–5, 283–5; Haldon
1999: 217–20; Decker 2013: 152–6.
15 Haase 1847: 17.
16 Vári 1927: 266; Dain 1938: 6–8; McGeer 1995a: 184; Dain and Foucault 1967: 357.
17 Kolias 1993: 24–6.
18 Haldon 2014: 66–8.
19 Vieillefond 1932: xlvi–xlvii.
20 Chatzelis (in progress).
21 Dagron and Mihăescu 1986: 142
22 Krumbacher 1897: 637
23 Vári 1927: 241–3, 265–70.
24 Chatzelis (in progress).
25 Dain 1938: 8; Dain 1939: 12–31, 70–1; Dain and Foucault 1967: 350–1, 353; Mecella
2009: 100–1, 107–13; Haldon 2014: 66–8.
120 Notes
26 The complicated issue of the sources of the ST is discussed in more detail in Chatzelis
(in progress).
27 Jackson 1998: 91–3, 101; Jackson 2003: 137–9; Tsagas 1993: 13–19.
28 Dain 1939: 12; Dain and Foucault 1967: 338; Mecella 2009: 107.
29 Bianconi 2008: 372, n. 104; Bianconi 2011: 125, n. 40; Peréz-Martín 2008: 431–58.
30 For the military laws, see: Korzenszky 1931: 155–63 and for the hymns: Pertusi 1948:
145–68.
31 McCabe 2007: 33–5.
32 Dain and Foucault 1967: 338; Fryde 1996: ii. 424, 612.
33 Dain 1939: 11–12, n.1.
34 The second title appears before ST: 76.1.
35 ST: 45.20, 47.8.
36 Bandini 1764–70: iii. 148–9.
37 Köchly 1854: i. 30–1 and elsewhere; Dain 1938: 9.
38 Migne 1863: 669–1094.
39 Melber 1887: 507–40; Dain 1938: 9.
40 See, for example, Vári 1917–22: i. 49 (ST: 38.1, 38.5), 118 (ST: 38.8), 119 (ST: 38.11),
121 (ST: 38.12), 124–5 (ST: 31), 128–9 (ST: 40.1), 130 (ST: 40.2), 131 (ST: 40.3), 212
(ST: 22), 213 (ST: 49.2), 216 (ST: 49.4), 218 (ST: 49.5), 225–6 (ST: 49.6), 236 (ST:
44.6), 243 (ST: 49.6), 245 (ST: 23.4), 263 (ST: 49.7), 266 (ST: 49.8), 282 (ST: 22.1),
285 (ST: 22.4), 287 (ST: 22.10), 290–1 (ST: 22.7), 293–4 (ST: 22.8), 297 (ST: 22.9), ii.
43 (ST: 20.3), 55 (ST: 20.1), 109–10 (ST: 44.3, 45.4), 112 (ST: 15), 126 (ST: 44.1).
41 Vieillefond 1932: xlvi–xlvii, 67–74.
42 Dain and Foucault 1967: 317–92.
43 Dain 1939: 34–6; Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 1004–73.
Translation
1 The attribution to Leo VI and the date are no longer considered to be authentic. For a
discussion of the date and authorship of the work, see the Introduction, pp. 5–7.
2 For 1.3, see Onasander 1928: 374–5 (1.1); LT: 16–17 (2.1).
3 The Christian faith pervaded the whole of Byzantine life and warfare was no excep-
tion. Victory in battle depended on the will and judgement of God so it was incumbent
on the general to try to earn God’s favour through his moral character, actions, and
prayer. See Stouraitis 2009: 189–376; Stouraitis 2012: 227–64; McGuckin 2011–12:
40–4; Strässle 2004: 120–9; Haldon 1999: 13–33; Kolia-Dermitzaki 2012: 121–31;
Kolia-Dermitzaki 1991; Nelson 2011–12: 162–92.
4 For the first part of 1.7, see Onasander 1928: 374–5 (1.2); LT: 16–17 (2.2–3).
5 For the middle part of 1.7, see Basil I 2009: 126–9 (1.11).
6 For the final part of 1.7, see John Stobaeus 1884–1912: i. 493 (3.17.17), quoting Aris-
tippus of Cyrene, a Greek philosopher of the fifth century BCE, and Anonymous 2007:
i. 278, ii. 655 (CP. 3.453).
7 For 1.8, see Onasander 1928: 376–7 (1.5); LT: 16–17 (2.5).
8 For 1.9, see Onasander 1928: 376–7 (1.4); LT: 16–17 (2.4); MS: 270 (8.1.4); Maurice
1984: 79.
9 For the first part of 1.10, see Basil I 2009: 238–41 (1.65); Anonymous 2007: i. 351, ii.
765 (CP. 4B.3).
10 For 1.10 as a whole see MS: 270, 290 (8.1.6, 8.2.67); Maurice 1984: 80, 88; LT: 568–9,
580–1 (20.92, 131).
11 For the first part of 1.11, see Isocrates 1928b: 30–1 (1.43); John Stobaeus 1884–1912:
ii. 334–5 (4.10.29).
12 For 1.12, see Onasander 1928: 436–9 (13.1–2); MS: 296 (8.2.90); Maurice 1984: 91.
13 For 1.13, see Onasander 1928: 376–7 (1.7); MS: 270 (8.1.7); Maurice 1984: 80; LT:
18–19, 540–1 (2.7, 20.11).
Notes 121
14 For 1.14, see John Stobaeus 1884–1912: i. 9 (3.1.18); Anonymous 2007: i. 366, ii. 785
(CP. 6.66); MS: 292 (8.2.71); Maurice 1984: 88; LT: 554–5, 582–3 (20.49, 134).
15 For 1.15, see MS: 292, 302–4 (8.2.77, 9.1.5–18); Maurice 1984: 89, 93; LT: 578–9
(20.124).
16 For 1.16–18, see MS: 304 (9.1.20–3); Maurice 1984: 93; LT: 394–7 (17.5–7).
17 Reading ἐτρέψαντο instead of ἐπετρέψαντο in Dain 1938: 22. See L, f. 75v.
18 For 1.19, see Onasander 1928: 376–7 (1.6); MS: 288 (8.2.51); Maurice 1984: 87; LT:
18–19 (2.6).
19 For 1.21, see Onasander 1928: 388–9 (3.1); MS: 282 (8.2.23); Maurice 1984: 85; LT:
38–43 (3.1, 5, 9).
20 For 1.22, see Onasander 1928: 388–9 (3.2).
21 For 1.23, see Onasander 1928: 388–9 (3.3); LT: 48–51 (4.5).
22 Solomon, king of Israel (c. 970–c. 931 BCE) was renowned for his wisdom. Samson
in the Bible and Hercules in Greek mythology both possessed superhuman strength.
Cyrus the Great, king of Persia (c. 559–530 BCE), and Alexander the Great (356–323
BCE), king of Macedon from 336 BCE, were both renowned military leaders. The
Roman general and dictator, Gaius Julius Caesar (100–44 BCE), had an unshakeable
belief in his own destiny and fortune.
23 For 1.24, see Onasander 1928: 376–7 (1.8); MS: 290 (8.2.57); Maurice 1984: 88; LT:
18–19 (2.8). No such law as the one described here existed in the Roman Republic.
24 For 1.26, see Onasander 1928: 484–5 (34.1–2); LT: 382–3, 604–5 (16.3, 20.191).
25 For 1.27–8, see Onasander 1928: 390–1 (4.1–2).
26 For this passage, see Isocrates 1928a: 52–3 (2.24).
27 For 1.29, see Onasander 1928: 434–5 (11.6); LT: 390–1 (16.17).
28 For 1.30, see Onasander 1928: 380–1 (1.13); MS: 292 (8.2.74); Maurice 1984: 89; LT:
20–1, 574–5 (2.12, 20.110).
29 For 1.31, see Onasander 1928: 380–1 (1.14–16); LT: 574–5 (2.12). While this pas-
sage originally derives from Onasander, it applies equally well to the Byzantines. The
ninth-century Syrianos Magistros, who was also an author of a military manual, wrote
a treatise specifically devoted to military speeches; see Syrianos Magistros 2010. Sur-
viving examples of Byzantine military speeches more or less follow the recommenda-
tions of Syrianos and reflect imperial ideology as well as themes from the Bible and
ecclesiastical texts. See, for example, Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990: 124–5
(C.466–73); Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1908: 75–85; Constantine VII Porphy-
rogennetos 1967b: 393–404; Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2003: 117–20, 127–
34. For further discussion, see Haldon 1990: 242–3; Haldon 2014: 267–8; McGeer
2003: 111–38; Hoffmann 2007: 105–39; Stouraitis 2012: 238–64; Markopoulos 2012:
47–56; Karapli 2010.
30 For 1.32, see Onasander 1928: 376–7 (1.9); LT: 18–19 (2.9).
31 For 1.33, see Onasander 1928: 376–9 (1.10–11); LT: 18–21 (2.9–10).
32 For 1.34, see Onasander 1928: 378–9 (1.12); LT: 20–1 (2.11).
33 For 1.35, see Onasander 1928: 380–1 (1.17); LT: 22–3 (2.13).
34 For 1.36, see Onasander 1928: 382–3 (1.19); LT: 22–3 (2.14).
35 For 1.37, see Onasander 1928: 382–3 (1.20); LT: 22–3 (2.14).
36 For 1.38, see MS: 284 (8.2.35); Maurice 1984: 86; LT: 28–9, 568–71 (2.19, 20.93).
37 For chapter 2, see LT: 196–9, 610–13 (11.9, 20.209).
38 The derivation of this chapter on land measurements has prompted some debate. Dain
1938: 9 and Geiger 1992: 31–43 believe that it derives from the sixth-century architect,
Julian of Ascalon, but their theory has not been universally accepted. Diller 1950: 22–5
argues that it was copied from two texts to which the author of the ST made his own
additions. The first was the Geometrica (Heron of Alexandria 1903: iv. 182–201 (4)).
The second was the Peri Metron (Anonymous 1946: 158–9), a text which was inter-
polated into the manuscript tradition of Aelian Tacticus sometime before the eleventh
century. Saliou (Julian of Ascalon 1996: 21–7) agrees that this paragraph is a later
122 Notes
interpolation in the manuscript tradition and therefore omitted it from the main text of
her edition of Julian of Ascalon’s Treatise of Construction and Design. For Byzantine
measurements generally, see Schilbach 1970.
39 The Greek words here are πόδες, ὄργυιαι, and πήχεις respectively.
40 The Greek word here is δάκτυλος.
41 The Greek word here is παλαστή or παλαιστή.
42 The Greek word here is βῆμα.
43 The Greek word here is σπιθαμή.
44 The Greek word here is ἂκαινα.
45 In practice, a stade (or stadion) could be anything between 175 and 200 metres.
46 The Greek word for ‘mile’ here is μίλιον, of which the standard measure was eight and
a third stades. The reference is to Strabo 1917–33: iii. 292–3 (7.7.4) but that to Erato-
sthenes of Cyrene (c.285–194 BCE) cannot be traced. See Geiger 1992: 39–40.
47 The Greek word here is παρασάγγης. According to Xenophon 1998: 157–8 (2.2.6),
536 parasangs was the equivalent of 16,050 stades, so that one parasang equalled thirty
stades. See Strabo 1917–33: v. 286–7 (11.11.5) although he does not cite Posidonius of
Apamea (c.135–c.50 BCE) as the author of the ST claims.
48 For 4.1, see Onasander 1928: 480–1 (33.1); MS: 242 (7.1B.8–10); Maurice 1984: 69;
LT: 291–2, 346–7 (14.3, 14.99).
49 For 4.2, see Onasander 1928: 480–3 (33.2–3).
50 For 5.1, see Onasander 1928: 508–9 (42.2); MS: 268 (8.1.1); Maurice 1984: 79.
51 For 6, see Onasander 1928: 426–7 (10.9.24).
52 For 7.1, see MS: 270 (8.1.10); Maurice 1984: 80; LT: 541–3 (20.13). Constantine VII
Porphyrogennetos 1990: 86–7 (B.74–9) reports that one of the duties of the imperial
representative in Constantinople when the emperor was away was to reassure the citi-
zens in the event of false rumours being disseminated and to punish those who spread
them.
53 For 7.2, see MS: 228 (7.A.13–19); Maurice 1984: 64. Constantine VII Porphyrogen-
netos 1990: 82–5 (B.1–33) provided an extensive list of tasks that should be completed
before a campaign began. These included inquiring about routes, terrain, enemy forces,
fortresses, enemy garrisons, distances between fortresses, and possible enemy rein-
forcements. Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 657, 678 included among the
preparations for the expeditions to Crete in 911 and 949, a calculation of the distance
to the island from Constantinople and the despatch of spies to surrounding enemy ter-
ritories to report on how ready for battle the Arabs there were.
54 For 8.1, see MS: 270 (8.1.9); Maurice 1984: 80; LT: 540–1 (20.12).
55 The author specifically advises the use of μανδάτορες (literally ‘messengers’) for this
task. See 35.13 below.
56 The Greek words here are μέρη and μοίρας.
57 For 9.1, see MS: 102, 232–4 (1.9.1–9, 7.A.4); Maurice 1984: 20, 66; LT: 278–9 (13.4);
Haldon 2014: 271.
58 To avoid such problems, the Byzantine army had regulated routes and base camps
(apletka) for the army to meet up, depending on the location of the impending cam-
paign. See Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990: 80–1, 88–9 (A; B.97–100); Hal-
don 2014: 224–5; Huxley 1975: 87–93.
59 For 9.2, see MS: 280 (8.2.15); Maurice 1984: 84; LT: 108–9, 154–7 (7.6, 9.3–6).
60 For 9.3, see MS: 280 (8.2.14); Maurice 1984: 84; LT: 42–3 (3.9).
61 For 10.1, see Onasander 1928: 474–5 (32.1).
62 For 10.2, see Onasander 1928: 474–5 (32.2).
63 For 10.3, see Onasander 1928: 474–7 (32.3).
64 For 10.4, see Onasander 1928: 476–7 (32.5).
65 For 11.1, see Onasander 1928: 400–1 (6.11); MS: 338 (10.1.23–9); Maurice 1984:
106–7.
66 For 11.2, see Onasander 1928: 400–3 (6.12); MS: 314 (9.3.40–5); Maurice 1984: 97;
LT: 160–3, 404–5 (9.22–3, 17.34).
Notes 123
67 For 11.3, see Onasander 1928: 402–3 (6.13).
68 For 11.4, see Onasander 1928: 524–5 (42.9.23).
69 For 11.5, see Onasander 1928: 502–3 (39.2.4); LT: 368–9 (15.37).
70 For 11.6, see Onasander 1928: 504–5 (40.1); LT: 350–1 (15.2).
71 12.1–5 derive from Onasander 1928: 496–7 (38.1.1–5). See also LT: 364–7 (15.31,
34).
72 13.1–2 derive from Onasander 1928: 498–9 (38.2.7–8). See also LT: 364–5 (15.30).
73 For 14.2, see MS: 250 (7.11B.1–9); Maurice 1984: 72; LT: 298–301 (14.15).
74 For 14.3, see MS: 250 (7.11B.10–17); Maurice 1984: 72–3.
75 For 14.4, see MS: 280, 294 (8.2.16–17, 80); Maurice 1984: 84, 89 LT: 558–9, 568–9
(20.62, 89).
76 For 14.5, see MS: 274 (8.1.31); Maurice 1984: 82.
77 For 15.1, see MS: 234, (7.A.6, 8.1.15); Maurice 1984: 66, 80; LT: 280–1, 542–3 (13.6,
20.18).
78 For 15.2, see MS: 242 (7.A.15); Maurice 1984: 69; LT: 266–7 (12.90).
79 For 16.1, see MS: 284 (8.2.36); Maurice 1984: 86; Onasander 1928: 493–5 (37.1).
80 For 16.2–3, see MS: 276, 284 (8.1.37, 8.2.36); Maurice 1984: 82, 86; LT: 388–9,
550–1, 570–1 (16.15, 20.39, 97); Onasander 1928: 494–5 (37.2–3).
81 For 17.1, see MS: 268 (8.1.2); Maurice 1984: 79.
82 The idea that the commander of the army should show a fatherly concern to his sol-
diers was also applied to the emperor and it is a theme that is found in Constantine VII
Porphyrogennetos 1990: 122–3 (C.451–4).
83 For 17.2, see MS: 268–70 (8.1.3); Maurice 1984: 79.
84 Syntelestai (literally ‘contributors’) usually denotes taxpayers who shared the fiscal
expenses of the poorer stratiotai in order to help them fulfil their military obligations.
The word was also employed in the general sense of people belonging to the empire,
i.e. imperial subjects. See: LT: 148–9, 538–9, 510–11, 518–19 (8.10, 20.5, 19.18, 39);
MS: 270 (8.1.3); Maurice 1984: 79; Lemerle 1979: 121–2; Górecki 2009: 147–52;
McGeer 2000: 27; Haldon 2014: 140–1.
85 For 18.2, see MS: 280 (8.2.18); Maurice 1984: 84.
86 For 19.2, see MS: 278 (8.1.44); Maurice 1984: 83; LT: 552–5 (20.45).
87 The Greek word here is βύκινα, curved types of trumpet made of animal horns, wood
with leather coating, ivory, and metal, whose more developed forms were probably
similar in shape to the modern trombone. These instruments had no finger-holes and
only produced sound through the vibration of the lips. See Maliaras 2001: 100–4;
Haldon 2014: 180–1.
88 For 20.1, see MS: 136–8 (2.17); Maurice 1984: 33; LT: 246–7 (12.53).
89 For 20.2, see MS: 140–2 (2.20); Maurice 1984: 34. On banners generally, see Haldon
2014: 192.
90 The banners and pennons of soldiers and lower officers seem to have been plain. The
heads and the streamers of the banners were coloured in accordance with the division
to which each belonged. At least some of the banners were surmounted by a cross.
These battle colours are to be contrasted with parade and imperial banners which were
very elaborate. Some were coloured gold or had golden stripes on them and captured
enemy banners and pennons were also included in imperial ceremonies. See Con-
stantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 576–7, 615; Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos
1990: 142–3 (C.742–7). For a more detailed discussion, see: Dennis 1982: 51–9; Hal-
don 1990: 270–4; Haldon 2014: 192; Babuin 2001: 5–59.
91 For 20.3, see MS: 130 (2.10); Maurice 1984: 30; LT: 240–1, 264–5 (12.40–1, 81).
92 For 20.4, see MS: 134 (2.14); Maurice 1984: 32; LT: 244–5, 264–5 (12.48, 82).
93 For 20.5, see MS: 260–2 (7.16B.25–37); Maurice 1984: 76–7; LT: 266–7 (12.87–8).
The late tenth-century Anonymous 1985: 276–9 (9) suggests that the signals of the
trumpets were regulated. He describes three different calls. The first, at dawn, signi-
fied that the soldiers should begin their preparation for departure. The second meant
that the tents should be taken down and the pack animals be loaded, while the officers
124 Notes
of the scouts, flank-guards, and rear guards were to receive orders and leave the camp
first. The third call signified that the whole army should leave the camp. For a discus-
sion, see Haldon 2014: 255–6.
94 See also the measures for camp patrols in Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990:
120–3 (C.420–39).
95 For 21.1, see Onasander 1928: 416–17 (10.4.10–11); MS: 330 (9.5.68–74); Maurice
1984: 104; LT: 306–7, 426–7 (14.30, 17.82–3)
96 Similar measures are recorded in Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990: 130–1
(C.573–9).
97 For 21.3, see Onasander 1928: 418–19 (10.10.12).
98 For 21.4, see MS: 330 (9.5.83–7); Maurice 1984: 104. The cross-reference here is
inaccurate, as the author has not given any relevant information in any earlier passage.
99 For 22.1–12, see MS: 472–80 (12.22B); Maurice 1984: 158–62.
100 For 22.1–2, see Onasander 1928: 404–9 (8–9); LT: 196–7, 208–9 (11.3, 31). For a
further discussion, see Haldon 2014: 240–2.
101 For 22.3, see LT: 208–9 (11.30, 33).
102 The author of the ST prefers the classical word stauroma (σταύρωμα) here instead of
the more contemporary stabaron (στάβαρον), which seems to be of Slavic origin. See
Haldon 2014: 243–4.
103 For 22.4, see LT: 196–201, (11.8, 13).
104 An inaccurate cross-reference, as the author has not given any relevant information in
an earlier passage.
105 The Greek word here is tribolos. The use of caltrops was widespread already from
late antiquity; in the period of the ST they were regularly used both by Byzantines and
Arabs. See Tsurtsumia 2011b: 415–21; Haldon 2014: 181. Constantine VII Porphy-
rogennetos 2012: 660, 673 lists caltrops that were to be gathered for the 911 and 949
expeditions against Crete.
106 Apart from citations below, see also Anonymous 1985: 262–3 (2.21–3) and AB: 976
(76), where similar pits are also mentioned. For tradition and reality in the ninth-cen-
tury Apparatus Bellicus see Zuckerman 1994: 359–89. For a discussion of horse break-
ers and connections with the Roman period and the West, see Haldon 2014: 287–8.
107 For 22.5, see MS: 198 (4.3.53–6); Maurice 1984: 54; PS: 90–1 (29.25–8).
108 For 22.6, see PS: 90–1 (29.27–30); OT: 166–9 (55).
109 The ST follows the advice of earlier manuals here: the cavalry tents are arrayed at a
distance so as not to be shot by arrows in case of an enemy assault. See Haldon 2014:
248–51.
110 For 22.7, see LT: 200–1 (11.14, 16).
111 For 22.8, see LT: 200–3 (11.15, 17–18). In the ST the taxiarchos is an unofficial rank.
Here the term simply denotes an officer who commands a taxis, which is a unit of
either infantry or cavalry. It should not be confused with the official rank of taxiar-
chos, which in the second half of the tenth century designated the commander of a
taxiarchia, which was specifically an infantry unit, usually of a thousand men. For
taxiarchos in the sense given in the ST, see PS: 48–9 (15.64–6). For the later taxi-
archos, see Nikephoros II Phokas 1995: 16–17 (1.75–89); Anonymous 1985: 246–7
(1.11–16); Anonymous 1972: 273; Oikonomides 1972: 335–6; McGeer 1988: 135–
45; McGeer 1995a: 265–72; Kühn 1991: 273–8; Haldon 1999: 218.
112 The Greek word for ‘litany’ here is ἐκτενῆ. For this and other litanies, see ODB: ii.
1234; Haldon 2014: 253. We know that priests accompanied the Byzantine army and
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990: 106–7 (C.183–4, 196) lists liturgical books
of the church and a small chapel to be included in the items for an imperial campaign.
Other religious services included prayers and litanies before the battle, one of which,
an akolouthia, survives from the late ninth or early tenth century. See Pertusi 1948:
145–68; Dennis 1993: 107–17.
113 For 22.9, see LT: 202–3 (11.19–20).
114 For 22.10, see MS: 240 (7.1.13); Maurice 1984: 68; LT: 198–9 (11.10–11).
Notes 125
115 For 23.1–8, see MS: 208, 214, 458–68 (5.1, 5, 12.20B.); Maurice 1984: 58, 60, 152–5;
LT: 186–93 (10).
116 For 23.2, see MS: 322 (9.4.10–18); Maurice 1984: 100–1; PS: 60–1 (18.31–8).
117 For 23.3, see MS: 322 (9.4.10–20); Maurice 1984: 100–1.
118 For 23.5, see MS: 324–6 (9.4.51–9); Maurice 1984: 101–2; LT: 174–5 (9.49–50).
119 For 23.6, see MS: 326 (9.4.59–64); Maurice 1984: 102.
120 For 24.1–5, see PS: 118–21 (40).
121 Dain 1938: 48 adds another τάξιν (‘formation’) here, but that does not seem to be necessary.
122 For 24.3, see LT: 320–1 (14.49).
123 25.1–3 derive from PS: 122–5 (42); MS: 282, 328 (8.2.26, 9.5.51–2); Maurice 1984:
85, 103; LT: 566–7 (20.84).
124 26.1–3 derive from PS: 124–7 (43).
125 During the first Punic War (264–241 BCE), the Roman general Marcus Atilius Regu-
lus, having been captured by the Carthaginians at Tunis, was set free on condition
that he would go to Rome to negotiate peace. Regulus allegedly urged the Romans
to reject peace but he then honourably returned to Carthage to comply with the terms
of his release. The Carthaginians thereupon tortured him to death and he became a
legendary figure of Roman honour, loyalty, and endurance. See Sempronius Tuditanus
2013: ii. 343 (F8).
126 For 27.1, see PS: 120–1 (41).
127 The Greek word here is κοπῶν.
128 For 27.2, see LT: 432–5 (17.92).
129 For 28, see Aelian Tacticus 2012: 12–15 (2).
130 The Greek words here are ὁπλίτας, πελταστάς, and ψιλούς, respectively.
131 For 29.1, see MS: 218 (6.1); Maurice 1984: 61; LT: 438–9 (18.6). On prokoursatores,
defensores and saka, see Haldon 2014: 155–6, 158, 222–3.
132 For 29.2, see MS: 218–20 (6.2–3); Maurice 1984: 62; LT: 438–41 (18.8).
133 See Kaegi 1964: 96–108 and Haldon 2014: 340–3.
134 For 29.3, see MS: 220 (6.3); Maurice 1984: 62; LT: 438–41 (18.9).
135 Philip II (382–336 BCE), king of Macedon from 359 BCE, and his son and succes-
sor, Alexander the Great, are discussed in the work of the Roman tactician Aelian (fl.
120 CE) and the Greek historian, Lucius Flavius Arrian (c.86–c.160 CE). In the ninth
and tenth centuries, interest in the writings of Arrian and Aelian Tacticus revived and
the Byzantines were particularly keen to know how these authorities discussed the
formation and equipment of the infantry. Syrianos Magistros, Leo VI, the ST, and
Nikephoros II Phokas all included relevant material in their treatises, while sometime
in the tenth century the manuscript tradition of Aelian was updated and some extra
chapters were interpolated in it, among which was one describing a hollow square
formation. See Dain 1946: 156–8; McGeer 1995a: 182, 187; 1992: 219–29; Rance
1994: 49–79; Haldon 2014: 209–11.
136 The klibanion was a lamellar type of armour. The Byzantines probably adopted and
developed it from the Khazars. This type of armour is frequently depicted in Byz-
antine and Georgian iconography, and some scholars have attempted to determine
the different types of klibania. See Haldon 1975: 16–28; Kolias 1988: 45–50; Daw-
son 1998: 38–50; Dawson 2001–2: 89–95; Tsamakda 2002: 308, 396; Parani 2003:
105–10; Grotowski 2010: 155–61, 137–51; Tsurtsumia 2011a: 65–99; Dawson 2013:
69–90; Haldon 2014: 175–6, 187.
137 The Greek word paramerion is composed of παρά and μηρός meaning ‘close to’ or
‘next to the thigh’, which is very appropriate given that this type of sword was sus-
pended from the belt. See 38.5 on the equipment of the Romans for more information.
138 For 30.2–4, see Aelian Tacticus 2012: 12–13 (2); LT: 98–101 (6.30–3). On manikellia,
see Haldon 2014: 186–7.
139 For 31.1–3, see Aelian Tacticus 2012: 14–15 (2); LT: 96–9 (6.27–8).
140 For 32.1–5, see Asclepiodotus 1928: 256–7 (2.7); Aelian Tacticus 2012: 26–7 (8); LT:
64–7, 338–41 (4.58–63, 14.86–8).
126 Notes
141 24,576 is the actual total.
142 For 34.1, see LT: 338–41 (14.86–9).
143 On these ranks, see Haldon 2014: 91–7. For the merarchai in particular, see Haldon
2014: 147–8 and for the komes, see Haldon 2014: 149–51. Evidence from the Book of
Ceremonies and the Kletorologion of Philotheos suggests that in the first half of the
tenth century the droungarioi and the kometes commanded a similar number of men,
so from around the middle of the century their ranks and importance become identical
and the fused term droungarokometes appeared. See Constantine VII Porphyrogen-
netos 2012: 656; Philotheos 1972: 109, 157; Haldon 2000: 324–8. Cf. Constantine VII
Porphyrogennetos 2012: 663, 667; Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990: 134–5
(C.653–5); Haldon 1990: 256–8; Kühn 1991: 51–2; Treadgold 1992: 127–30.
144 The Greek word here is βανδοφόροι. See Haldon 2014: 153.
145 The Greek word here is μανδάτωρες. See Haldon 2014: 155.
146 The Greek words here are δαιπότατοί and κρίβαντες (σκρίβαντες), which both mean
‘auxiliaries’. See MS: 126–8 (2.9); Maurice 1984: 29–30; LT: 52–3 (4.17); Haldon
2014: 154–5.
147 The Greek word for ‘surveyors’ here is μίνσωρες, followed by the variant μινσουράτωρες,
which means the same thing. For 35.1, see LT: 50–1 (4.6–7); Haldon 2014: 156.
148 For 35.2, see LT: 50–1, (4.8–9). The term tourmarches seems to have first appeared
in the sixth or seventh century. From the middle of the tenth century it slowly disap-
pears from the Byzantine sources and it is last heard of in the middle of the elev-
enth. Although the ST mentions that the tourmarches commanded from three to nine
thousand men, these numbers were a generalisation and theory varied greatly from
practice. According to the testimony of the De Administrando and the Book of Cer-
emonies, a tourma actually numbered around one thousand men and sometimes fewer.
See Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1967a: 236–7 (50.92–105); Constantine VII
Porphyrogennetos 2012: 651–6; Haldon 2014: 135–7; Haldon 2000: 305–22. Cf.
Treadgold 1992: 78–145.
149 The Greek word here is φλάμουλον.
150 For 35.4, see LT: 58–61 (4.43). The term bandon most probably has a Gothic origin.
In MS the term only referred to cavalry, but from LT onwards it also applied to the
infantry. The ST follows LT: 60–1 (4.47) that a bandon should consist of two to four
hundred for the infantry, but for the cavalry bandon it gives the lower number of
fifty men which is not found in older treatises. For the bandon see also Haldon 2014:
143–4. For the term allagion in the tenth century, see Pertusi 1956: 92–5; Guilland
1967: i. 524–5; Haldon 1984: 275; Haldon 2014: 96.
151 Dain 1938: 56 reads τριακοσίων υˊ which gives 300–400. However, the fact that the
number three hundred is written out full could imply the sense of three hundred and
more. L, f. 86r allows υˊ to be replaced with νˊ, which denotes the number 350 in accord-
ance with the author’s guidelines above. These imperial allagia were most probably full-
time elite soldiers of the tagmata and are contrasted with the regular allagia composed
of part-time soldiers of the themata. They might have been constituted regular tagmata
or provincial tagmata which were stationed in some provinces. The imperial allagion of
Thrakesion could have belonged to the peratika tagmata which were stationed in Asia
Minor, but close to the capital. For regional peratika and regular tagmata, see Ahrweiler
1960: 25–33, 55–9; Guilland 1967: i. 428–30; Oikonomides 1972: 329–35; Haldon
1984: 234; Haldon 1999: 84; Haldon 2000: 332; Kühn 1991: 69, 123–4, 251–9. Apart
from the ST, the only surviving reference we have to full-time troops in Charsianon
comes from the eleventh century. Maybe the allagion of Charsianon here was constituted
for the needs of a particular campaign in the way that some Armenians were recruited
for an expedition to Crete. See Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 652, 657, 666;
Ahrweiler 1960: 34–5; Kühn 1991: 265; Haldon 1984: 219–20; Haldon 2000: 333.
152 For 35.6, see LT: 52–3 (4.13).
153 Cf. Haldon 2014: 162.
154 Literally meaning ‘tail-leader’, commonly referred to as ‘file-closer’.
Notes 127
155 Kontoubernion denoted the smallest independent tactical unit in the Byzantine army
which fought as a file. See ST 35.12; 45.11; LT: 46–7 (4.40). Other military treatises
record that soldiers were assigned to a κοντουβέρνιον with their friends and kinsmen
and that they marched and camped together. See, for example, LT: 58–9 (4.2); Nike-
phoros II Phokas 1995: 12, 38 (1.11, 3.74); Ouranos 1995: 88, 116 (56.16, 60.86);
Haldon 2014: 145.
156 For 35.13, see LT: 42–3 (4.18–19).
157 For the term touldon see Dain 1950: 161–9.
158 For 35.16, see LT: 54–5 (4.27–8).
159 For the size of the horses and their dietary requirements, see Haldon 2014: 235–6,
325–7.
160 For 35.17, see MS: 132 (2.12); Maurice 1984: 31; LT: 54–5 (4.24). On minsouratores,
see Haldon 2014: 156.
161 36.1–2 derive from LT: 46–7 (4.1).
162 The Greek word here is ἑταῖροι, which denotes the members of the soldiers’ house-
holds who were left behind to cultivate the land in their absence. See Lemerle 1979:
139–42; Dagron and Mihăescu 1986: 264–9; Kolias 2007: 323–5; Haldon 2014: 142–
3, 281–3.
163 For 37, see PS: 84–7 (27.15–22).
164 For 38.1–12, see MS: 420–4 (12.B.4–6); Maurice 1984: 139–40; LT: 90–5 (6.21–3).
165 A shield of six spans would indeed be almost as tall as the man who held it. Depend-
ing on which type of span being used here, the shield would be 140cm, 117cm. or
94cm high. The 140cm version must have been rather unwieldy but ST is not the
only source to record such enormous shields. The ninth-century PS 52–3 (16.5–9)
speaks of shields of 160cm, while the tenth-century Nikephoros II Phokas 1995:
14–15 (1.3.28–9) and the eleventh-century Ouranos 1995: 90–1 (56.3.32) record the
same measurements as the ST. Such shields seem to have also been employed by the
Fatimids and probably by the Slavs. See Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1967a:
78–9 (15); MS 374 (11.4.45); Maurice 1984: 121. For measurements, see Haldon
2014: 195–7; Dawson 2007: 1–6; Schilbach 1970: 16–22. The triangular kite-shield is
generally connected with Western European warfare and it could have been brought
back from Italy by Byzantine troops. The earliest surviving Byzantine pictorial depic-
tion seems to be the London Psalter dating from around 1066, see: Haldon 2014: 71;
Grotowski 2010: 210–36; Kolias 1988: 103–7; Kalavrezou-Maxeiner 1985: 99, 101.
Some shields were used for ceremonial purposes and were thus gilded and adorned
with precious stones. See Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 640; Parani 2013:
147–8; Grotowski 2010: 250–4; Grotowski 2007: 93, 102–3, 112–14.
166 A spear of eight cubits would have probably been 3.7m long and one of ten cubits
4.7m. These measurements do not seem implausible, as they are in accordance with
earlier manuals. LT: 74–5 (5.2), for example, speaks of spears of eight cubits long
which its author calls small, and his information correlates with the length of some
pikes known from the West. See Dawson 2007: 7–10; Haldon 2014: 194–5; Kolias
1988: 191–202; Grotowski 2010: 232–6; Parani 2003: 139–40. According to Con-
stantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 640, silver-gilt spears were used in ceremonies.
For their role in ceremonies and their symbolism, see Parani 2013: 145–8; Grotowski
2010: 323–6; Grotowski 2007: 94–102–6. For ceremonies and triumphs in general,
see McCormick 1986.
167 The word menavlion (or menavlon) first appears in the LT to describe a javelin but in
the ST and all the other manuals of the later tenth century, it denotes a sturdy spear
used for thrusting. The menavlia seem to have been made differently from ordinary
spears since the author of the ST stresses here that they should not be made with
‘hewn’ wood. An eleventh-century depiction of St. Merkourios portrays his spear with
regular-length cuts all over its shaft which makes it look as if it had been made from
sections of wood joined together. See Haldon 1975: 33; Haldon 2014: 202–3; McGeer
1986: 53–8; Kolias 1988: 192–5; Anastasiadis 1994: 1–10; Dawson 2007: 7–8 and
128 Notes
Grotowski 2010: 320–3. Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 669 lists a hundred
menavlia for the 949 expedition to Crete.
168 For 38.3, see LT: 74–5 (5.2). The artzikidon is an unknown type of a tree and this is the
earliest known use of this word. See Sullivan 2010: 155 and for a possible explanation
of the term McGeer 1995a: 64–5.
169 The term lorikia has not yet been definitely identified as it could refer either to mail or
scale armour. See: Haldon 1975: 18–24; Haldon 1999: 130–4; Haldon 2002: 68–70;
Haldon 2014: 185–6; Kolias 1980: 27–35; 1988: 37–41; McGeer 1995a: 215; Dawson
1998: 46–7; 2002: 86; Grotowski 2010: 155–61; Dawson 2013: 34–7.
170 On these tunics, see Kolias 1988: 55–8; Parani 2003: 117–18; Grotowski 2010: 166–70.
171 The paramerion has stirred a debate as to what kind of sword it denotes. Some have
argued in favour of a single-edged weapon either in a form of a sabre or a pallash and
others suggested that it was no different to a regular sword or dagger save for the fact
that it was girded onto waist belts. As the ST (39.2) shows, the term paramerion was
generally applied to any type of sword, either double or single edged, which was slung
from a waist belt. Ceremonial parameria also existed and we know from Constan-
tine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990: 142–3 (C.751–2) that emperors wore them on cam-
paigns. See also Haldon 1975: 31; McGeer 1995b: 63, 71; Kolias 1988: 137–8; Parani
2003: 131–3. For iconography and archaeological evidence, see Haldon 2014: 173–5;
Grotowski 2010: 357–60, 388. Golden parameria were also used on ceremonies and
the way they were held had significant symbolic elements. See Parani 2013: 148–56;
Nelson 2011–12: 176–7, 189; Grotowski 2010: 360–7; Grotowski 2007: 93–4, 103,
109–10.
172 These were arm guards made of iron, wood, or leather. See: Kolias 1988: 65–70;
Grotowski 2010: 170–4; Haldon 2014: 186–7.
173 As the author specifies in 39.2, podopsella and chalkotouba were greaves which could
be made of iron, wood, or bison hide and were designed to protect the legs. They
are usually depicted as cylindrical in the iconography of the tenth and eleventh cen-
tury, although other types also appear. See Haldon 1975: 36–7; Kalavrezou-Maxeiner
1985: 99–100, 103–4; Kolias 1988: 70–4; Tsamakda 2002: fig. 467; Parani 2003:
121–2; Grotowski 2010: 187–90; Haldon 2014: 176–7.
174 Helmets that covered the entire head are not found in Byzantine iconography. It seems
that there were different ways for the helmet to provide a complete covering. Constan-
tine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 669 informs us that for the expedition to Crete in
949, ten of the helmets were autoprosopa, that is to say they had a mask. Nikephoros
II Phokas 1995: 36–7 (3.34–7) and Ouranos 1995: 114–15 (60.43–7) speak of double
or triple layers of zaba, which is more commonly interpreted as mail that was attached
to the helmet. LT: 76–7 (3.5) speaks of both mail and quilted fabric as well as leather
neck pieces which, if required, could be made to cover whole face of the soldier.
Some scholars, however, have rejected the possibility that mail was regularly used
in such a way and favour lamellar or textile coverings instead. See: Haldon 1975:
37–8; Kolias 1988: 65–7, 79–80; McGeer 1995a: 70; Parani 2003: 123; Grotowski
2010: 155–61. Depictions of neck pieces in Byzantine iconography seem to suggest
that mail, textile, leather, or lamellar were all in use. The tenth-century ivory panel of
Joshua depicts neck pieces that could have been lamellar or leather. See Goldschmidt
and Weitzmann 1930–4: i. 13–16, 24 and fig. 1, pl.1. The tenth- or eleventh-century
Jesus of Navi in Greece depicts a textile neck piece, on which see Chatzidakis 1997:
16. The Madrid Skylitzes manuscript has some neck pieces painted in a grey-blue
colour which clearly suggests metal, although most of them seem to be either lamellar,
textile, or leather: See Tsamakda 2002: 309 and figs. 19, 54. 60. For further discussion
and archaeological evidence, see Haldon 2014: 176.
175 A tenth- or eleventh-century Byzantine casket depicts a cavalryman wearing a helmet
with a plume on top, see Goldschmidt and Weitzmann 1930–14: i. 11, 13–14, 17–18,
Notes 129
27–8, fig.12a–e, pl. vi. On the plumes attached to the shoulder-pieces of the armour
which is depicted in the Digenis Akrites dish, dated to the twelfth or thirteenth cen-
tury, see Grotowski 2010: fig. 57. For further discussion and some archaeological
evidence see Haldon 2014: 197; Kolias 1988: 62–3.
176 The Greek word here is πελταστῶν.
177 I.e. javelins. See Kolias 1988: 186–7; Parani 2003: 139–40; Grotowski 2010: 318–20.
178 The Greek term here is θώρακες ἁλυσιδωτοί
179 The standard type of bow must have remained the composite reflex bow, which was
adopted by the Romans in the fifth and sixth centuries. Their model was the steppe-
nomad bows which were constructed of wood, horn, and sinew, but the Book of Cer-
emonies speaks in addition of Roman bows which could have been a new type. The
bow-cases seems to have been almost similar to the ones known to have been used
by Turkic and nomadic peoples. See Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 669;
Haldon 2000: 271; Haldon 2014: 169–70; Coulston 1985: 220–366; Amatuccio 1996:
30–1; Kolias 1988: 214–19; Grotowski 2010: 369–75; Parani 2003: 141–2. It remains
open to question how seriously to take the statement in LT: 84–5 (6.5) that archery
was in decline among the Romans and Leo the Deacon’s evidence that the bows were
drawn only to the chest in his day (Leo the Deacon 1828: 50–1; Leo the Deacon
2005: 100). In Byzantine iconography of the ninth to the eleventh century, archers are
depicted drawing both to the chest, as well as the more challenging draw to the ear.
See PS: 128–9 (44); with Kolias 1988: pl. VI.1; XVI.2; Tsamakda 2002: fig. 5, 65, 67,
381. For this debate, see Haldon 1999: 215; Haldon 2014: 160–2.
180 Menas (μένας) is an ambiguous term, only encountered in the ST. Dennis 1981: 1–5
argues that the author meant to copy μύας or μύιας, i.e. ‘mice’ or ‘flies’, since a para-
phrase of MS also used this term in the same context and it also appears in LT: 526–7
(19: 345) and Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 670. Along with Haldon 1970:
155–7, Dennis proposed that the small wooden tubes (solenaria) described here were
crossbows and therefore that the ‘mice-flies’ were their missiles while Nishimura
1988: 422–35, Kolias 1988: 241–4, and Pétrin 1992: 271–6 argued in favour of an
arrow-guide, which was placed in front of the bow to shoot smaller arrows to a greater
distance.
181 For a discussion of these slings (sphendone/sphendobola), see Haldon 2014: 197;
Kolias 1988: 254–7; Decker 2013: 121–2.
182 For 38.8–11, see LT: 92–3 (6.22); MS: 422 (12.B.5); Maurice 1984: 139. For a dis-
cussion of footwear, see Haldon 2014: 199; Kolias 1988: 72–3; Grotowski 2010:
191–203.
183 LT and the ST may refer to wagons but later treatises such as Constantine VII Porphy-
rogennetos 1990: 116–19 (C.332–70) and Nikephoros II Phokas 1995: 20–1 (1.137–
9) suggest that pack animals such as mules and horses were the norm. For similar
discussion and logistics, see Haldon 2014: 200, 233–6; Haldon 1999: 158–66; Haldon
et al. 2011: 209–35.
184 Arrows were of course used in great numbers and sometimes at least they were pro-
vided by the state. Nikephoros II Phokas 1995: 20–1 (1.137–8) speaks of imperial
arrows, while Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 957 informs us that prior to
the 911 expedition to Crete, the strategos of Thessaloniki had the duty of providing
200,000 arrows. See also Haldon 2014: 192–3.
185 For 38.12, see LT: 94–5 (6.23); MS: 422–4 (12.B.6); Maurice 1984: 139–40. Similar
items also appear in Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990: 134–7 (C.653–9).
186 For 39.1–9, see LT: 82–91 (6.1–18).
187 This would make the cavalry spear smaller than the infantry one. The fact that liter-
ary sources speak of very long cavalry lances (e.g. Leo the Deacon 1828: 143; Leo
the Deacon 2005: 188) has led some scholars to wonder about the proportions of
infantry and cavalry spears. They also argued that depictions of military saints and
130 Notes
other figures in manuscripts support the claim that cavalry spears were indeed longer
than those of the infantry. For a discussion see Grotowski 2010: 327–8; Parani 2003:
139–40; Dawson 2007: 7–8; Haldon 2014: 194–5. In the ST the lance is the primary
weapon of the kataphraktoi, whereas in Nikephoros II Phokas 1995: 36–7 (3.53–65)
and Ouranos 1995: 114–17 (60.66–76) its use is only recommended for some cav-
alrymen in the flanks of the wedge formation. The manuals do not describe the way
in which the spear was used during the charge. Kolias argued in favour of spear-
ramming techniques in the Byzantine army, something which is also supported by
iconography. One example is the Madrid Skylitzes, which was decorated by both
Western and Byzantine painters. Miniatures by Western artists show the Byzantine
cavalry charging with long spears holding them under their arms. This is also the case
with a cavalryman depicted on a tenth- or eleventh-century Byzantine ivory casket.
However, the Byzantine painters of the Madrid Skylitzes depict spears as being held
at the flanks of the horse near the rider’s hip, or grasped near the horse’s neck. See
Goldschmidt and Weitzmann 1930–4: i. 11, 13–14, 17–18, 27–8, fig.12a–e, pl. vi; Tsa-
makda 2002: figs. 74, 128, 282–4; Kolias 1988: 207–8; Nicolle 1980: 11–12; Haldon
2014: 349–50; McGeer 1995a: 213.
188 It is possible that apart from mail coats reaching to the knees, there were other lamel-
lar or scale coats. While the latter are not usually depicted in Byzantine iconography,
we do have some examples coming from the Madrid Skylitzes manuscript (e.g. 108r,
108v, 109r, 126r, 135v, 136v, 140v), which belong both to Byzantine and Western
painters, while similar examples are found in Georgian iconography. See Kolias 1988:
46; Tsamakda 2002: 308, 396; Parani 2003: 108; Tsurtsumia 2011a: 74–5.
189 The term ἐπιλωρίκια is used here, which usually denotes a padded surcoat made of
cotton and coarse silk. While their role was mainly designed to protect against mis-
siles, they could also prove helpful as a protection from the heat, so that the sun would
not make direct contact with the metal part of the armour. In addition, according to
MS: 80 (1.2.50–8); Maurice 1984: 13, similar coverings helped to conceal troops on
the march as it prevented reflections. Nikephoros II Phokas 1986: 52–3 (8.4) advised
against white epilorikia so as not be easily spotted by the enemy. These epilorikia
seem to be absent from iconography, but from textual evidence we know that some
were blue or green while those used for parades and ceremonies were red, crimson,
purple, or gold, and richly decorated with precious stones, crosses, and lions. See
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990: 142–3, 148–9 (C.748–51, 837–8); Anony-
mous 1998: 346–7 (1461–5); Nikephoros II Phokas 1995: 34–5 (3.31–3); Ouranos
1995: 114–15 (60.41–3); Kolias 1988: 58–61; Parani 2003: 118–21; Grotowski 2010:
177–9; Haldon 2014: 188.
190 The Greek word here is ἐπανωκλίβανα, literally meaning something worn above the
klibanion; they were the same as the epilorikia above.
191 This straight double-edged sword was called the spathion. The smallest version of the
two given here would have measured around 93.5cm, while the larger version would
have added 12–18cm for the hilt, making 112cm. The suspension of the sword from
a shoulder strap is frequently depicted in frescoes and ivory panels of military saints,
some of which date to the tenth and eleventh centuries. This way of carrying the sword
had strong links with Roman antiquity and also served for ceremonial purposes. See
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 134; Dawson 2007: 6; Kolias 1988: 136–47;
Haldon 2014: 171; Grotowski 2010: 342–57; Parani 2003: 130–1.
192 From iconography and literary sources, it seems that the Byzantine saddle was made
like those of the Avars and Khazars. Compared to the Roman saddles they seem to
have been higher and broader. See Haldon 2014: 189; Grotowski 2010: 383–6.
193 The mace gradually evolved from a secondary weapon used only by some of the
infantry in LT: 94–5, 126–7 (6.23, 7.41) to the basic heavy cavalry weapon of the
Byzantines in Nikephoros II Phokas 1995: 36–7 (3.53–65). The ST appears to be
the middle point of this evolution as the spear and bow remain the primary weapon
Notes 131
of the heavy cavalry, but now maces appear as a secondary one to be carried by all
kataphraktoi. Maces seem to have been of various kinds. Literary sources speak
of three-, four-, and six-cornered iron maces, some of which were long and oth-
ers shorter, to be either thrown or used at close quarters. Iconography portrays all
kinds along with knobbed maces. The literary and iconographic evidence is cor-
roborated by archaeology. For some literary accounts, see Leo the Deacon 1828:
144–5; 2005: 189; Skylitzes 1973: 126; Skylitzes 2010: 126. For iconography see
the miniatures of the Madrid Skylitzes and the Digenis Akrites dish in Tsamakda
2002: figs. 208. 406, 413, 420, 429, 482; Grotowski 2010: fig. 57. For a more
detailed discussion, see: Kolias 1988: 178–84; Dennis 1997: 168; Grotowski 2010:
367–9; Parani 2003: 138.
194 An inaccurate cross-reference, as the author has not given any relevant information in
chapter 20. For the diet of the Byzantine soldier, see Kolias 1984: 193–200; Haldon
2014: 201–2.
195 The cavalry bow was smaller so as to make it easier to draw and to increase accuracy.
It is estimated that it could have produced about half the force of the regular bow. See
McGeer 1995a: 68; Bivar 1972: 283; McLeod 1965: 1–14.
196 In addition to the information of the ST, horse armour could have also been made
of leather or bison hides, which seems to be the only kind depicted in the surviv-
ing iconography. See Nikephoros II Phokas 1995: 36–7 (3.37–46); Ouranos 1995:
(60.47–58); Tsamakda 2002: 71, fig. 60; Grotowski 2010: 395–7; Haldon 2014: 188–
9. Theophanes Confessor 1883: 318 (AM 6118); Theophanes Confessor 1997: 449
reports that Dorkon, the horse of emperor Herakleios (610–41 CE), was not harmed
by spear and sword blows thanks to its leather armour. Al-Mutanabbī, an Arab poet
who records Sayf al-Dawla’s victory in the battle of al-Hadath (954 CE), seems to
agree that the Byzantines used long horse armour since he records that their horses
appeared as if they had no legs, see Vasiliev 1935–68: ii.i. 333.
197 Most probably referring to the two cavalry tagmata that accompany the kataphraktoi
in the first line, see below 46.4,6.
198 Dain 1938: 63 reads προκουράτωρσιν (prokoursatores) here, but the second line from
the top of L, f. 88r, as well as the context, makes it clear that the koursatores are meant
here.
199 For 40.6, see MS: 274 (8.1.32); Maurice 1984: 82.
200 41.1–7 derive from Aelian Tacticus 2012: 64–71, 78–9, 82–7 (23–5, 28, 30–1); Ascle-
piodotus 1928: 272–5, 293–313 (6, 10). See also PS: 74–9, 94–7 (22–4.10, 31).
201 These terms are explained by the author below.
202 The author fails to define paragoge, which is when the phalanx marches with the flank
leading. See Aelian Tacticus 2012: 98–9 (36).
203 The Greek term here is stoichein (στοιχεῖν).
204 The Greek term here is zygoun (ζυγοῦν).
205 Reading παρεκβολή instead of παρεμβολή as in Dain 1938: 65. See L, f. 88v for the
correct reading.
206 For 42.1–3, see Aelian Tacticus 2012: 80–1, 100–3 (29, 37–8); PS: 94–7 (31).
207 For a discussion of the depth of sixteen men, see Haldon 2014: 209–10.
208 For 43.4, see MS: 122 (2.6.4–15); Maurice 1984: 27–8; LT: 232–5 (12.30–1).
209 I.e. ‘in Coalition’ or ‘fighting in close order’.
210 The Greek word for ‘locking of shields’ here is σύσκουτον. Its predecessor seems to
be the Roman fulcum. See Rance 2004b: 265–326; Haldon 2014: 211–12.
211 For 43.6–7, see Asclepiodotus 1928: 266–9 (4.1, 3); Aelian Tacticus 2012: 34–5 (11).
212 For 43.8, see MS: 132 (2.13.10–11); Maurice 1984: 31.
213 For 43.9, see MS: 132 (2.13.10–18); Maurice 1984: 31.
214 This would mean that an average bowshot measured around 330m. See McLeod
1965: 1–14; Schilbach 1970: 42; Haldon 2014: 208–9; McGeer 1995a: 68.
215 For 44.1, see MS: 232 (7.A.1); Maurice 1984: 65; LT: 290–1 (14.1).
132 Notes
216 For 44.2, see MS: 292 (8.2.72); Maurice 1984: 88–9.
217 For 44.3, see MS: 232 (7.A.3); Maurice 1984: 65–6.
218 The Greek word here is skopoi (σκοποί).
219 For the terms used for guards, watches, and scouts, see Haldon 2014: 242–3.
220 For 44.4, see MS: 256 (7.13B); Maurice 1984: 74–5; LT: 304–5 (14.25).
221 For 44.5, see MS: 232–4 (7.A.4); Maurice 1984: 66 and 9.1 above.
222 For 44.6, see Onasander 1928: 464–5 (24); LT: 58–9 (4.41).
223 For 44.7, see MS: 276, 312–14 (8.1.36, 9.3.21–31); Maurice 1984: 82, 97; LT: 404–5,
550–1 (17.32, 20.38).
224 For 44.8, see MS: 236–8 (7.10A); Maurice 1984: 67; LT: 270–1 (12.100).
225 Reading γινόμεναι instead of γινομέναις as in Dain 1938: 71. See L, f. 90r for the cor-
rect reading.
226 See MS: 118, 260 (2.3, 7.16B); Maurice 1984: 26, 76–7, where the proportion of light
to heavier troops in general is a third.
227 Most probably referring to medium infantry or heavy and medium infantry together.
228 For 45.2, see LT: 68–71 (4.67–74), where a similar formation is described.
229 For 45.3, see MS: 264 (7.17B.17–28); Maurice 1984: 77–8; LT: 236–9 (12.37).
230 Dain 1938: 72 adds χίλιοι in front of the five hundred, thus giving the number of 1,500
men, but this does not agree with the total below.
231 For 45.8, see LT: 324–7 (14.59–60).
232 The Greek word here is δρουγγιστί. It derives from the Latin drungus, which in turn
was most probably of Gallic origin, meaning ‘tribe’ or ‘band’. By the tenth century it
denoted a mass of men, operating irregularly rather than in a tactical battle line. See
Rance 2004a: 101–20; Haldon 2014: 145–6. A similar passage appears in LT as well
and seems to reflect a contemporary problem that the Byzantine themata were used
to fighting irregularly and could not always participate effectively in more complex
tactical roles, see Haldon 2014: 289.
233 The Greek word here is διφαλαγγίαν
234 None of the diagrams were copied into L.
235 The text wrongly states 10,100. This was probably a mistake of the copyist, as the
number six thousand appears in 45.26 below.
236 Dain 1938: 75 mistakenly reads 4,486 men here. L, f. 91v preserves the correct figure
of 6,484.
237 In fact 6,486 men are needed here to give a total of 2,162 when divided by three.
238 Probably another mistake on the part of the copyist since 216 x 16 is 3456. Perhaps
the original text gave instructions for the units to be ten deep since 216 multiplied by
10 gives 2160, a number close to the correct number of men in each unit.
239 The above numbers already give a total of 10,484 men.
240 An inaccurate cross-reference, as the author has not provided us with any relevant
information elsewhere.
241 The figure of 6,000 here corresponds with the information given in 45.22 and its
footnote above, if it is accepted that the text there originally preserved the number of
6,000 instead of 10,100.
242 The text incorrectly states one hundred ranks here.
243 The Greek word here is syskouton (σύσκουτον).
244 For 46, see LT: 226–31, 488–501 (12.19–23, 18.136–49) on cavalry formation.
245 The Greek phrase here is πρόμαχος παράταξις, i.e. the first line.
246 Probably the words σύν κατάφρακτοι (‘and kataphraktoi’) should be added here as in
46.22, 26, 29, since the numbers given in 46.5–6 suggest that.
247 An inaccurate cross-reference, since the author has not given any relevant information
in that chapter.
248 LT instructed the middle unit of the vanguard to consist of elite cavalrymen. Probably
the Byzantine wedge, which first appears in the ST, is a gradual evolution of LT, see
Haldon 2014: 337–8 and Chatzelis (in progress).
Notes 133
249 The numbers here are incorrect. A formation of 1,500 men is possible if the first line
had 103 men and the last 147.
250 The remark at the end of this section that the kataphraktoi and lancers should stand
δυσὶ μὲν ἐκ δεξιῶν, δυσὶ δ’ ὡσαύτως ἐξ εὐωνύμων (‘two from the right and likewise
two from the left’) seems like a clarification. It would fit better in the first sentence
of the section where the author stipulates that each rank should project by four men.
Alternatively, the author might have intended to demonstrate that the kataphraktoi
and lancers should be drawn at the flanks, to enclose and to protect the horse-archers.
251 Nikephoros II Phokas 1995: 46–7 (4.125–32) advised that some of the prokoursatores
to be dispatched to the flanks of the wedge formation so as to repel enemy attempts to
attack the kataphraktoi or to disrupt their charge. See also McGeer 1995a: 303–7.
252 I.e. as defenders.
253 The Greek phrase here is βοηθόν παράταξιν, an auxiliary formation.
254 For 46.10, see MS: 184–6 (3.14); Maurice 1984: 49–50.
255 For 46.11, see MS: 182 (3.13); Maurice 1984: 49.
256 For 46.12, see LT: 230–1 (12.25).
257 For 46.13, see MS: 120–2 (2.5); Maurice 1984: 27; LT: 230–1 (12.26).
258 The copyist wrote ‘six bowshots’ here but not only is this number unusually large, but
it is also contradicted by information given in 43.8 and 46.25. Presumably that is a
mistake and it is corrected here.
259 For 46.17, see LT: 246–7 (12.52).
260 The array of this cavalry formation is a development of the one found in LT: 227–31
(12–20–5). The main difference is that the ST adds a new third battle line and that
the middle unit of the vanguard and the third line now consisted of kataphraktoi who
drew up in the wedge, rather than of regular cavalry. Nikephoros II Phokas 1995:
38–43 (4.1–75) followed the array of the ST closely but omitted the two concealed
units and the small units that were posted in the intervals of the second line. For the
cavalry formation in the Praecepta Militaria, see McGeer 1995a: 280–9.
261 Nikephoros II Phokas 1995: 34–5 (4.1–17) based his wedge formation on that of
the ST. He also drew up his heavy cavalry in a wedge comprising 504 men with
minor changes. For information on the innovation of the ST and how its tactics were
employed and developed in the Praecepta Militaria, see Chatzelis (in progress);
McGeer 1995a: 286–9.
262 For 46.26, see LT: 230–1 (12.24) for the formation of a medium cavalry army.
263 The text states here that the banner guards should be ἐξ ὁπλιτῶν καταφράκτων, which
literally means ‘from armoured heavy infantry’. It seems improbable, however, that
in a cavalry army, the banner guards would have been on foot. In the other passages
the author uses the term καταφράκτοι rather than ὁπλῖται (hoplites), and so it seems
reasonable to conclude that heavy cavalry banner guards are meant here. In most
military manuals such as the ST, PS, LT, and De Re Militari (Anonymous 1985), the
word hoplites is used specifically to denote a heavy infantryman but there are occa-
sions when the word is used in a more general sense of any armoured soldier, whether
mounted or on foot. Apart from the example above, see also Anonymous 1985: 312–13
(25.12–13), where hoplites with horses are mentioned, and ST 105 (55.1) were the
author refers to ὁπλίτας πεζούς, explicitly stating that these heavily armoured men
should be infantry.
264 Dain 1938: 84 adds ‘thirty-two’ here but if the pattern of adding four men in each line
is followed, the first line should have ten men for the last to have fifty-four.
265 This marginal note is found in the lower left and bottom margin of L, f. 94v.
266 The square formation is also discussed by earlier manuals but only for use in emergen-
cies. See for instance MS: 252 (7.11B.42–5); Maurice 1984: 73; LT: 300–3 (14.20);
McGeer 1995a: 259–60; Haldon 1999: 219; Haldon 2014: 279.
267 The author counts five tagmata in each flanks of square because he also includes the
two out of the three previously mentioned tagmata in the front and in the back of the
134 Notes
square. This square formation is unique in that it draws up the units of the flanks by
ranks and not by files, as is the case in later manuals such as Nikephoros II Phokas
1995: 14–19 (1.39–119); Ouranos 1995: 110–11 (59.1–26); Anonymous 1992. The
measurements and occupied space given by the author and the fact that he does not
use the phrase ‘having their length as a depth’ as in ST 47.11 would both suggest this.
Most probably, one of copyists of L designed this formation in the lower right margin
of L, f. 95r. For square formations in Arab armies, see Haldon 2014: 359–60.
268 In his division of the text, Dain included this sentence in the previous paragraph. This,
however, disturbs the flow and meaning of the text. The punctuation mark after the
word διαλείμματα should rather be interpreted as a comma, and not as a full stop. See
the middle section of L, f. 95r.
269 This however gives a total of 432.
270 Dain 1938: 88 adds 1,256 fathoms here but this number does not agree with the state-
ment in 47.13 below that this formation has a smaller perimeter than the other two
above. Nevertheless, even with that addition, the instructions here remain problematic
since even if each side were 314 fathoms, it would suggest that the front would consist
of 157, which is only five fathoms less than the regular square formation, making it
ineffective in narrow passes and defiles. Perhaps the formation had a total of 612 fath-
oms, with 88 at the back and front and 248 on the right and the left sides, if we count
ten fathoms per unit in the front and rear side plus sixteen fathoms for each interval,
and fifty fathoms for each unit in the right and left side plus sixteen fathoms for each
interval. The discrepancy could simply be the result of a scribal error.
271 This specialised unit of the menavlatoi is recorded for the first time in the ST. Nike-
phoros II Phokas made much greater use of them in his manual, the Praecepta Mili-
taria, where the menavlatoi are four times more numerous: 1,200 men as compared
to the 300 of the ST. There, instead of repelling the enemy cavalry from a position
isolated from the friendly infantry units, they are specifically advised not to march out
of the infantry square, but to remain attached to it. See Nikephoros II Phokas 1995:
16–19 (1.75–106); McGeer 1988: 136–45; McGeer 1995a: 373–5.
272 Dain 1938: 89 wrongly reads ᾱ ̗κ (10,020) instead of ᾱ ̗η (18,000). See L, f. 96r for the
correct text.
273 The reference to Polybius here cannot be traced but could perhaps refer to a lost work
on tactics produced by him. See Polybius 1922–7: iv. 52–3 (9.20.4) and Vári 1927:
266. Eric McGeer has suggested that the reference to Aelian Tacticus can be identi-
fied, if it is assumed that the author is referring to the interpolated Syntaxis armatorum
quadrata, which appears under the name of Aelian but which was in fact written at
some point in the tenth century CE. McGeer considers that the Syntaxis and the ST
present an identical square and he has argued that the Syntaxis was produced before
the ST. Consequently the Syntaxis could have been used by the author of the ST as
a source. See McGeer 1995a: 257–72; McGeer 1992: 226–7; Dain 1946: 156–60.
However, this conclusion is open to question as the square of the Syntaxis is closer to
the more evolved and crystallised version presented by Nikephoros II Phokas in his
manual. It is therefore likely that the Syntaxis was compiled after the ST. A possible
resolution to this problem is being developed in Chatzelis (in progress).
274 Dain 1938: 91 reads ̗γσνδˊ (3254), but L, f. 96v preserves the number ̗γσμδˊ (3244).
275 Dain 1938: 91 reads ̗δσνδˊ (4254) but L, f. 96v preserves the correct number of ̗γσμδˊ
(3244).
276 For 48.1–7, see MS: 274, 306–10 (8.1.25, 9.2); Maurice 1984: 81, 94–6; LT: 398–401
(17.14–19).
277 MS: 308–9 (9.2.36–8); Maurice 1984: 95 offers alternative signals such as a whistle or
a command. The striking of a shield seems also to have been a standard signal. Liud-
prand of Cremona 1998: 137 (5.22); 2007: 186 reports that some armed men struck a
shield when they intended to murder Constantine VII.
278 The word σύσσημον (syssemon) is mostly used for a visual signal or sign. The limited
visibility during the night, however, would have made such signals effective only at
Notes 135
a fairly short distance. Consequently, the word may be interpreted here as referring
passwords, much like the ones that were used for watches or patrols. Constantine VII
Porphyrogennetos 1990: 120–1 (C.425–7) gives some examples of such passwords,
such as ‘the Saviour’, ‘the Virgin Mary’, ‘the Arch-General’, ‘Arch-Angel Michael’,
and ‘one of the holy martyrs and stratelatai’, the latter most probably referring to St.
Theodore Stratelates, the military saint. See also Haldon 1990: 240–1. For the military
saints St. Theodore and St. Theodore Stratelates, see Haldon 2016. For Byzantine
military saints, see White 2013; Walter 2003.
279 For 48.5, see PS: 117–19 (39.39–43).
280 This episode could refer to the Roman general, Pompey the Great (108–48 BCE),
who, during the third Mithridatic War of 75–63 BCE, made a night attack against the
camp of Mithridates VI, king of Pontus (120–63 BCE). As the Romans had the moon
at their backs, their shadows became enormous. Not being able to estimate the correct
distance, Mithridates’s men launched their missiles prematurely and missed their tar-
gets. The Romans then charged and overran the enemy camp. See Plutarch 1914–26:
v. 200–1 (Life of Pompey 32.6–7).
281 For 48.7, see LT: 398–9 (17.14).
282 For 49.1–7, see MS: 102–6 (1.9); Maurice 1984: 20–2; LT: 156–61, 164–5 (9.6–11,
15–20, 29).
283 For 49.3, see MS: 322 (9.4.10–13); Maurice 1984: 100–1.
284 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990: 88–91 (B.107–21) gives a similar order of
march in friendly territory.
285 For 49.5–7, see LT: 158–61 (9.15–20).
286 An inaccurate cross-reference, perhaps a mistake of the copyist who might have
intended to refer to 23.1–8, where similar information can be located.
287 For 49.8, see Onasander 1928: 402–5 (7.1); MS: 322 (9.4.1–15); Maurice 1984: 100–
1; LT: 162–5, 170–1 (9.27, 43).
288 For 49.9, see MS: 324 (9.4.39–45); Maurice 1984: 101; LT: 170–3, (9.43, 47).
289 For 49.10, see MS: 316–18 (9.3.87–91); Maurice 1984: 99; LT: 166–9 (9.37).
290 For 49.11, see MS: 460–2 (12.20B.30–52); Maurice 1984: 153–4.
291 For 49.12, see MS: 458–60 (12.20B.12–29); Maurice 1984: 152–3; LT: 178–9 (9.58).
292 For 49.13, see MS: 438–40 (12.16B.1–6); Maurice 1984: 145.
293 For 50.1–3, see LT: 382–5 (16.2–5).
294 This was the case even if the battle was conducted against Christians or rebel Byzantines,
since any war that was against the emperor and his lawful subjects was justified and laud-
able. A good example of this outlook can be observed during the triumph of Emperor John
Tzimiskes (969–76 CE) in Constantinople, after his victory against the Rus in 971 CE.
Supposedly the crowd demanded that John should ride at the head of the procession in
a chariot. Instead, he placed an icon of the Virgin Mary in the chariot and, underneath it,
the crowns and royal garments of the defeated enemy. John himself followed just behind
the chariot on his horse in a symbolic recognition that the Virgin, not the emperor, was
responsible for the victory. See Leo the Deacon 1828: 158; Leo the Deacon 2005: 200–1;
Skylitzes 1973: 310; Skylitzes 2010: 293–4; McCormick 1986: 170–4.
295 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990: 88–9 (B.91–4) speaks of the emperor hold-
ing two to three such communal tables every day. See also ST: 5.2.
296 Dain 1938: 99 adds the word νόμον after κατά τόν to give the meaning ‘according to
the law’. However, this addition seems unnecessary since the phrase ‘the law for all
the army’ (παντί στρατῷ νόμος) appears at the end of the sentence. It is unlikely that
the author would refer to the dictates of the law twice in the same sentence. Instead it
seems more probable to assume that τόν is just the definite article of μικρόν so that,
along with κατά, the text has the meaning of ‘to the less important ones’.
297 LT (see below) speaks of a fifth rather than of a sixth. For more discussion, see Dain
1950–1: 347–52; Haldon 2014: 436–7.
298 For 50.4, see Leo III and Constantine V 1983: 244–5 (18); Procheiros Nomos in Zepos
and Zepos 1931: ii. 227 (40); LT: 604–5 (20.192). The author of the ST copied the
136 Notes
‘increase in salary’ from the Procheiros Nomos but added ‘the plentiful grants which
are given to them on each [occasion] by our God-crowned Majesty’. Despite the fact
that the first phrase is copied, it could have still have applied to the author’s period.
Comparing the information provided by Ibn Khurdādhbih, the Book of Ceremonies,
and Liudprand of Cremona regarding the payment of officers, Warren Treadgold
argued that salaries seem to have been reduced at some point during the reign of Leo
VI, and then restored to their original level. See Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos
2012: 696–7; Liudprand of Cremona 1998: 149–50 (6.10); Liudprand of Cremona
2007: 200–2; Treadgold 1992: 91–2. Byzantine chronicles speak of an increase in
expenditures and donatives in general in the reign of Romanos I and Constantine
VII: see Theophanes Continuatus 1838: 417–18, 429–30, 446–52; Symeon Magis-
tros 2006: 330–2 (136.57–9); Skylitzes 1973: 225, 231; Skylitzes 2010: 217, 221–3.
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990: 111–12, 126–9 (C.261–5, 501–11, 536–47)
speaks of donatives given to soldiers, officers, and the strategoi. Some were given
as gold and silver coins and others in the form of luxurious clothing decorated with
imperial symbols.
299 These prisoners could have been captured soldiers, officers, or relatives of enemy
generals and high-ranking officials. They were useful for exercising diplomatic pres-
sure to the enemy but also for exchanging for Byzantine prisoners, a regular occur-
rence during the yearly raids and hostilities. The exchange of prisoners is frequently
mentioned both by Byzantine and Arab sources and was usually conducted by high-
ranking officials on both sides. See Theophanes Continuatus 1838: 443; Vasiliev
1935–68: ii. 254, 282, 316; Canard 1951: 757–9; Patoura 1994: 88–90, 94–7, 111–24;
Kolia-Dermitzaki 2000: 583–620; Khouri 1983; Haldon 2014: 301. Prisoners could
also be ransomed and, the more important the prisoner, the higher the amount that
was expected to be paid for their release. For example, after the Arab capture of Thes-
saloniki in 904 CE, only those who held important posts or had promised money to
pay for themselves or their relatives were held for ransom while the vast majority of
captured Byzantines were probably sold at the slave market: see Kaminiates 2000:
96–101 (58–9). Another example is found in 924 CE, when the city of Oria, situated
to the east of Tarentum, was captured by the Arabs. According to the Arab sources, six
thousand Byzantines were killed and ten thousand taken prisoner. Among them was
the governor, who managed to ransom himself and the city. Constantine Phokas, son
of the domestic of the scholai Bardas Phokas, was captured at the battle of Marash
in 953 CE. According to Arab sources, Constantine became ill and died during his
captivity, despite the fact that Sayf al-Dawla did everything in his power to cure him.
Skylitzes states though that Sayf tried to convert Constantine to Islam and finally
poisoned him. That seems highly unlikely, considering that Bardas proposed to give
800,000 dinars and three thousand prisoners in exchange for his son. See Vasiliev
1935–68: ii. 255, 350–1; cf. Skylitzes 1973: 241; Skylitzes 2010: 232–3.
300 For 50.6, see Poinalios Stratiotikos Nomos in Zepos and Zepos 1931: ii. 88 (48.2); LT:
384–7 (16.9).
301 For 50.7, see Onasander 1928: 490–1 (36); LT: 306–7, 386–7 (14.31, 16.11).
302 For 50.8, see LT: 384–7 (16.9). Prisoners of war were automatically reduced to the
status of slaves, through right of conquest, and the right to enslave, sell, or kill them
was regarded as something entirely natural. The author of the ST: 23.5, 19.1 has
already stated that in case of emergencies the prisoners were to be slain without com-
punction, so as to terrorise the enemy and enable all men to fight since there would
then be no need to guard the captives. Prisoners were thus regularly put to sword,
sometimes when a desperate situation required it, sometimes for retaliation, or some-
times to undermine the morale of the enemy. For instance, Liudprand of Cremona
reports that after the victory of the Byzantines against the Rus in 941 CE, all the
prisoners were beheaded on the orders of Emperor Romanos I, although the fact that
Notes 137
the Rus had committed numerous atrocities may have something to do with it. See
Liudprand of Cremona 1998: 132 (5.15); Liudprand of Cremona 2007: 180–1; Sky-
litzes 1973: 229–30; Skylitzes 2010: 221–2; Theophanes Continuatus 1838: 423–6;
Symeon Magistros 2006: 335–7 (136.71–5). Nikephoros II advised that captives be
killed in order to move more quickly and Basil I (867–886) certainly did this on one
occasion. See Nikephoros II Phokas 1986: 74–5 (11.21–3); Constantine VII Porphy-
rogennetos 2011: 174–7; Skylitzes 1973: 142–3; Skylitzes 2010: 139–40; Ramaḍān
2009: 155–94; Chrysos 1997: 204–6; Letsios 1992: 213–27. The practice was by no
means restricted to the Byzantines. When Sayf al-Dawla was returning from a raid in
950 CE, he was ambushed in a pass by a Byzantine army. When he realised the gravity
of the situation, he killed all 400 Byzantine prisoners that he held. See Vasiliev 1935–
68: ii. 345; Skylitzes 1973: 242; Skylitzes 2010: 234. Despite the fact that nobles
and officials had a better chance of remaining unharmed in captivity, they were by
no means immune to acts of retaliation. For instance, during the hostilities in South
Italy in 929–34 CE, Tedald, who was margrave of King Hugh of Italy (924–47 CE),
mutilated the genitals of the Byzantine aristocrats who had been taken prisoner. Bar-
das Phokas, wanting to avenge for the death of his son Constantine, decided to kill all
the relatives of Sayf al-Dawla who were in his custody. See Liudprand of Cremona
1998: 101 (4.9); Liudprand of Cremona 2007: 145–6; Skylitzes 1973: 241; Skylitzes
2010: 232–3.
303 For 51.1, see MS: 274, 342 (8.1.32, 10.2.23–9); Maurice 1984: 82, 108.
304 A feigned retreat like this was employed by the Magyars at the battle of the Lech in
910 CE. See Liudprand of Cremona 1998: 36–7 (2.4–5); Liudprand of Cremona 2007:
76–7; Haldon 2014: 277.
305 For 52.1, see MS: 340 (10.2.1–7); Maurice 1984: 107; LT: 416–17 (17.59). This was
the standard way to deal with invaders for centuries. See Nikephoros II Phokas 1986;
Dagron and Mihăescu 1986: 139–287; Haldon 1999: 39–41; Haldon 2014: 312–18;
Haldon and Kennedy 1980; Stouraitis 2009: 47–169; Decker 2013: 137–43; Whittow
1996: 175–81; Lilie 1976: 339–60; McMahon 2016: 22–33; Asa Eger 2014.
306 For 52.2, see MS: 340 (10.2.8–14); Maurice 1984: 108; LT: 416–17 (17.60).
307 For 52.3, see MS: 278 (8.1.44); Maurice 1984: 83.
308 This chapter, especially 53.1–7, is largely the same as MS: 342–6 (10.3); Maurice
1984: 108–10 and LT: 368–75 (15.41–7, 49, 51–2). To a great extent, the treatment of
siege warfare in the ST is typical of other general military manuals. On the contrary,
a great deal of detail is found in other manuals which were specifically dedicated
to this subject. Apart from the OT, see the PP where siege engines are discussed in
greater detail. For Byzantine siege warfare and its practice in general, see Haldon
1999: 183–9; Haldon 2014: 294–7; McGeer 1995b: 123–9; Sullivan 1997: 179–200;
Decker 2013: 158–61; Petersen 2013: 115–43.
309 For 53.2, see MS: 344 (10.3.28–30); Maurice 1984: 109; OT: 172–3 (67).
310 For 53.3, see LT: 374–5 (15.51).
311 For 53.4, see MS: 346 (10.3.51–3); Maurice 1984: 110; LT: 374–5 (15.52); OT: 158–9
(25); see also OT: 174–5 (71).
312 The ST refers to the employment of πετροβόλων ὀργανων and ἑλεπόλεων. The second
term also had a more general meaning that referred to any type of siege-engine and
it is clear here that some kind of stone-throwing machine is meant. Scholars have
interpreted this second machine as trebuchet and argued that it perhaps had a greater
range than the first one. For further discussion, see Sullivan 2000: 239; Dennis 1998:
99–115; Haldon 1999: 188–98; Haldon 2000: 273–5; Chevedden 2000: 71–116. For a
study of siege warfare terminology, see Makrypoulias 2013: 31–44.
313 On these, see Haldon 2014: 264–5.
314 For 53.5, see MS: 344 (10.3.9–13); Maurice 1984: 109; PS: 40–3 (13.72–82,115–20);
OT: 210–11 (176).
138 Notes
315 Tortoises were wooden sheds usually employed to cover those who were trying to
reach the walls and undermine them or were using a ram to attack a gate. Tortoises,
ram-tortoises, sledge-hammers, and pickaxes for undermining purposes were included
in Constantine VII’s inventory for the 949 expedition against Crete and various types
of tortoises are mentioned in the PP. See Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012:
670; PP: 28–9, 44–51 (2.1–5, 13–15); Haldon 2014: 303–4 and Sullivan 2000: 159,
182–90 and fig. 1–2, 4, 6, for eleventh-century illustrations of tortoises from Vati-
canus graecus 1605.
316 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 671, 673, includes pitch and lead among the
items with which the army was provisioned prior to the 949 CE expedition against
Crete.
317 For 53.6, see PS: 40–1 (13.61–71); OT: 172–5 (68); LT: 370–1 (15.43).
318 For 53.7, see LT: 372–3 (15.46).
319 It is open to debate whether the strepta was a new and different device from the hand-
siphons, whether it was the same device, or whether it was a particular part of the same
device. The ST seems to treat the strepta as a different device from the hand-siphons.
Although the strepta appears in the PP: 98–9 (49.20–5), accepting the new dating of the
ST would mean that the latter is the first manual to mention this device. This seems to be
supported by the fact that the author felt the need to describe the function of the strepta
to his readers. For more discussion and for the claim in LT that hand-siphons were
recently devised, see Sullivan 2000: 161–2, 231; Haldon 2006: 290–7; Haldon 2014:
412–14. For a representation of such devices in the eleventh-century Vaticanus graecus
1605, see Sullivan 2000: fig. 22. For the dating of the PP (most probably c.950), see
Schneider 1908–12: ii. 84–5; Dain 1953: 77–8; Sullivan 2000: 4, 15–21, 248.
320 Wooden siege-towers mounted on cylinders or wheels were regularly employed both
by the Byzantines and their enemies. Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 670
includes a wooden siege tower among the equipment gathered for the expedition to
Crete in 949. The PP: 28–9 (2.6) also mentions a wooden siege tower and the Vati-
canus graecus 1605 preserves a relevant illustration, see Sullivan 2000: 160, fig. 15;
Haldon 2014: 304–6.
321 The author of the ST uses the antiquarian term mosynas (μόσυνας) here. The only
other author of a military treatise to have used this term is the fourth-century BCE
Aeneas the Tactician 1928: 180–1 (33.3). Strabo 1917–33: v. 400–1 (12.3.18) com-
ments that the word mosynas was rather archaic already in his time. For the employ-
ment of rare terms by the author of the ST, see also Sullivan 2010: 155.
322 For 53.8, see LT: 528–9 (19.64); OT: 188–9 (113).
323 For 53.9, see H: 497 (56.7); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 989; Polybius 1922–7: v.
340–3 (21.28.7–17); PS: 38–9 (13.34–43); OT: 212–15 (185–95). For mining and
counter mining, see also Haldon 2014: 299–300.
324 For 54.1, see MS: 316, 336–8 (9.3.77–81, 10.1.4–7, 38–42); Maurice 1984: 98, 106–7;
LT: 352–3, 360–1 (15.4, 23).
325 For 54.2, see MS: 338–40 (10.1.32–8, 44–8); Maurice 1984: 107; LT: 352–3, 354–7
(15.5, 15–16); PP: 34–7 (4).
326 For 54.3, see LT: 362–3 (15.27).
327 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 2012: 673 lists sponges to be provided for the
siege engines prepared for the 949 expedition to Crete.
328 For 54.4, see LT: 362–3 (15.27); PP: 42–51, 82–5, and 99 (11, 13, 15, 39, 49).
329 For 54.5, see MS: 340 (10.1.49–51); Maurice 1984: 107; LT: 362–3 (15.26). For fire
arrows see Haldon 2014: 298.
330 Reading κατασεισθέντας instead of κατασεισθέντες as in Dain 1938: 104. See L, f.
100v, bottom line.
331 For 54.6, see LT: 358–61 (15.21).
Notes 139
332 For the relevance of this passage to the Arab-Byzantine frontier see Haldon 2014:
307–8.
333 For 55.1, see MS: 346–8 (10.4.1–22); Maurice 1984: 110; LT: 376–7 (15.56–7).
334 For 55.2, see MS: 348–50 (10.4.41–62); Maurice 1984: 111–12; LT: 378–81 (15.63–4).
335 For 55.3, see MS: 348 (10.4.23–34); Maurice 1984: 111; LT: 376–7 (15.58).
336 For 55.4, see MS: 348 (10.4.34–40); Maurice 1984: 111; LT: 378–9 (15. 62).
337 For 56.1–9, see MS: 490–500 (12.4); Maurice 1984: 165–9.
338 For 57.1, see AB: 952–3 (40). The AB most probably dates to the ninth century and
mainly draws on the Cesti of Julius Africanus (160–240 CE) and the PS: see Vieille-
fond 1932: xxxvi–xliii; Vieillefond 1970: 5–70; Mecella 2009: 87–98; Wallraff et al.
2012: xlviii–lii. For tradition and originality in the AB, see Zuckerman 1994: 359–
89. Squill (σκίλλα in Greek) is a type of plant (urginea maritima) used as medicine.
A recipe for vinegar made from squill is found in Anonymous 1895: 230 (8.42); Dalby
2011: 183.
339 It was common in antiquity for wine to be consumed mixed with water so it is sug-
gested here that the water should be boiled first in order to sterilise it.
340 Earth from the island of Lemnos was famous as a medicine throughout antiquity and
the Middle Ages. It was believed that it could generally protect from poison and snake
bites as well as possessing numerous other properties. See Hall and Photos-Jones
2008: 1034–49.
341 For 58.1, see AB: 953 (41).
342 For 59.1–2, see AB: 916–17 (2).
343 For 60, see AB: 918 (3).
344 For 61, see AB: 917–18 (2).
345 Dain 1938: 111 reads φύρσεις, the plural form of φύρσις, which means ‘mixing’, but
that does not make sense in this context. It is possible that the original word here was
φύσας, a type of river fish, for that also appears in the relevant passages of AB: 917 (2)
and Ouranos’s Taktika (91–3), as edited in Mecella 2009: 120.
346 For 62, see AB: 949 (32).
347 For 63, see AB: 950 (33).
348 For 64, see AB: 950 (34).
349 Alexander the Great campaigned against the Paionians, who inhabited northern Mac-
edonia, in 353 BCE, before he embarked on his campaign against the Persians. Arrian,
the main source for Alexander’s campaigns, does not record this particular event,
however.
350 For 65, see AB: 951 (36).
351 For 66, see AB: 928 (14).
352 For 67, see AB: 928 (14).
353 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 1990: 102–3 (C.132–3) mentions that the komes of
the stables was to prepare wine and vinegar for a campaign, most probably to be used
for the treatment of horses.
354 For 68, see AB: 951 (35).
355 The text from chapter 68 to chapter 74 did not originally appear in the manuscript
which the copyists of L used. As one of them informs us in the lower right and bottom
margin of f. 103r, they tried to fill some of these chapters by themselves, probably
from another lost source. As regards chapter 68, the copyist supplied this text in the
top margin of f.104r. See Dain 1938: 113–15n; Vieillefond 1932: lii–liv; Dain 1939:
12–14, 28–31; Dain and Foucault 1967: 353; Mecella 2009: 107–8.
356 For 69, see AB: 923–4 (9).
357 Aristomenes led the Messenians in their revolts against the Spartans, in the second half
of the seventh century BCE, according to Pausanias 1918–35: ii. 246–303 (4.14–24).
The stratagem of the horses is not found there, however.
140 Notes
358 The copyist supplied this passage in the bottom margin of L, f. 103v but placed it in
chapter 70.
359 For 70, see AB: 952 (39).
360 The copyist supplied this passage in the bottom margin of L, f. 102v but placed it in
chapter 69.
361 For the title of 71, which bears no resemblance to the content of the chapter, see AB:
953 (43).
362 The traceable source for this passage is AB: 951 (37). The copyist supplied it in the
bottom margin of L, f. 104r and placed it in chapter 71 but it does not correspond with
any title found in the original table of contents.
363 For the title of 72, see AB: 953 (42). The copyist did not supply us with a text in this
case.
364 For the title of 73, see AB: 954 (44). The copyist did not supply us with a text in this
case.
365 For 74, see AB: 954 (45).
366 The copyist supplied this passage in the bottom margin of L, f. 103r but placed it in
chapter 68. The rest of the text after this footnote is found in the main text of L, since
it was preserved in the manuscript that the scribe had copied from.
367 For 75.1–2, see AB: 951–2 (38).
368 What follows originally derives from the Stratagems of Polyaenus. The version in the
ST, however, preserves a new witness to the tradition of the text. The stratagems here
do not come directly from the original version of Polyaenus nor from the two known
abbreviations: the Hypothesis (H) and Stratagemata Ambrosiana, which is preserved
in manuscript B. 199 Sup., held in the Ambrosiana Library in Milan. For H see Dain
1937: 73–86; Dain and Foucault 1967: 337; Schindler 1973: 205–16; Krentz and
Wheeler 1994: i. xx–xxi. For the Stratagemata Ambrosiana see Anonymous 1949;
Dain and Foucault 1967: 364–5; Mazzucchi 1978. Leo VI also included stratagems of
Polyaenus in LT: 535–619 (20.1–221); Haldon 2014: 418–42. Once more, however,
the version of the ST is different from that of LT and there is no direct connection
between the two works. It has been argued that the author of the ST copied this section
from a now lost treatise, the Corpus Perditum, which among other works included
some of the Stratagems of Polyaenus. See Dain 1939; Dain and Foucault 1967: 353;
Krentz and Wheeler 1994: i. xxi–xiii; Mecella 2009: 107–13. The Stratagems of Poly-
aenus became very popular in the tenth century. Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos
1990: 106–7 (C. 196–9) instructed that a copy of Polyaenus should be taken on cam-
paign along with other books.
369 Dain 1938: 9 argued that this chapter derives from a lost work, known as the De epis-
tolis secreto mittendis, which was solely dedicated to the subject of secret correspond-
ence. He argues that it incorporated elements from Philo of Byzantium and Aeneas the
Tactician and that traces of it can be found in a number of later lost and extant works.
See also Dain and Foucault 1967: 339 and Krentz and Wheeler 1994: xxii.
370 Dain 1938: 116 omits the word ‘wanted’ (ἠβούλετο), despite the fact that it appears in
L, f. 103v. It is included in Melber 1887: 509.
371 Julius Caesar had a reputation for sending secret messages in code, substituting the
original letter with that which came fourth before it in the alphabet, the so-called Cae-
sar’s cipher. See Suetonius 1914: i. 108–9 (Life of Julius Caesar 56.6–7) and Aulus
Gellius 1927: iii. 232–5 (17.9.1–5).
372 Dain 1938: 116 adds only ἂν here, Melber 1887: 509 adds ἂν ἠβούλετο.
373 The recipient is not given.
374 For 76.2, see Aeneas the Tactician 1928: 160–1 (31.10–13). Lucius Cornelius Sulla
(c.138–78 BCE) was a Roman general and dictator but this particular incident seems
to be absent from the historical narratives.
375 Harpagus was a noble of the Median empire who communicated with Cyrus the Great
of Persia in this way because he wanted to take revenge on his own king. See Herodo-
tus 1920–5: i. 160–3 (1.123).
Notes 141
376 For 76.5, see Aeneas the Tactician 1928: 156–7 (31.4–5). This incident cannot be
traced in the historical record.
377 This person and incident are only recorded in the ST and cannot be traced in any extant
source.
378 This incident cannot be traced in the historical record.
379 This anecdote may refer to the Jewish high priest Onias IV who left Syria for Egypt
in around 160 BCE, where he settled with his people and owed military service to
the kings of Egypt. The ST is the only testimony, however, to connect him with this
stratagem and this Onias may simply be a fictional character. See also Meulder 2003:
460.
380 This incident cannot be traced in the historical record.
381 This probably refers to Choerilus, a poet and encomiast from Iasus who lived around
the end of the fourth century BCE. This event itself does not seem to be recorded in
any historical narrative, but if it ever occurred, it possibly took place in the context
of Alexander the Great’s campaign against the Persians, in which Choerilus allegedly
participated.
382 According to tradition, Merops was king either of the Meropians, a people who inhab-
ited the island of Cos, or of the Ethiopians, and he is often found in connection to other
mythological figures such as Aeneas or Pandareus. Meulder 2003: 448–58 argues that
the Merops referred to here was actually Shapur I, Sasanian king of Persia (240–70
CE) and that this anecdote in fact refers to the capture of Hatra in around 241 CE,
since similar stratagems are recorded in Persian sources. The same trick is attributed
by Procopius of Caesarea 1914–28: ii. 12–17 (3.2.14–26) to the Gothic leader Alaric
when he captured Rome in 410 CE.
383 The word used here is ‘Καίσαρα’ which could also refer to Julius Caesar, but ‘emperor’
has been preferred in this translation due to the obscurity of the anecdote.
384 Meulder 2003: 448–51, proposed that this stratagem refers to the capture of Antioch
by Shapur I in around 253–6 CE.
385 For 77.3, see H: 481 (41.5); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 957. According to Herodo-
tus 1920–5: ii. 184–195 (3.152–60), it was not Cyrus who played this trick but Darius
I, king of Persia (522–486 BCE).
386 For 77.4, see H: 480 (41.3); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 955. This incident took
place in 260 BCE during the First Punic War. See Polybius 1922–7: i. 62–5 (1.21).
The Byzantines also used fake deserters to plant disinformation. See Shepard 1985:
275.
387 For 77.5, see H: 440–1 (9.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 875–7. This anecdote
refers to the events of 240–239 BCE when Antiochus Hierax managed to defeat his
brother, Seleucus II Callinicus, during their struggle for the control of the Seleucid
Empire. The historical narratives, however, do not seem to record this particular ruse.
388 For 78.1, see H: 432 (1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 859. Iphicrates (fl. 390–356
BCE), mostly fought as a mercenary commander and apart from his victories he is
also credited for creating a new type of medium infantry, the Iphicratian peltasts.
While many ancient authors refer to Iphicrates, most of his stratagems only appear in
later military treatises.
389 For 78.2, see H: 432 (1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 859. The siege of Tyre took
place in 332 BCE, as part of Alexander the Great’s Persian campaign. The incident
with the bucket, however, does not seem to be recorded in the historical narratives.
390 For 79.1, see H: 432 (1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 859. This incident took place in
330 BCE when Alexander captured Darius III, king of Persia (336–330 BCE) and his
family. It is also attested in Plutarch 1914–26: vii. 348–51 (Life of Alexander 42.3–6)
and Arrian 1929–33: ii. 178–1 (6.26.1–3).
391 For 79.2, see H: 433 (3.5); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 861. This anecdote appears in
a slightly different form in Polyaenus 1887: 181–4 (4.3.32); Polyaenus 1994: i. 361–7,
where it is recorded that it was Alexander himself who found the menu belonging to
Darius III and that unlike everybody else he was contemptuous rather than amazed.
142 Notes
392 For 79.3, see H: 433 (3.3); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 861 and Polyaenus 1887:
159 (4.2.1); Polyaenus 1994: i. 317. The latter states that the disgraced general was
Docimus of Taras, of whom nothing else is known.
393 For 79.4, see H: 433 (3.4); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 861 and Polyaenus 1887: 159–
60 (4.2.3); Polyaenus 1994: i. 317–19, who records that Aeropus and Damasippus were
the commanders of the Macedonian army visited by the flautist. This anecdote is not
recorded in the historical narratives and nothing further is known of these two generals.
394 For 79.5, see H: 432–3 (3.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 859–61. This commander
was Archidamus III, king of the Spartans (359–338 BCE). Polyaenus 1887: 47–8
(1.41.5); Polyaenus 1994: i. 93–5 states that this incident took place during a night
march against the city of Caryae in 367 BCE but Xenophon 1918–21: ii. 246–7
(7.1.28) only reports that the city was taken by storm.
395 For 79.6, see H: 433 (3.6); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 861. Gaius Mucius Scaevola
volunteered to assassinate Lars Porsenna, King of the Etruscans, during his attack
on Rome in 504 BCE. The legend is also recorded by Dionysius of Halicarnassus
1937–50: iii. 80–7 (5.28–30).
396 For 79.7, see H: 433 (3.7); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 861. The identity of this
consul has not been traced.
397 For 79.8, see H: 444 (3.9); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 863. This incident allegedly
took place in 48 BCE before the battle of Dyrrachium during the civil war between
Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great. See Suetonius 1914: i. 118–19 (Life of Julius
Caesar 68.2).
398 For 80.1, see H: 435 (4.6); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 865. Cassander was a Mac-
edonian general who later became king of Macedon (305–297 BCE). The campaign
against Athens and Salamis took place in 318 BCE but this particular anecdote about
the release of prisoners does not seem to be recorded in the historical narratives.
399 For 80.2, see H: 436 (4.13); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 867. Publius Cornelius
Scipio Africanus (236–183 BCE), Roman consul and general, campaigned in Spain
during the Second Punic War and in 210 BCE captured the city of Carthago Nova
which was where this incident took place. See Livy 1919–59: vii. 190–5 (26.50).
400 For 80.3, see H: 435 (4.7); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 865. This anecdote most
probably refers to Antiochus II Theos, ruler of the Seleucid empire (281–261 BCE).
Polyaenus 1887: 215–16 (4.16); Polyaenus 1994: i. 429–31 reports that it was the
Thracians Teres and Domichetes that defected to Antiochus, but nothing else seems to
be known either about the event or these men.
401 For 80.4, see H: 436 (4.12); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 867. Marcus Furius Camil-
lus (c.446–365 BCE), Roman censor, consular tribune and dictator, was taking part
in hostilities against the Etruscan city of Veii and its allies the Falerians in 406–394
BCE. See Plutarch 1914–26: ii. 116–21 (Life of Camillus 10).
402 For 80.5, see H: 441 (9.3); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii, 877 and Polyaenus 1887: 266
(5.33.3); Polyaenus 1994: i. 531, who attribute this stratagem not to Pompey the Great
but to Pompiscus, an Arcadian about whom nothing else is known.
403 For 81.1, see H: 436 (5.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 867. This anecdote about
Epaminondas (d. 362 BCE), Theban general and leader of the Boeotian League,
remains untraced, but something similar is recorded by Pausanias 1918–35: iv. 228–9
(9.13.8), who reports that Epaminondas allowed some men, mainly Thespians, to
leave the camp before the battle of Leuctra in 371 BCE so that they did not dishearten
the rest of the troops during the battle.
404 For 81.2, see H: 436–7 (5.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 867–9. This is one of many
anecdotes originally found in the work of Polyaenus which cannot be traced in any
extant historical source. Polyaenus may well have used sources which belonged to an
oral tradition or have treated his written sources more freely and from memory, with
a view only to getting the main idea across rather than to recording a historical event
accurately. See Pretzler 2010: 85–107 and Wheeler 2010: 38–9.
Notes 143
405 For 81.3, see H: 437 (5.3); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 869. Agathocles, ruler of
Syracuse (316–228 BCE), mounted this expedition against Carthage in 310 BCE. See
Diodorus of Sicily 1933–67: x. 155–91 (20.5–18).
406 Dain 1938: 124 incorrectly reads σφαγῖσιν instead of σφραγῖσιν here. See Melber
1887: 518 and L, f. 107r.
407 For 82.1, see H: 437 (6.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 869. Most probably this anec-
dote refers to Dionysius I, ruler of Syracuse (405–367 BCE) who waged wars against
the Carthaginians and the Greek city-states of southern Italy. Polyaenus 1887: 245
(5.10.2); Polyaenus 1994: i. 489 and Diodorus of Sicily 1933–67: vi. 164–5 (14.55.1),
however, reverse the roles and attribute the trick to the Carthaginian general Himilco
(d. 366 BCE), who was said to have employed it during his Sicilian expedition against
Dionysius in about 406 BCE. Frontinus 1925: 20–1 (1.2.6) credits the Roman general
Marius with using sealed letters in this way.
408 For 82.2, see H: 437 (6.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 869. Alcibiades (451–404
BCE), Athenian general and politician, who was active in the Peloponnesian War
(431–434 BCE).
409 For 83.1, see H: 438 (7.3); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 871 and Polyaenus 1887:
266–7 (5.33.6); Polyaenus 1994: i. 531–3, who attribute this anecdote to Pompiscus
the Arcadian rather than to Pompey the Great.
410 The Greek word for ‘group-tent’ is κοντουβέρνιον.
411 For 83.2, see H: 438 (7.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 871. Chares (fl. 367–332
BCE), Athenian general, fought many wars against the Macedonians in Thrace and
Northern Greece and was present at the battle of Chaeronea in 337 BCE.
412 For 84.1, see H: 445 (13.5); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 885. Timotheus (d. 354
BCE), Athenian general, campaigned in Corfu and Chalkidiki and participated in the
so-called Social Wars of 357–355 BCE.
413 For 84.2, see H: 444 (13.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 883. Lycurgus is more or
less a legendary figure whose reforms, which seem to have taken place at some point
between the eleventh and eighth centuries BCE, created the Spartan Constitution.
Plutarch 1914–26: i. 242–5 (Life of Lycurgus 13.5), confirms that this was one of
Lycurgus’s laws.
414 For 84.3, see H: 445 (13.7); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 885. This story most prob-
ably refers to Antigonus I Monophthalamus (382–301 BCE), one of the generals of
Alexander the Great and king of Asia Minor and Syria from 306.
415 For 84.4, see H: 444 (13.4); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 883. This incident cannot
be traced in the historical record.
416 For 84.5, see H: 445 (13.9); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 885. Gaius Marius (157–86
BCE), a Roman general and statesman, who halted the advance of the Cimbri into
Italy in 102 BCE. Plutarch 1914–26: ix. 534–7 (Life of Marius 26.3–5) records that
Marius took advantage of the heat to repel the Cimbri, who were accustomed to a
much colder climate.
417 For 85.1, see H: 439 (8.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 873. A slightly different ver-
sion of this anecdote about Xerxes, king of Persia (486–465 BCE), and Themistocles
(c.525–459 BCE), Athenian statesman, is found in Herodotus 1920–5: iv. 20–3 (8.22).
418 For 85.2, see H: 483 (44.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 961 and Polyaenus 1887:
138 (3.9.57); Polyaenus 1994 i. 275. According to the latter, it was Iphicrates, rather
than Themistocles, who employed this stratagem.
419 For 86.1, see H: 450 (14.29); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 895. This incident took place
in 45 BCE at the battle of Munda when Julius Caesar was fighting against Pompey’s
son, Gnaeus Pompeius, in Spain. The anecdote is preserved with some variations by
other sources. See, for example, Plutarch 1914–26: vii. 570–3 (Life of Caesar 56.1–2).
420 For 86.2, see H: 449 (14.24); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 893. This event took place
when Cyrus the Great was leading the Persian Revolt against the Medes in 559–552
BCE and is also recorded in Plutarch 1931a: iii. 490–3 (5).
144 Notes
421 For 86.3, see H: 449 (14.21); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 893. Like the story above,
this incident seems to be set during the Persian revolt against the Medes. The classical
Greek sources present Cyrus’s victory over the Medes almost as a single event but
Babylonian records and other sources seem to agree that it was a long and difficult
struggle, thus making this anecdote credible. For a discussion, see Briant 2002: 31–3.
422 For 86.4, see H: 449–50 (14.25); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 893–5. The battle of
Orchomenus was fought in 85 BCE as part of the First Mithridatic War, where the
Romans prevailed under the command of Sulla. This anecdote is also recorded by
Plutarch 1914–26: iv. 394–5 (Life of Sulla 21.2).
423 For 86.5, see H: 449 (14.22); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 893 and Polyaenus 1887:
345 (7.35.1); Polyaenus 1994: i. 689. The latter apparently places this anecdote in the
context of the invasion of Greece and Macedonia by a Gallic chieftain called Bren-
nus in 279 BCE, since he reports that the prisoners were Greek rather than Roman. H
does not specify the origin of the prisoners. Since the author of the ST reports that the
prisoners displayed were Romans, this Brennus is probably to be identified with the
Gallic chieftain who attacked Rome around 390 BCE.
424 For 86.6, see H: 450 (14.28); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 895. This Scipio is Scipio
Africanus the Younger (185–129 BCE), rather than his more famous adopted father,
Scipio Africanus the elder. The anecdote is also found in Plutarch 1931b: iii. 194–5
(201.18) and Claudius Aelianus 1974: 122 (11.9.20–4); Claudius Aelianus 1997:
158–9.
425 For 86.7, see H: 450 (14.30); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 895. Julius Caesar is also
credited with calling his men ‘comrades’ in ST, 86.1, as are other Romans elsewhere.
See, for instance, Cassius Dio 1914–27: ix. 40–3 (72.24–6).
426 For 86.8, see H: 446 (14.4); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 887 and Polyaenus 1887: 78
(2.3.2); Polyaenus 1994: i. 155. The latter records that this incident took place during
the Theban Epaminondas’s victory over the Spartans at the battle of Leuctra in 371
BCE but it does not appear in the historical narratives.
427 For 87.1, see H: 451 (15.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 897. Agesilaus II (400–359
BCE), king of Sparta, had requested a passage through Macedonia from Aeropus II,
king of Macedon (399–393 BCE), and probably resorted to this ruse when it was
denied. See Plutarch 1931c: iii. 262–3 (211.43); Plutarch 1914–26: v. 42–3 (Life of
Agesilaus 16).
428 For 87.2, see H: 451 (15.4); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 897. This incident cannot
be traced in the historical record.
429 For 87.3, see H: 451 (15.3); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 897. This incident cannot
be traced in the historical record.
430 For 87.4, see H: 452 (15.6); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 899. Perdiccas (365–c.320
BCE), one of the generals of Alexander the Great, attacked Ptolemy I Soter (c.367–
283 BCE) at Memphis in 321 BCE, but his army was destroyed as he was trying to
cross the Nile. The historical narratives, however, do not report the anecdote given
here and attribute the defeat solely to the incompetence of Perdiccas. See for example
Diodorus of Sicily 1933–67: ix. 106–9 (18.34–5).
431 For 87.5, see H: 451–2 (15.5); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 897–9. This incident took
place in 317 BCE when the Macedonian general Eumenes (c.362–317 BCE) was at
war with Antigonus I. The story is also preserved by Plutarch 1914–26: viii. 124–7
(Life of Eumenes 15.3–7), while Diodorus of Sicily 1933–67: ix. 295–305 (19.24–7)
gives a slightly different account.
432 For 87.6, see H: 452 (15.8); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 899. The Scythians were
nomads who probably originated from the area of Northern Caucasus. They were
trained to fight in horseback with bows and lances and must have started their migra-
tion in the Balkans around the middle of the sixth century. The Triballi were a clan of
Thracian or Illyrian origin who inhabited the lands around the river Danube.
Notes 145
433 For 87.7, see H: 452 (15.7); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 899 and Polyaenus 1887:
260–1 (5.23); Polyaenus 1994: i. 519–21. The latter gives the name of the leader of
the defence as Tynnichus and that of his city as ‘Theudosia’. The name of neither
Tynnichus nor Tyrrenius can be linked with any known military figure but the city can
be recognised as Theodosia in the Crimea, which is described by Strabo 1917–33: iii.
236–9 (7.4.4).
434 For 88.1, see H: 453 (16.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 901. This anecdote is con-
nected with Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul in 58–50 BCE.
435 For 88.2, see H: 453, 500, and 502 (16.1, 57.9, 18); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 901,
995, 997. The ST is the only source to have credited Onias with this stratagem. In H
the anecdote is not connected with any particular figure while Polyaenus 1887: 148
(3.11.3); Polyaenus 1994: i. 295 attributes something similar to the Athenian general,
Chabrias (d. 357).
436 For 89.1, see H: 458 (22.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 911. Nicias (c.470–413
BCE), Athenian general and statesman, was one of the leaders of the Sicilian Expedi-
tion of 415–413 BCE during the Peloponnesian war. The protracted siege of Syracuse
is context for this anecdote. See Thucydides 1919–23: iii. 368–71 (6.102) and Plu-
tarch 1914–26: iii. 268–71 (Life of Nicias 18.1–3).
437 For 89.2, see H: 459 (22.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 912 and Polyaenus 1887: 45
(1.40.7); Polyaenus 1994: i. 89 but they have Alcibiades employing this tactic against
a different foe from the Argives mentioned here: the former reports that it was against
the Syracusans and the latter that it was against the Athenians on Sicily. The story is
not found in the historical narratives.
438 For 89.3, see H: 466 (31.3); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 927. This anecdote could
have taken place when Iphicrates was involved into a Thracian civil war in 387 BCE
to assist Seuthes to recover the throne of the Odrysian kingdom.
439 For 89.4, see H: 459 (23); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 913. Hannibal (247–c.183
BCE), Carthaginian general, inflicted a fourth consecutive defeat on the Romans at
the battle of Cannae in 216 BCE during the Second Punic War (218–201 BCE). This
incident of the wind is also recorded by Livy 1919–59: v. 350–3 (22.46).
440 For 90.1, see H: 459 (24.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 913. This passage could
refer to the campaign of 430 BCE during the Peloponnesian war. The Spartans rav-
aged Attica and, rather than sally forth from their walls and attack the Spartans on
land, the Athenians sent a fleet to attack the cities of Peloponnese which were allied
to Sparta, forcing the Spartans to withdraw from Attica. See Thucydides 1919–23:
i. 356–9 (2.55–6).
441 For 90.2, see H: 464 (29.4); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 923. This incident took
place during the Peloponnesian war, when the Athenian general Demosthenes led an
expedition against Pylos in 425 BCE. For this anecdote, see Thucydides 1919–23:
ii. 212–85 (4.3–41), who gives a slightly different and more complicated version of
events.
442 For 90.3, see H: 494 (54.12); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 983 and Polyaenus 1887:
164 (4.2.18); Polyaenus 1994: i. 327. The latter states that these events took place
at Pharcedon, a city in Thessaly, during Philip II of Macedon’s intervention in the
area around 352 BCE, rather than at Methone in the Peloponnese. Diodorus of Sicily
1933–67: vii. 330–7 (16.34–5) does not give any detailed information about the cap-
ture of these cities.
443 Dain 1938: 131 and Melber 1887: 527 read πυρούς (wheat) here which makes little sense
in this context. Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 1074 have incorrectly interpreted the word
as deriving from πῦρ and give the translation ‘I shall light a fire’. However, the top line of
L, f. 111r clarifies the matter, since the word πυρσούς (‘torches’) clearly appears there.
444 For 91.1, see H: 460 (25.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 915. This incident cannot
be traced in the historical record.
146 Notes
445 For 91.2, see H: 441–2 (10.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 877–9. Clearchus was a
Spartan general who later became a mercenary captain and fought against the Thra-
cians in the service of the Persian prince, Cyrus (d. 401 BCE). It is possible that this
stratagem took place on this occasion, if we assume that ‘Athenians’ is a general term
for Greek mercenaries. Polyaenus 1887: 74–5 (2.2.6); Polyaenus 1994: i. 147–9 does
not refer to Athenians, which makes more sense.
446 For 92, see H: 460 (25.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 915. This anecdote is pre-
served with few differences in Diodorus of Sicily 1933–67: vii. 140–3 (15.68).
447 For 93, see H: 472 (34.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 939. This incident took place
in 370–369 BCE when Epaminondas invaded the Peloponnese. The anecdote is also
reported by Plutarch 1914–26: v. 90–1 (Life of Agesilaus 32.7).
448 For 94.1, see H: 476 (37.3); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 947. The H and Polyae-
nus 1887: 76–7 (2.2.9); Polyaenus 1994: i. 151–3 both record that it was Clearchus
who employed this stratagem. Either way nothing similar is found in the historical
narratives.
449 For 94.2, see H: 476 (37.5); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 947. This incident took place
in 480 BCE after the battle of Thermopylae, when the Thessalians invaded the terri-
tory of Phocians. The anecdote is also found in Herodotus 1920–5: iv. 28–9 (8.28).
450 This anecdote cannot be traced in the historical narratives. If it ever took place it must
have happened sometime before or during the battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE, prob-
ably in front of the town of Chaeronea.
451 For 95.1, see H: 465 (30.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 925. This incident cannot
be traced in the historical record.
452 For 95.2, see H: 469 (31.15); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 933. This probably refers
to Autophradates (fl. 390–330 BCE), satrap of Lydia, but the context of the anecdote
is unclear since the historical narratives do not mention it.
453 For 95.3, see H: 470 (31.18); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 935. This anecdote is
also preserved in Herodotus 1920–5: i. 260–7 (1.207–11), according to whom it was
Croesus, king of Lydia (561–546 BCE), who advised King Cyrus of Persia to follow
this course of action. Cyrus agreed, annihilated the Massagetae, and captured their
leader.
454 For 95.4, see H: 498 (56.11); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 991 and Polyaenus 1887:
346–7 (7.36); Polyaenus 1994: i. 691–3. While the ST uses the legendary figure of
Merops here, H presents these events as anonymous advice and Polyaenus attributes
a very similar stratagem to the legendary or fictional figure of Mygdonius. The oldest
testimony to this anecdote comes from Diogenes Laertius 1925: i. 84–7 (Life of Bias
1.5.82–4), where he records that Bias of Priene, one of the seven wise men of Greece,
employed the same stratagem when his city was besieged by Alyattes, king of Lydia
(600–561 BCE), sometime around 570 BCE. This story could also refer to Shapur
I of Persia since Antigonea was the name of a city in Syria as well as in Epirus. See
Meulder 2003: 460–1.
455 The story of Tyrrenius and his escape can neither be traced nor put into any histori-
cal context. However, Bohemond (1058–1111 CE), Norman lord of Taranto and later
prince of Antioch, is recorded as having employed this stratagem to escape from Anti-
och in 1106 in Anna Komnene 2001: 356–8 (11.12); Anna Komnene 2009: 329–30;
Albu 2000: 157–68.
456 For 95.6, see H: 491 (52.3); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 977 and Polyaenus 1887:
117 (3.7.3); Polyaenus 1994: i. 233, where this stratagem is attributed to Lachares, a
confidant of King Cassander of Macedon, rather than to Chares and Polyaenus records
that Lachares employed this stratagem to flee from the town of Sestus. The episode
might therefore be connected to the capture of Sestus in 353–352 BCE by Chares,
but there is no record either of such an escape or of Lachares being present. See, for
instance, Diodorus of Sicily 1933–67: vii. 330–3 (16.34).
Notes 147
457 For 95.7, see H: 491 (52.4); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 977. Demetrius of Pha-
lerum (c.350–c.283 BCE), orator and scholar, was appointed ruler of Athens by King
Cassander of Macedon in 317 BCE, but ten years later he was forced to abandon the
city after it was captured by the Macedonian general, Demetrius Poliorketes. Noth-
ing relevant can be found in the historical narratives regarding this stratagem and the
fact that Polyaenus 1887: 155–6 (3.15); Polyaenus 1994: i. 309–11 records that it was
from the king of the Thracians that Demetrius escaped in this way makes the anecdote
even more improbable.
458 For 95.8, see H: 491–2 (52.7); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 977. This story prob-
ably refers to Chilon, a candidate for the Spartan throne, who in 219 BCE led a failed
coup, but the sources do not record anything about him escaping captivity, only that
he left Sparta and reached Achaea. Elsewhere, the participants of this anecdote are
given as inhabitants of Lesbos and Lemnos who were forced to abandon their islands
by the Pelasgi and then fled to Sparta. When they were imprisoned by the suspicious
Spartans, their wives visited them, exchanged clothes, and allowed their husbands
to escape. See Herodotus 1920–5: ii. 344–7 (4.145–6) and Polyaenus 1887: 355–4,
397–8 (7.49, 8.34); Polyaenus 1994: i. 707–9, 793–5 for a similar stratagem.
459 For 95.9, see H: 491 (52.5); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 977 where the stratagem
is presented anonymously rather than attributed to the fictional Merops. Polyaenus
1887: 310 (6.54); Polyaenus 1994: i. 619 attributes it to Amphiretus of Acanthus, of
whom nothing further is known.
460 Frontinus 1925: 16–19 (1.2.1) records that in the Second Punic War, Scipio Africanus
sent some of his officers disguised as a slaves to spy in the enemy camp together with
legates who were to negotiate a truce. The centurions let loose a horse and by pretend-
ing that they were trying to catch it, they were able to reconnoitre the enemy camp.
A similar account is provided by Livy 1919–59: viii. 376–9 (30.4.1–5).
461 For 95.11, see H 462 (28.3); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 919 and Polyaenus 1887:
273–4 (5.44.5); Polyaenus 1994: i. 545–7 who both also report how Memnon of
Rhodes (fl. 350 BCE) used this stratagem when he attacked Cyzicus in 335/4 BCE,
but claim that it only almost succeeded rather than delivering the complete victory
reported here. Diodorus of Sicily 1933–67: viii. 136–7 (17.7.8) supports H and Poly-
aenus, although he gives no details of the attack.
462 For 95.12, see H: 457 (20.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 909. Cleomenes I, king of
Sparta (c.520–c.490 BCE), fought against the city of Argos in around 494 BCE and,
according to Herodotus 1920–5: iii. 226–9 (6.77–8), he won by using this stratagem.
463 For 95.13, see H: 454–5 (18.5); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 903–5. This incident
cannot be traced in the historical record.
464 For 95.14, see H: 457 (20.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 909. Pammenes of Thebes
(fl. 360–370 BCE) was a close associate of Epaminondas and, after the death of the
latter in 362 BCE, he became a leading figure of the Boeotian League. However, this
particular stratagem cannot be traced in the historical narratives.
465 For 95.15, see H: 458 (21.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 911 and Polyaenus 1887:
101 (2.28.2); Polyaenus 1994: i. 201 who report that the name of the man was actually
Magas, a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Polyaenus adds that Magas employed this
stratagem after he captured Paraetonium in Egypt. It is not clear when this stratagem
took place, as it is absent from the historical narratives.
466 For 95.16, see H: 468 (31.10); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 931 and Polyaenus 1887:
264–5 (5.32.1); Polyaenus 1994: i. 527–9. The latter informs us that Telesinicus was
from Corinth and that this incident took place near the harbour of Syracuse, rather
than at Methone, and that the enemy was the Athenians, so the historical context may
have been the Sicilian Expedition of 415–413 BCE. This stratagem cannot be traced
in the historical narratives and nothing else is known about Telesinicus apart from the
information that is presented here.
148 Notes
467 For 95.17, see H: 462–3 (28.5); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 919–21. King Darius
I of Persia campaigned against Scythian tribes around 520 BCE and again in 513
BCE. The second campaign is recorded in detail by Herodotus 1920–5: ii. 284–345
(4.83–143), but the stratagem, if it ever happened, could have taken place in the first
campaign, which is not well recorded by Greek sources.
468 For 96.1, see H: 478 (39.5); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 951. Campania in south-
ern Italy was colonised by Greeks from Euboea around the eighth century BCE. The
historical context of this anecdote seems to be unclear, though it may be connected
with attacks by the Samnites, who were on hostile terms with Rome until Campania
became part of the Roman Republic around the fourth century BCE.
469 For 96.2, see H: 478 (39.7); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 951, which presents the
anecdote anonymously, and Polyaenus 1887: 345 (7.34); Polyaenus 1994: i. 689, who
attributes it to Aryandes, the satrap of Egypt under the Persian king Darius I. The
historical context of this stratagem by the possibly fictional Onias cannot be traced
but Herodotus 1920–5: ii. 402–5 (4.201) reports that one of Darius’s officers named
Amasis employed this ruse against the city of Barce.
470 For 96.3, see H: 477 (39.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 949. The Spartan general,
Dercylidas, was involved into a campaign against the Persians in around 399 BCE
when he laid siege to Scepsis, a city on the coast of Asia Minor. Meidias, the satrap
of Scepsis, asked to come to terms with Dercylidas in order to become an ally of
the Spartans. Dercylidas managed to capture Scepsis, Gergis, and other cities in this
way. See Xenophon 1918–21: i. 188–95 (3.1.20–4, 2.1), where a similar narrative is
provided.
471 For 97.1, see H: 478–9 (40.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 951–3. Although this
anecdote does not seem to be recorded in the historical narratives, its historical con-
text could have been the Athenian Social War of 357–355 BCE when Chios, Cos,
Rhodes, and Byzantium revolted against Athens.
472 For 97.2, see H: 479 (40.4); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 953 and Polyaenus 1887:
336 (7.21.7); Polyaenus 1994: i. 671. While the ST here uses Abradatas, who was
an imaginary figure found in Xenophon 1914: ii. 4–5 (5.1.2–3ff), H and Polyaenus
attribute the stratagem to Datames (fl. 362 BCE), a Carian by birth who became satrap
in the area of southern Cappadocia. According to Cornelius Nepos 1929: 152–7 (Life
of Datames 6), he employed this ruse against the Pisidians.
473 For 97.3, see H: 483 (44.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 961. This story may refer
either to Arsames (fl. 522–521 BCE), the father of the future Persian king Darius I, or
to another Arsames who was a satrap of Egypt in the fifth century BCE. See Sekunda
2011: 53–5.
474 For 98.1, see H: 484 (45.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 963. Plutarch 1914–26:
i. 276–7 (Life of Lycurgus 22.5) explains that the Spartans regarded it as ignoble to
pursue men who turned to flight and that this practice was useful as well since their
enemies came to know about it and thus often chose to flee rather than to fight.
475 For 98.2, see H: 484 (45.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 963 and Polyaenus 1887:
61–2 (2.1.5); Polyaenus 1994: i. 121–3. The latter explains that Agesilaus gave this
command in order not to fight against desperate men. See also Xenophon 1918–21: i.
302–3 (4.3.20), where Agesilaus did not attack the enemy who had taken refuge in the
temple of Athena, although the mere fact that they were in a temple might also have
played a significant role.
476 For 98.3, see H: 484 (45.3); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 963. See Xenophon
1918–21: ii. 224–5 (6.51–2), where Iphicrates is criticised for leaving a major pass
unguarded and thus allowing the Boeotians to escape.
477 For 99.1, see H: 485 (46.4); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 965. This incident cannot
be traced in the historical record.
Notes 149
478 For 99.2, see H: 485–6 (46.6); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 965–7 and Polyaenus
1887: 149 (3.11.6); Polyaenus 1994: i. 297. This incident could have taken place
during the Corinthian War around 391 BCE since Polyaenus reports that Chabrias
raided Sellasia in the Peloponnese at that time. Cornelius Nepos 1929: 130–3 (Life of
Chabrias 1) gives a detailed account of the hostilities between Chabrias and Agesilaus
under the date 378 BCE but, in spite of a reference to Chabrias’s flight, he does not
record this stratagem.
479 For 99.3, see H: 484 (46.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 963 and Polyaenus 1887:
40 (1.38.5); Polyaenus 1994: i. 79. While the legendary figure of Merops is used here,
H does not credit anyone in particular with this stratagem and Polyaenus attributes it
to the Spartan general, Brasidas (fl. 424–422 BCE). This incident is not reported by
Thucydides, but it could have taken place during Brasidas’s retreat while fighting for
Perdiccas, king of Macedon. See Thucydides 1919–23: ii. 422–35 (4.124–8).
480 For 99.4, see H: 486 (46.10); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 967. This incident took
place in 217 BCE when the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus (c.280–203
BCE) managed to cut off Hannibal’s army and trap it in a narrow pass. The ruse is also
recorded by Appian 1912–13: i. 324–7 (Hannibalic War 14–15).
481 The stratagem only appears in the ST and the mysterious figure of Onias makes its his-
torical context rather unclear. It is possible that it was devised either by a lost source or
by our author, perhaps to provide something more relevant to his time. See Dain 1938:
140 and Krentz and Wheeler 1994: xxii–xxiii.
482 For 100.1, see H: 492 (53.1); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 979. For examples of mod-
erate punishments, see Appian 1912–13: iii. 314–17 (Civil Wars 2.47) and Suetonius
1914: i. 120–1 (Life of Julius Caesar 69), where Caesar punished only the ringleaders
after the mutiny of the ninth legion at Placentia in 49 BCE.
483 For 100.2, see H: 492 (53.3); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 979. According to Sueto-
nius 1914: i. 182–3 (Life of Augustus 24.2), Gaius Octavius (63 BCE–14 CE), who
as Augustus was the first Roman emperor from 27 BCE, punished disobedient sol-
diers by making them remove their military belts and carry heavy objects. Suetonius
does not refer to female attire but there are other references to this, such as in Zosi-
mus 1971–89: ii.i. 11–12 (3.3.4–5), where in 357 CE Emperor Julian (361–3 CE) is
reported to have punished the horsemen who fled at the battle of Strasbourg in this
way.
484 For 100.3, see H: 432 (2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 859. When mercenary troops
in Carthaginian service mutinied in 240–238 BCE, the Carthaginian general Hamilcar
Barca (c.275–228 BCE), succeeded in suppressing the revolt and seizing its leaders.
H and Polyaenus 1887: 247–8 (5.11); Polyaenus 1994: i. 493–5 wrongly report that
it was another Carthaginian leader, Gescon, who showed mercy to murderers, but he
was in fact among the generals who were killed by the rebels. Furthermore they also
state that Gescon was the brother of Hamilcar, which does not seem to have been the
case. Nor were all the ringleaders pardoned. One of them was crucified by Hamilcar
and another was tortured to death in Carthage, although there is no information that
Hamilcar was personally responsible for this second execution. See Diodorus of Sic-
ily 1933–67: xi. 148–9 (25.5) and Polybius 1922–7: i. 234–59 (1.80–8).
485 For 101.1, see H: 481 (42.2); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 957. This incident prob-
ably took place around 396–400 BCE, when Agesilaus was campaigning against the
Persians in Asia Minor.
486 For 101.2, see Polyaenus 1887: 71–2, 139 (2.1.30, 3.9.62); Polyaenus 1994: i. 141–3,
277, where something similar is attributed to Iphicrates and Agesilaus. This stratagem
does not seem to be recorded in any other source.
487 For 102.1, see H: 448 (14.19); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 891. The correct name
here is Leucon (389–349 BCE), king of Bosporus, whose realm included Crimea and
150 Notes
parts of modern Russia, as recorded in H and Polyaenus 1887: 289–90 (6.9.4); Poly-
aenus 1994: 577.
488 For 102.2, see H: 447 (14.9); Krentz and Wheeler 1994: ii. 889. This incident cannot
be traced in the historical record.
489 The ST seems to be the only source to record this incident.
Bibliography
Lexica
Bauer, W. and Danker, F.W. (2000). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edn. Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press.
Lampe, G.W.H. (1961). A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon.
Liddell, H.G., Scott, R., Jones, H.S. and McKenzie, R. (1968). A Greek-English Lexicon.
Oxford: Clarendon.
152 Bibliography
Sophocles, E.A. (1900). Greek Lexicon of Roman and Byzantine Periods (From B.C. 146
to A.D. 1100). New York: Scribner.
Trapp, E. (1994). Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität: besonders des 9.-12. Jahrhunderts.
Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Primary sources
Aelian Tacticus (2012). The Tactics of Aelian or On the Military Arrangements of the
Greeks. Ed. and trans. C. Matthew. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen and Sword.
Aeneas the Tactician (1928). ‘On the defence of fortified places.’ In W.A. Oldfather and
C.H. Oldfather (eds. and trans.) Aeneas Tacticus, Asclepiodotus, Onasander. 26–199.
Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Anna Komnene (2001). Annae Comnenae Alexias. Ed. A. Kambylis and D.R. Reinsch.
Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Anna Komnene (2009). The Alexiad. Trans. E.R.A. Sewter and P. Frankopan. London and
New York: Penguin.
Anonymous (1746). ‘Apparatus Bellicus.’ In I. Lamis (ed.) Ioannis Meursi Operum, Volu-
men Septimum. 905–84. Florence: Regiis Magni Etruriae Ducis typis.
Anonymous (1887). ‘Hypothesis.’ In J. Melber (ed.) Polyaeni Strategematon Libri Octo.
427–500. Leipzig: Teubner. English translation in Krentz and Wheeler 1994. ii. 852–
1003. Chicago: Ares.
Anonymous (1895). Geoponica sive Cassiani Bassi Scholastici de Re Rustica Eclogae. Ed.
H. Beckh. Leipzig: Teubner. English translation in Dalby 2011.
Anonymous (1946). ‘Peri Metron.’ In A. Dain (ed.) Histoire du texte d’Élien le tacticien
des origines à la fin du moyen âge. 158–9. Paris: Belles Lettres.
Anonymous (1947). De Obsidione Toleranda. Ed. H. van den Berg. Leiden: Brill (reprint).
English translation in Sullivan 2003: 139–266.
Anonymous (1949). Stratagemata in Lucem Prolata. Ed. J.A. de Foucault. Paris: Les
Belles Lettres.
Anonymous (1972). ‘Taktikon Escurial.’ In N. Oikonomides (ed. and trans.) Les listes de
prèséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles. 262–77. Paris: Editions du centre national de
la recherche scientifique.
Anonymous (1985). ‘De Re Militari’ (‘Campaign organisation and tactics’). In G.T. Den-
nis (ed. and trans.) Three Byzantine Military Treatises. 246–327. CFHB 25. Washington,
DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Anonymous (1992). ‘Syntaxis Armatorum Quadrata.’ In E. McGeer (ed. and trans.) The
Syntaxis armatorum quadrata: A tenth-century tactical blueprint. Revue des études byz-
antines 50: 219–29.
Anonymous (1998). Digenis Akritis: The Grottaferrata and Escorial Versions. Ed. and trans.
E. Jeffreys. Cambridge Medieval Classics 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anonymous (2000). ‘Parangelmata Poliorcetica.’ In D.F. Sullivan (ed. and trans.) Siege-
craft, Two Tenth-Century Instructional Manuals by ‘Heron of Byzantium. 26–113. Wash-
ington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Anonymous (2007). The Corpus Parisinum: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text With
Commentary and English Translation: A Medieval Anthology of Greek Texts From the
Pre-Socratics to the Church Fathers 600 B.C. – 700 A.D.). Ed. and trans. D.M. Searby.
2 vols. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Appian (1912–13). Roman History. Ed. and trans. H. White. Loeb Classical Library. 4 vols.
Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Bibliography 153
Arrian (1929–33). History of Alexander and Indica. Ed and trans. E.I. Robson. Loeb Clas-
sical Library. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Asclepiodotus (1928). ‘Tactics.’ In W.A. Oldfather and C.H. Oldfather (eds. and trans.)
Aeneas Tacticus, Asclepiodotus, Onasander. 256–333. Loeb Classical Library. Cam-
bridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Aulus Gellius (1927). Attic Nights. Ed. and trans. J.C. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library. 3 vols.
Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Basil I (2009). Βασίλειος Α΄ Μακεδών: Δύο παραινετικά κείμενα προς τον Λέοντα ΣΤ’. Ed.
and trans. K. Païdas. Κείμενα Βυζαντινῆς Λογοτεχνίας 5. Athens: Kanake.
Cassius Dio (1914–27). Roman History. Ed and trans. E. Cary. Loeb Classical Library.
9 vols. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Claudius Aelianus (1974). Varia Historia. Ed. M.R Dilts. Leipzig: Teubner.
Claudius Aelianus (1997). An English Translation of Claudius Aelianus’ Varia Historia.
Trans. D.O. Johnson. Lewiston, NY and Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press.
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (1908). ‘Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke des Kon-
stantinos Porphyrogennetos.’ Ed. and trans. R. Vári. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 17: 75–85.
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (1967a). De Administrando Imperio. Ed. G. Moravcsik
and trans. R.J.H. Jenkins. CFHB 1. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (1967b). ‘Un discours inédit de Constantin VII Porphy-
rogénète.’ Ed. and trans. H.G. Ahrweiler. Travaux et mémoires 2: 393–404.
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (1990). Constantine Porphyrogenitus: Three Treatises
on Imperial Military Expeditions. Ed. and trans. J.F. Haldon. CFHB 28. Vienna: Öster-
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (2003). ‘Two military orations of Constantine VII.’
Trans. E. McGeer. In J.W. Nesbitt (ed.) Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Pre-
occupations. 111–38. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill.
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (2011). Chronogaphiae quae Theophanis Continu-
ati Nomine Fertur Liber quo Vita Basilii Imperatoris Amplectitur. Ed. and trans. I.
Ševčenko. CFHB 42. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (2012). The Book of Ceremonies. Ed. and trans.
A. Moffatt and M. Tall. Byzantina Australiensia 18. 2 vols. Canberra: Australian Asso-
ciation for Byzantine Studies.
Cornelius Nepos (1929). On Great Generals: On Historians. Ed. and trans. J.C. Rolfe.
Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Dalby, A. (2011). Geoponika: Farm Work. Totnes, Devon: Prospect.
Diodorus of Sicily (1933–67). Library of History. Ed. and trans. C.H. Oldfather, C.L. Sher-
man, C.B. Welles, R.M. Geer and F.R. Walton. Loeb Classical Library. 12 vols. Cam-
bridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Diogenes Laertius (1925). Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Ed. and trans. R.D. Hicks. Loeb
Classical Library. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1937–50). Roman Antiquities. Ed. and trans. E. Cary. Loeb
Classical Library. 17 vols. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Frontinus (1925). ‘Stratagems.’ In Frontinus, Stratagems: Aqueducts of Rome. Ed. and
trans. C. E. Bennett. 3–328. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA and London: Har-
vard University Press.
Genesios (1978). Iosephi Genesii Regum Libri Quattuor. Ed. A. Lesmüller-Werner and
J. Thurn. CFHB 14. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Genesios (1998). On the Reigns of the Emperors. Trans. A. Kaldellis. Byzantina Aus-
traliensia 11. Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies.
154 Bibliography
Herodotus (1920–5). The Histories. Ed. and trans. A.D. Godley. Loeb Classical Library.
4 vols. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Heron of Alexandria (1903). ‘Geometrica.’ In J.L. Heiberg (ed.) Heronis Alexandrini
Opera quae Supersunt Omnia. 6 vols. iv. 172–448. Leipzig: Teubner.
Isocrates (1928a). ‘To Demonicus.’ In G. Norlin and L.R. Van Hook (eds. and trans.) Iso-
crates. 3 vols. i. 1–36. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard
University Press.
Isocrates (1928b). ‘To Nicocles.’ In G. Norlin and L.R. Van Hook (eds. and trans.) Iso-
crates. 3 vols. i. 37–72. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard
University Press.
John Stobaeus (1884–1912). Ioannes Stobaei Anthologium. Ed. O. Hense and C. Wachs-
muth. 5 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.
Julian of Ascalon (1996). Le traité d’urbanisme de Julien d’Ascalon: droit et architecture
en Palestine au VIe siècle. Ed. and trans. C. Saliou. Paris: de Boccard.
Kaminiates, J. (2000). John Kaminiates, the Capture of Thessaloniki. Ed. and trans.
D. Frendo and A. Fotiou. Perth: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies.
Leo III and Constantine V (1983). Ecloga: Das Gesetzbuch Leonis III. und Konstantinos V.
Ed. and trans. L. Burgmann. Frankfurt: Löwenklau.
Leo VI (2014). The Taktika of Leo VI. Ed. and trans. G.T. Dennis. 2nd edn. CFHB 49.
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Leo the Deacon (1828). Leonis Diaconi Caloensis Historiae Libri Decem. Ed. C.B. Hase.
CSHB 11. Bonn: Weber.
Leo the Deacon (2005). The History of Leo the Deacon, Byzantine Military Expansion in the
Tenth Century. Trans. A.M. Talbot and D.F. Sullivan. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Liudprand of Cremona (1998). ‘Antapodosis.’ In P. Chiesa (ed.) Liudprandi Cremonensis,
Antapodosis, Homelia Paschalis, Historia Ottonis, Relatio de Legatione Constantinopo-
litana. 3–150. Turnout: Brepols.
Liudprand of Cremona (2007). ‘Antapodosis.’ In P. Squatriti (trans.) The Complete Works
of Liudprand of Cremona. 41–202. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of Amer-
ica Press.
Livy (1919–59). History of Rome. Ed. and trans. B.O. Foster, A.C. Schlesinger and
R.M. Geer. Loeb Classical Library. 36 vols. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
McGeer, E. (2000). The Land Legislation of the Macedonian Emperors. Toronto: Pontifical
Institute of Medieval Studies.
Maurice (1981). Das Strategikon des Maurikios. Ed. G.T. Dennis and trans. E. Gamills-
cheg. CFHB 17. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Maurice (1984). Maurice’s Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy. Trans.
G.T. Dennis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Nikephoros II Phokas (1986). Le traité sur la guérrilla (De velitatione) De l’empereur
Nicéphore Phocas (963–969). Ed. and trans. G. Dagron and H. Mihăescu. Paris: Edi-
tions du centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Nikephoros II Phokas (1995). ‘Praecepta Militaria.’ In E. McGeer (ed. and trans.) Sowing
the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century. 12–59. Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks.
Onasander (1928). ‘The general.’ In W.A. Oldfather and C.H. Oldfather (eds. and trans.)
Aeneas Tacticus, Asclepiodotus, Onasander. 368–527. Loeb Classical Library. Cam-
bridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Bibliography 155
Ouranos, Nikephoros (1995). ‘Taktika.’ In E. McGeer (ed. and trans.) Sowing the Dragon’s
Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century. 88–163. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Pausanias (1918–35). Description of Greece. Ed. and trans. W.H.S. Jones and H.A.
Ormerod. Loeb Classical Library. 5 vols. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Philotheos (1972). ‘Kletorologion.’ In N. Oikonomides (ed. and trans.) Les listes de prèsé-
ance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles. 65–235. Paris: Editions du centre national de la
recherche scientifique.
Plutarch (1914–26). Lives. Ed. and trans. B. Perrin. 11 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cam-
bridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Plutarch (1931a). ‘Bravery of Women.’ In F.C. Babbitt (eds. and trans.) Plutarch’s Moralia.
16 vols. iii. 471–581. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard
University Press.
Plutarch (1931b). ‘Sayings of Romans.’ In F.C. Babbitt (eds. and trans.) Plutarch’s Moralia.
16 vols. iii. 155–238. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard
University Press.
Plutarch (1931c). ‘Sayings of Spartans.’ In F.C. Babbitt (eds. and trans.) Plutarch’s
Moralia. 16 vols. iii. 239–422. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA and London:
Harvard University Press.
Polyaenus (1887). ‘Stratagemata.’ In J. Melber and E. Wölfflin (eds.) Polyaeni Strategema-
ton Libri Octo. 2–425. Leipzig: Teubner.
Polyaenus (1994). Stratagems of War. Trans. P. Krentz and E.L. Wheeler. 2 vols. i. 1–1003.
Chicago: Ares.
Polybius (1922–7). The Histories. Ed. and trans. W.R. Paton. Loeb Classical Library. 6
vols. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Procopius of Caesarea (1914–28). History of the Wars. Ed. and trans. H.B. Dewing. 5 vols.
Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Scriptores post Theophanem. ‘Theophanes Continuatus’ (1838). In I. Bekker (ed.) Theoph-
anes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus. 3–481.
CSHB. Bonn: Weber.
Sempronius Tuditanus (2013).’Fragments.’ In T.J. Cornell (ed.) The Fragments of the
Roman Historians. 3 vols. i. 343. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skylitzes, J. (1973). Synopsis Historiarum. Ed. I. Thurn. CFHB 5. Berlin and New York:
de Gruyter.
Skylitzes, J. (2010). A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811–1057. Trans. J. Wortley. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Strabo (1917–33). Geography. Ed. and trans. H.L. Jones. Loeb Classical Library. 8 vols.
Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Suetonius (1914). Lives of the Caesars. Ed. and trans. J.C. Rolfe. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA
and London: Harvard University Press.
Symeon Magistros (2006). Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon. Ed. S. Wahlgren.
CFHB 44. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Syrianos Magistros (1985). ‘Peri Strategias.’ In G.T. Dennis (ed. and trans.) Three Byzan-
tine Military Treatises. 11–135. CFHB 25. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Syrianos Magistros (2010). Siriano: Discordi di guerra. Ed. and trans. I. Eramo. Bari:
Dedalo.
Theophanes Confessor (1883). Theophanis Chronographia. Ed. C. de Boor. Leipzig:
Teubner.
156 Bibliography
Theophanes Confessor (1997). The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Trans. C. Mango
and R. Scott. Oxford: Clarendon.
Thucydides (1919–23). History of the Peloponnesian War. Ed. and trans. C.F. Smith.
4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Xenophon (1998). Anabasis. Ed. and trans. C.L. Brownson and J. Dillery. Loeb Classical
Library. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Xenophon (1914). Cyropaideia. Ed. and trans. W. Miller. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Xenophon (1918–21). Hellenica. Ed. and trans. C.L. Brownson. 2 vols. Loeb Classical
Library. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Zepos, I.D. and Zepos, P. (1931). Jus Graecoromanum. 8 vols. Athens: Von Lingenthal.
Zosimus (1971–89). Histoire nouvelle. Ed. and trans. F. Paschoud. 3 vols. Paris: Belles
Lettres.
Secondary works
Ahrweiler, H.G. (1960). ‘Recherches sur l’administration de l’empire byzantine aux IX-
Xième siècles.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 84: 1–111.
Albu, E. (2000), ‘Bohemond and the rooster: Byzantines, Normans, and the artful ruse.’ In
T. Gouma-Peterson (ed.) Anna Komnene and Her Times. 157–68. New York and Lon-
don: Garland.
Amatuccio, G. (1996). Peri toxeias: l’arco da guerra nel mondo bizantino e tardo-antico.
Bologna: Planetario.
Anastasiadis, M.P. (1994). ‘On handling the menavlion.’ Byzantine and Modern Greek
Studies 18: 1–10.
Asa Eger, A. (2011). The Spaces Between the Teeth: A Gazetteer of Towns on the Islamic-
Byzantine Frontier. Istanbul: Yayinari.
Asa Eger, A. (2014). The Islamic-Byzantine Frontier: Interaction and Exchange Among
Muslim and Christian Communities. London and New York: Tauris.
Babuin, A. (2001). ‘Standards and insignia of Byzantium.’ Byzantion 71: 5–59.
Baldwin, B. (1988). ‘On the date of the Anonymous Περί Στρατηγικῆς.’ Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 81: 290–3.
Bandini, A.M. (1764–70). Catalogus Codicum Graecorum Bibliothecae Laurentinae.
3 vols. Florence: Typis Caesareis.
Bianconi, D. (2008). ‘La controversia palamitica: Figure, libri, testi e mani.’ Segno e testo
6: 337–76.
Bianconi, D. (2011). ‘Un altro Plutarco di Planude.’ Segno e testo 9: 113–26.
Bikhazi, R. (1981). ‘The Hamdanid Dynasty of Mesopotamia and North Syria’. PhD the-
sis, University of Michigan.
Bivar, A.D.H. (1972). ‘Cavalry equipment and tactics on the Euphrates Frontier.’ Dumbar-
ton Oaks Papers 26: 271–91.
Bonner, M. (1996). Aristocratic Violence and Holy War: Studies in the Jihad and the Arab-
Byzantine Frontier. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
Briant, P.B. (2002). From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Trans.
P.T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraun.
Canard, M. (1951). Hamdanides: Histoire de la dynastie des Hamdanides de Jazîra et de
Syrie. Algiers: Carbonel.
Chatzelis, G. (in progress). ‘The Sylloge Tacticorum and the Development of Byzantine
Warfare in the Tenth Century’. PhD thesis, Royal Holloway, University of London.
Bibliography 157
Chatzidakis, M. (1997). Hosios Loukas: Byzantine Art in Greece. Athens: Melissa.
Chevedden, P.E. (2000). ‘The invention of the counterweight trebuchet: A study in cultural
diffusion.’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54: 71–116.
Cheynet, J.C. (2001). ‘La conception militaire de la frontière orientale (IXe – XIIIe siècle).’
In A. Eastmond (ed.) Eastern Approaches to Byzantium: Papers From the Thirty-Third
Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, March 1999.
57–69. Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Chrysos, E. (1997). ‘Νόμος πολέμου.’ In K. Tsiknakis (ed.) Το εμπόλεμο Βυζάντιο. 201–11.
Athens: National Research Foundation.
Cosentino, S. (2000). ‘The Syrianos’ “Strategikon”: A 9th century source?’ Bizantinistica
2: 243–80.
Coulston, J.C.N. (1985). ‘Roman archery equipment.’ In M.C. Bishop (ed.) The Produc-
tion and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment: Proceedings of the Second Roman
Military Equipment Seminar. 220–366. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Dagron, G. and Mihăescu, H. (1986). ‘Commentary.’ In G. Dagron and H. Mihăescu (eds.)
Le traité sur la guérrilla (De velitatione) De l’empereur Nicéphore Phocas (963–969).
139–287. Paris: Editions du centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Dain, A. (1937). La ‘Tactique’ de Nicéphore Ouranos. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Dain, A. (1939). Le corpus perditum. Paris: Bontemps.
Dain, A. (1946). Histoire du texte d’Élien le tacticien des origines à la fin du moyen âge.
Paris: Belles Lettres.
Dain, A. (1950). ‘ “Touldons” et “touldon” dans les traités militaires.’ In Παγκάρπεια:
Mélanges Henri Grégoire. 12 vols. ii. 161–9. Brussels: Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire
Orientales et Slaves.
Dain, A. (1950–1). ‘Le partage du butin du guerre d’après les traités juridiques et mili-
taires.’ In Actes du VIe congrès international des études byzantines, Paris, 27 juillet-2
août 1948. 347–52. Paris: Sorbonne, École des Hautes Études.
Dain, A. (1953). ‘L’encyclopédisme de Constantin Porphyrogénète.’ Lettres d’humanité
12: 64–81.
Dain, A. and Foucault, J.-A. de (1967). ‘Les stratégistes byzantins.’ Travaux et mémoires
2: 317–92.
Dawson, T. (1998). ‘Kremasmata, kabadion, klibanion: Some aspects of Middle Byzantine
equipment reconsidered.’ Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 22: 38–50.
Dawson, T. (2001–2). ‘Klivanion revisited: An evolutionary typology and catalogue of
Middle Byzantine lamellar styles.’ Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 12/13:
89–95.
Dawson, T. (2002). ‘Suntagma hoplon: The equipment of regular Byzantine troops, c.950
to c.1204.’ In D. Nicolle (ed.) A Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour. 82–96.
Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell.
Dawson, T. (2007). ‘Fit for the task: Equipment sizes and the transformation of military
lore, sixth to tenth centuries.’ Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 31: 1–12.
Dawson, T. (2013). Armour Never Wearies: Scale and Lamellar Armour in the West, From
the Bronze Age to the 19th Century. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Spellmount.
Decker, M.J. (2013). The Byzantine Art of War. Yardley, PA: Westholme.
Dennis, G.T. (1981). ‘Flies, mice and the Byzantine crossbow.’ Byzantine and Modern
Greek Studies 7: 1–5.
Dennis, G.T. (1982). ‘Byzantine battle flags.’ Byzantinische Forschungen 8: 51–9.
Dennis, G.T. (1985). ‘Introduction.’ In Three Byzantine Military Treatises. 1–7, 137–41,
241–4. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
158 Bibliography
Dennis, G.T. (1993). ‘Religious services in the Byzantine army.’ In E. Carr, S. Parenti, A.
Thiermeyer and E. Velkovska (eds.) Ευλόγημα: Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, S.J.
107–17. Rome: Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo.
Dennis, G.T. (1997). ‘The Byzantines in battle.’ In K. Tsiknakis (ed.) Το εμπόλεμο Βυζάντιο.
165–78. Athens: National Research Foundation.
Dennis, G.T. (1998). ‘Byzantine heavy artillery: The Helepolis.’ Greek Roman and Byzan-
tine Studies 39: 99–115.
Diller, A. (1950). ‘Julian of Ascalon on Strabo and the Stade.’ Classical Philology 45:
22–5.
Fryde, E.B. (1996). Greek Manuscripts in the Private Library of the Medici, 1469–1510. 2
vols. Aberystwyth: National Library of Wales.
Garrood, W. (2013). ‘The illusion of continuity: Nikephoros Phokas, John Tzimiskes and
the eastern border.’ Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 37: 20–34.
Geiger, J. (1992). ‘Julian of Ascalon.’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 112: 31–43.
Goldschmidt, A. and Weitzmann, K. (1930–4). Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des
X.-XIII. Jahrhunderts. 2 vols. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft.
Górecki, D.M. (2009). ‘Constantine VII’s Peri ton stratioton.’ Greek, Roman and Byzan-
tine Studies 48: 135–54.
Grotowski, P.L. (2007). ‘Military equipment as a symbolic form in Byzantium: Some pre-
liminary observations.’ Byzantinoslavica 65: 91–115.
Grotowski, P.L. (2010). Arms and Armour of the Warrior Saints, Tradition and Innovation
in Byzantine Iconography (843–1261). Trans. R. Brzezinski. Leiden and Boston, MA:
Brill.
Guilland, R. (1967). Recherches sur les institutions byzantines. 2 vols. Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag.
Haase, F. (1847). De Militarium Scriptorum Graecorum et Latinorum Omnium Editione
Instituenda Narratio. Berlin: Trautwein.
Hakim, B.S. (2001). ‘Julian of Ascalon’s treatise of construction and design rules from
sixth-century Palestine.’ Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 60: 4–25.
Haldon, J.F. (1970). ‘Σωληνάριον – the Byzantine crossbow?’ University of Birmingham
Historical Journal 12: 155–7.
Haldon, J.F. (1975). ‘Some aspects of Byzantine military technology from the sixth to the
tenth Centuries.’ Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 1: 11–46.
Haldon, J.F. (1984). Byzantine Praetorians: An Administrative, Institutional and Social
Survey of the Opsikion and Tagmata, c.580–900. Bonn: Habelt.
Haldon, J.F. (1990). ‘Introduction and Commentary.’ In J.F. Haldon (ed.) Constantine
Porphyrogenitus: Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions. 35–78, 155–293.
Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Haldon, J.F. (1999). Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204. London:
UCL Press.
Haldon, J.F. (2000). ‘Chapters II, 44 and 45 of the Book of Ceremonies: Theory and prac-
tise in tenth-century military administration.’ Travaux et mémoires 13: 201–352.
Haldon, J.F. (2002). ‘Some aspects of early Byzantine arms and armour.’ In D. Nicolle (ed.)
A Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour. 65–79. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell.
Haldon, J.F. (2006). ‘ “Greek Fire” revisited: Recent and current research.’ In: E. Jeffreys
(ed.) Byzantine Style, Religion and Civilization: In Honour of Sir Steven Runciman.
290–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haldon, J.F. (2013). ‘Information and war: Some comments on defensive strategy and
information in the middle Byzantine period (ca. A.D. 660–1025).’ In A. Sarantis and N.
Bibliography 159
Christie (eds.) War and Warfare in Late Antiquity. 2 vols. Leiden and Boston, MA: ii.
373–93.
Haldon, J.F. (2014). A Critical Commentary on the Taktika of Leo VI. Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks.
Haldon, J.F. (2016). A Tale of Two Saints: The Martyrdoms and Miracles of Saint Theodore
‘the Recruit’ and ‘the General’. Translated Texts for Byzantinists 2. Liverpool: Liver-
pool University Press.
Haldon, J.F., Gaffney, V., Theodoropoulos, G. and Murgatroyd, P. (2011). ‘Marching
across Anatolia: Medieval logistics and modelling the Mantzikert Campaign.’ Dumbar-
ton Oaks Papers 65/66: 209–35.
Haldon, J.F. and Kennedy, H. (1980). ‘The Arab-Byzantine frontier in the eighth and
ninth centuries: Military organisation and society in the borderlands.’ Zbornik radova
Vizantološkog Instituta 19: 79–116.
Hall, A.J. and Photos-Jones, E. (2008). ‘Accessing past belief and practices: The case of
Lemnian Earth.’ Archaeometry 50: 1034–49.
Hoffmann, L. (2007). Geschichtsschreibung oder Rhetorik? Zum logos parakletikos bei
Leon Diakonos’. In M. Grünbart (ed.) Rhetorische Kultur in Spätantike und Mittelalter/
Rhetorical Culture in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. 105–39. Berlin and New
York: de Gruyter.
Holmes, C. (2002). ‘Byzantium’s eastern frontier in the tenth and eleventh centuries.’ In
D. Abulafia and N. Berend (eds.) Medieval Frontiers: Concepts and Practices. 83–104.
Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Huxley, G. (1975). ‘A list of ἄπληκτα.’ Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 16: 87–93.
Jackson, D.F. (1998). ‘A new look at an old book list.’ Studi italiani di filologia classica
16: 83–108.
Jackson, D.F. (2003). ‘Janus Lascaris on the island of Corfu in A.D. 1491.’ Scriptorium
57: 137–9.
Kaegi, W.E.J. (1964). ‘The contribution of archery to the Turkish conquest of Anatolia.’
Speculum 39: 96–108.
Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, I. (1985). Byzantine Icons in Steatite. 2 vols. Vienna: Österreichis-
chen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Karapli, K.G. (2010). Κατευόδωσις στρατού: H οργάνωση και η ψυχολογική προετοιμασία
του βυζαντινού στρατού πριν απο τον πόλεμο (610–1081). Athens: Myrmidones.
Kazhdan, A.P. and Talbot, A.M. Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Ed. A.P. Kazhdan and
A.M. Talbot. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, H. (2001). The Armies of the Caliphs, Military and Society in the Early Islamic
State. London and New York: Routledge.
Khouri al-Odetallah, R.A. (1983). Άραβες και Βυζαντινοί: Το πρόβλημα των αιχμαλώτων
πολέμου. Thessaloniki: University Studio.
Kolia-Dermitzaki, A. (1991). Ο Βυζαντινός “ιερός πόλεμος”: Η έννοια και η προβολή του
θρησκευτικού πολέμου στο Βυζάντιο. Athens: Basilopoulos.
Kolia-Dermitzaki, A. (2000). ‘Some remarks on the fate of prisoners of war in Byzan-
tium (9th–10th centuries).’ In G. Cipollone (ed.) La liberazione dei captivi tra cristi-
anità e islam: Oltre la Crociata e il Ġihād, Tolleramza e servizio ummanitario. Atti del
Congresso interdisciplinare di studi storici. 583–620. Vatican City: Archivio Segreto
Vaticano.
Kolia-Dermitzaki, A. (2012). ‘ “Holy War” in Byzantium twenty years later: A question
of term definition and interpretation.’ In J. Koder and I. Stouraitis (eds.) Byzantine
War Ideology Between Roman Imperial Concept and Christian Religion: Akten des
160 Bibliography
Internationalen Symposiums (Wien, 19.-21. Mai 2011). 121–32. Vienna: Österreichis-
chen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Kolias, T.G. (1980). ‘Ζάβα, ζαβαρείον, ζαβαρειότης.’ Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byz-
antinistik 29: 27–35.
Kolias, T.G. (1984). ‘Eßgewohnheiten und Verpflegung im byzantinischen Heer.’ In W.
Hörander, J. Kodwe, O. Kresten and E. Trapp (eds.) ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΟΣ: Festschrift für Her-
bert Hunger zum 70. Geburtstag. 193–202. Vienna: Becvar.
Kolias, T.G. (1988). Byzantinische Waffen: Ein Beitrag zur byzantinischen Waffenkunde
von den Anfängen bis zur lateinischen Eroberung. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
Kolias, T.G. (1993). Νικηφόρος [Β’] Φωκάς (963–969): O στρατηγός αυτοκράτωρ και το
μεταρρυθμιστικό του έργο. Athens: Basilopoulos.
Kolias, T.G. (2007). ‘Zur Gerichtsbarkeit im byzantinischen Heer.’ In K. Belke, E. Kis-
linger, A. Külzer and M. Stassinopoulou (eds.) Byzantina Mediterranea: Festschrift für
J. Koder zum 65. Geburtstag. 319–25. Vienna, Cologne and Weimar: Böhlau.
Korzenszky, E. (1931). Leges poenales militares e codice Laurentiano LXXV6. Budapest:
Királyi magyar egyetemi nyomda.
Krentz, P. and Wheeler, E.L. (1994). ‘Introduction.’ In Polyaenus, Stratagems of War. vi–
xxiv. Chicago: Ares.
Krumbacher, K. (1897). Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur von Justinian bis zum
Ende des Oströmischen Reiches (527–1453). Munich: Beck.
Kühn, H.-J. (1991). Die byzantinische Armee im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert, Studien zur
Organisation der Tagmata. Vienna: Fassbaender.
Lemerle, P. (1979). The Agrarian History of Byzantium, From the Origins to the Twelfth
Century. Galway: Galway University Press.
Letsios, D. (1992). ‘Die kriegsgefangenschaft nach Auffasung der Byzantiner.’ Byzantino-
slavica 53: 213–27.
Lilie, R.-J. (1976). Die byzantinische Reaktion auf die Ausbreitung der Araber: Studien
zur Strukturwandlung des byzantinischen Staates m 7. und 8. Jhd. Munich: Institut für
Byzantinistik und Neugriechische Philologie der Universität München.
Luttwak, E.N. (2009). The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire. Cambridge, MA and
London: Belknap Press.
McCabe, A. (2007). A Byzantine Encyclopaedia of Horse Medicine: The Sources, Compi-
lation and Transmission of the Hippiatrica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCormick, M. (1986). Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzan-
tium, and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGeer, E. (1986). ‘Menaulion-menaulatoi.’ Δίπτυχα 4: 53–7.
McGeer, E. (1988). ‘Infantry versus cavalry: The Byzantine response.’ Revue des études
byzantines 46: 135–45.
McGeer, E. (1992). ‘The Syntaxis Armatorum Quadrata: A tenth-century tactical blue-
print.’ Revue des études byzantines 50: 219–29.
McGeer, E. (1995a). ‘Byzantine siege warfare in theory and practice.’ In I.A. Corfis and M.
Wolfe (eds.) The Medieval City Under Siege. 123–9. Woodbridge: Boydell.
McGeer, E. (1995b). Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century.
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
McGeer, E. (2003). ‘Two military orations of Constantine VII.’ In J.W. Nesbitt (ed.) Byzantine
Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations. 111–38. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill.
McGuckin, J.A. (2011–12). ‘A conflicted heritage: The Byzantine religious establishment
of a war ethic.’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 65/66: 29–44.
Bibliography 161
McLeod, W. (1965). ‘The range of the ancient bow.’ Phoenix 19: 1–14.
McMahon, L. (2016). ‘De Velitatione Bellica and Byzantine guerrilla warfare.’ Annual of
Medieval Studies at CEU 22: 22–33.
Makrypoulias, C.G. 2013. ‘Η μελέτη της βυζαντινής πολεμικής τεχνολογίας: Προβλήματα
μεθοδολογίας.’ In E. Mergoupi-Sabaidou, G. Merianos, F. Papanelopoulou and C. Chris-
topoulou (eds.) Επιστήμη και τεχνολογία: Ιστορικές και ιστοριογραφικές μελέτες. 31–44.
Athens: Ekdotiki Athenon.
Maliaras, N. (2001). ‘Die Musikinstrumente im byzantinischen Heer vom 6. bis zum 12.
Jahrhundert: Eine Vorstellung der Quellen.’ Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinis-
tik 51: 73–104.
Markopoulos, A. (2012). ‘The ideology of war in the military harangues of Constantine
VII Porphyrogennetos.’ In J. Koder and I. Stouraitis (eds.) Byzantine War Ideology
Between Roman Imperial Concept and Christian Religion: Akten des Internationalen
Symposiums (Wien, 19.-21. Mai 2011). 47–56. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Mazzucchi, C.M. (1978). ‘Dagli anni di Basilo Parakimomenos (Cod. Ambros. B. 119
sup.).’ Aevum 52: 267–316.
Mecella, L. (2009). ‘Die Überlieferung der Kestoi des Julius Africanus in den byzanti-
nischen Textsammlungen zur Militärtechnik.’ In M. Wallraff and L. Mecella (eds.) Die
Kestoi des Julius Africanus und ihre Überlieferung. 84–144. Berlin and New York: de
Gruyter.
Meulder, M. (2003). ‘Qui est le roi Mérops cité dans la Συλλογη Τακτικων.’ Byzantion 73:
445–66.
Nelson, R.S. (2011–12). ‘ “And so, with the help of God”: The Byzantine art of war in the
tenth century.’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 65/66: 169–92.
Nishimura, D. (1988). ‘Crossbows, arrow-guides and the Solenarion.’ Byzantion 58:
422–35.
Oikonomides, N. (1972). ‘Commentary.’ In N. Oikonomides (ed.) Les listes de prèsé-
ance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles. 281–363. Paris: Editions du centre national de la
recherche scientifique.
Parani, G.M. (2003). Reconstructing the Reality of Images (11th-15th Centuries). Leiden
and Boston, MA: Brill.
Parani, G.M. (2013). ‘Dressed to kill: Middle Byzantine military ceremonial attire.’ In A.
Ödekan, N. Necipoğlu, and E. Akyure (eds.) Byzantine Court, Source of Power and Cul-
ture: Papers From the Second International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium,
Istanbul 21–23 June 2010. 145–56. Istanbul: Koç University Press.
Patoura, S. (1994). Οι αιχμάλωτοι ως παράγοντες επικοινωνίας και πληροφόρησης
(4ος-10ος αι.). Athens: National Research Foundation.
Peréz-Martín, I. (2008). ‘El estilo Hodegos y su proyección en las escrituras constantino-
politanas.’ Segno e testo 6: 398–458.
Pertusi, A. (1948). ‘Una acolouthia militare inedita del X secolo.’ Aevum 22: 145–68.
Pertusi, A. (1956). ‘Il preteso thema Bizantino di “Ṭālāja” (O Ṭājāla o Ṭāfālā) e la regione
suburbana di Costantinopoli.’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 49: 85–95.
Petersen, L.I.R. (2013). Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States
(400–800 AD): Byzantium, the West and Islam. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill.
Pétrin, N. (1992). ‘Philological notes on the crossbow and related missile weapons.’ Greek,
Roman and Byzantine Studies 33: 265–91.
Pretzler, M. (2010). ‘Polyainos the historian?’ In K. Brodersen (ed.) Polyainos: Neue Stu-
dien. Polyaenus: New Studies. 85–107. Berlin: Antike.
162 Bibliography
Ramaḍān ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, M.A. (2009). ‘The treatment of Arab prisoners of war in Byzan-
tium, 9th–10th centuries.’ Annales islamologiques 43: 155–94.
Rance, P. (1994). ‘Tactics and Tactica in the Sixth Century: Tradition and Originality.’ PhD
thesis, University of St. Andrews.
Rance, P. (2004a). ‘Drungus, δρουγγος, and δρουγγιστί: A Gallicism and continuity in late
Roman cavalry tactics.’ Phoenix 58: 99–130.
Rance, P. (2004b). ‘The fulcum, the Late Roman and Byzantine Testudo: The Germaniza-
tion of Roman infantry tactics?’ Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 44: 265–326.
Rance, P. (2007). ‘The date of the military compendium of Syrianus Magister (Formerly
the six-century Anonymous Byzantinus).’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 100: 701–37.
Schilbach, E. (1970). Byzantinische Metrologie. Munich: Beck.
Schindler, F. (1973). Die Überlieferung der Strategemata des Polyainos. Vienna: Öster-
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Schneider, R. (1908–12). Griechische Poliorketiker. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.
Sekunda, N. (2011). ‘Changing patterns of landholding in the south-western border lands
of Greater Phrygia in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods.’ In A.H. Cadwallader and
M. Trainor (eds.) Colossae in Space and Time: Linking to an Ancient City. 48–76. Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Shepard, J. (1985). ‘Information, disinformation and delay in Byzantine diplomacy.’ Byz-
antinische Forschungen 10: 233–93.
Shepard, J. (2001). ‘Constantine VII, Caucasian openings and the road to Aleppo’. In A.
Eastmond (ed.) Eastern Approaches to Byzantium. 19–40. Aldershot and Burlington,
VT: Ashgate.
Stouraitis, I. (2009). Krieg und Frieden in der politischen und ideologischen Wahrneh-
mung in Byzans (7.-11. Jahrhundert). Vienna: Fassbaender.
Stouraitis, I. (2012). ‘ “Just War” and “Holy War” in the Middle Ages.’ Jahrbuch der Öster-
reichischen Byzantinistik 62: 227–64.
Strässle, P.M. (2004). ‘Krieg und Frieden in Byzanz.’ Byzantion 74: 110–29.
Sullivan, D.F. (1997). ‘Tenth century Byzantine offensive siege warfare: Instructional pre-
scriptions and historical practice.’ In K. Tsiknakis (ed.) Το Εμπόλεμο Βυζάντιο (9ος-12ος
αι.). 179–200. Athens: National Research Foundation.
Sullivan, D.F. (2000). ‘Introduction and commentary.’ In D.F. Sullivan (ed.) Siegecraft,
Two Tenth-Century Instructional Manuals by ‘Heron of Byzantium. 1–23, 153–248.
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Sullivan, D.F. (2003). ‘A Byzantine instructional manual on siege defense: The De Obsidi-
one Toleranda. Introduction, English translation and annotations.’ In J.W. Nesbitt (ed.).
Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations, Texts and Translations dedi-
cated to the Memory of Nicolas Oikonomides. 139–266. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill.
Sullivan, D.F. (2010). ‘Byzantine military manuals: Prescriptions, practice and pedagogy.’
In P. Stephenson (ed.) The Byzantine World. 149–61. London and New York: Routledge.
Treadgold, W. (1984). ‘The Macedonian renaissance.’ In W. Treadgold (ed.) Renaissances
before the Renaissance: Cultural Revivals of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. 75–98.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Treadgold, W. (1992). ‘The army in the works of Constantine Porphyrogenitus.’ Rivista di
studi bizantini e neoellenici 29: 78–145.
Treadgold, W. (1995). Byzantium and its Army, 284–1081. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
Tsagas, N.M. (1993). Ιανός Λάσκαρις (1445–1535): Πρεσβευτής των Ελληνικών γραμμάτων
στην Δυτική Ευρώπη. Athens: Pelekanos.
Bibliography 163
Tsamakda, V. (2002). The Illustrated Chronicle of Ioannes Skylitzes in Madrid. Leiden and
Boston, MA: Brill.
Tsurtsumia, M. (2011a). ‘The evolution of splint armour in Georgia and Byzantium, lamel-
lar and scale armour in the 10th-12th centuries.’ Byzantina Symmeikta 21: 65–99.
Tsurtsumia, M. (2011b). ‘ΤΡΙΒΟΛΟΣ: A Byzantine landmine.’ Byzantion 82: 415–21.
Vári, R. (1927). ‘Die sogenannten Inedita Tactica Leonis.’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 27:
241–70.
Vasiliev, A.A. (1935–68). Byzance et les Arabes. 3 vols. Brussels: Institut de Philologie et
d’Histoire Orientales.
Vieillefond, J.R. (1932). ‘Introduction.’ In J.R. Vieillefond (ed.) Jules Africain: Fragments
des Cestes provenant de la collection des tacticiens grecs. vii–lviii. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.
Vieillefond, J.R. (1970). ‘Introduction.’ In Les Cestes de Julius Africanus: Étude sur
l’ensemble des fragments avec édition, traduction et commentaires. 5–70. Florence:
Sansoni and Paris: Didier.
Wallraff, M. et al. (2012). ‘Introduction.’ In W. Adler (trans.) Iulius Africanus Cesti, The
Extant Fragments. xi–xcii. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Walter, C. (2003). The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition. Aldershot and Burl-
ington, VT: Ashgate.
Wheeler, E.V. (2010). ‘Polyaenus: Scriptor Militaris.’ In K. Brodersen (ed.) Polyainos:
Neue Studien. Polyaenus: New Studies. 7–54. Berlin: Antike.
White, M. (2013). Military Saints in Byzantium and Rus, 900–1200. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Whittow, M. (1996). The Making of Byzantium 600–1025. Berkeley, CA and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Zuckerman, C. (1990). ‘The military compendium of Syrianus Magister.’ Jahrbuch der
Österreichischen Byzantinistik 40: 209–24.
Zuckerman, C. (1994). ‘Chapitres peu connus de l’Apparatus Bellicus.’ Travaux et
mémoires 12: 359–89.
Index