This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The structure of the Roman army as exemplified by Strategikon
The first chapter of the work is dedicated solely to the structure of the Roman army as presented by the author of Strategikon. The conducted analysis is an extension of the research of Aussaresses. In contrast to the works of this French scholar, this work deals with all ranks of the Roman army, establishing a clear system of interdependence, starting from the rank-and-file soldiers and leading all the way up to the army strategist. It is also worth noting that Strategikon maintains a clear division in the army’s hierarchy between units of cavalry and infantry. Its author saw these two as clearly distinct formations, which results in differences in military ranks.
Armament and training of individual soldiers
The second chapter is a continuation of the first one. After the analysis of the Roman army’s structure presented in Strategikon, the second chapter includes an analysis of a Roman soldier’s weaponry. Just as in the first chapter, also here a distinction was made between units of cavalry and infantry, and the infantry was further divided into light and heavy infantry. This part of the work is based mostly on written sources, yet it also makes use of archeological findings, which were particularly helpful in identifying the differences between the so-called Herules’ sword and the Late Roman spatha. The author also voiced his opinion on the apparent lack of inclusion of cataphracts in Maurice’s work, stating that heavy cavalry is described in Strategikon not as a separate unit type, but as the vanguard of cavalry bandons. The lack of separate heavy cavalry units was a result of changing tactics, as well as the financial troubles of the empire.
The tactics of the Roman army of the 6th century, Roman infantry tactics
Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of my work deal with the tactics employed by respective army formations. The author of Strategikon described the tactics for cavalry and infantry separately, which is why this work uses a similar distinction. The fourth chapter includes a description of infantry tactics, as well as battle formations for a combined-forces army suggested by Maurice. The parts dealing with tactics were
were not the legal basis for the Roman military law as presented in Strategikon. and that Strategikon did in fact faithfully represent the reality of waging war against the Persians and the Avari people. A detailed philological analysis and historical source analysis led to a conclusion that Digesta. and faithfully represents the state of the Roman army of the time. Roman military discipline in light of Strategikon Chapter 7 commences the investigation of the antiquarian aspects of Maurice’s treatise. The analysis of the campaign of 586 in light of Strategikon The fifth chapter is. It includes a detailed analysis of the campaign of 586. The aim was to present to the reader the new approach to tactics used by respective army formations. starting from the Roman – Persian negotiations and ending with the description of events following the battle of Solachon. this makes it possible to verify if Maurice’s knowledge concerning the warfare of the states bordering Rome was consistent with reality. a summary of the first four chapters. though they did constitute the binding collection of laws. Nevertheless. Unfortunately. This made it easier to identify the new tactical ideas employed by the Roman army at the end of the 6th century. in a way. The analysis was based on the work by Theophylact Simocatta. whose account of the events was confronted with the information included in Strategikon. The results show that the Roman strategists acted in strict accordance with the suggestions included in Maurice’s treatise. all articles of the military law were compliant with the laws of the . It contains an analysis of the Roman military discipline and military penal law included in Strategikon in the context of Justinian’s Digesta and the Leges militares by Ruffus. This is evidenced by the behavior of Roman officers described by Simocatta. Apart from analyzing Roman tactics. which is compliant with the rules of the art of war laid down by Maurice in his work. Analysis of Roman tactics in selected battles It would be a gross error in methodology if the whole research was based on just one campaign.based completely on Strategikon. it is evident that the treatise was based on the then-current art of war. On the other hand. This allowed for emphasizing the usefulness of numerous ideas described in Strategikon. the rather lacking descriptions of military operations make it impossible to fully verify the practical applications of Strategikon. which is why Chapter 6 describes two other model encounters fought by the Roman army: one with the Avari people and one with the Persians.
the author of this work made an attempt to answer the question if the military law included in Strategikon was originally created by Maurice. and Ruffus simply made a compilation of information included in Strategikon. Apart from these issues. which did not survive to this day. Strategikon and Digesta. but a Macedonian phalanx. Each section was thoroughly studied with regard to the philological aspects and the contents. Epitoma rei militaris by Vegetius and Strategikon Chapter 9 consists of two parts. This is corroborated by both a linguistic as well as philological analysis of works being studied. The results were astonishing. however all evidence points to the latter being the case. has shown that the work of Ruffus includes sections consistent with the other two works. he must have based the description on the work by Aelianus Tacticus. a case in point being the similarities between both works in the description of tactics. which Maurice included in full in his Strategikon. An analysis of content shows that Leges militares includes sections clearly copied from Digesta and Strategikon. The results made it possible to determine that Maurice was familiar with and made use of Vegetius’ work. as written in the years following the creation of Strategikon. or if it was simply a compilation of military regulations. who gives exactly the same information when describing the structure of a Macedonian phalanx.Digesta. and the results . A cross-analysis of Leges militares. The author of this work suggests that the text by Ruffus should be dated differently. Based on the information currently at our disposal it is impossible to give an unambiguous answer to this question. Digesta and one other source. whereas Strategikon did not copy anything from Digesta. even going as far as to retain the order of individual sections. and confronts it with the treatise of Maurice. Therefore. The author of this work studied ancient historical sources to trace the origins of Maurice’s knowledge on the Roman legions. which means that the work by Ruffus must have been written later than both Digesta and Strategikon. as it turns out that Maurice did not describe the structure of a Roman legion. Influence of the work of Aelianus Tacticus on Strategikon Chapter 8 deals with a historical digression included in book XIIB of Strategikon. It seems improbable that Maurice only copied those sections of Ruffus’ Leges militares that did not also appear in Digesta. In the first part the author studies the army tactics presented in the work of Vegetius. The second part of the chapter is devoted to Regulae Belorum Generales written by Vegetius. by which we may conclude that the military law described in Maurice’s treatise was established in accordance with the binding legal codes.
The author of this work believes the latter date to be more probable. An attempt at dating Book X of Strategikon anew In the last chapter I have made an attempt to re-date the creation of Book X of Strategikon. The analysis did not confirm the existence of any direct relationship between the two works. where its author simply elected to copy a section of an earlier work. which makes it possible to conclude that Book X of Strategikon was written shortly after 583 or shortly after 586. Antiquarian character of Book X of Strategikon Chapter 11 sums up the study of the antiquarian character of Strategikon. Maurice’s description may just as well refer to the retreat from the fort of Chloromaron in the year 586. The study confirmed this. Conclusion .prove that a Greek translation of Regulae Belorum Generales was included in Strategikon as part of the book γνωμικά. it is difficult to specify such portions of text. However. should be revised. A comparison with numerous ancient history sources dealing with siege tactics has shown that Maurice was a very knowledgeable man and that large portions of his treatise were inspired by earlier works. dealing with siege warfare. one might hazard a statement that although Strategikon was undoubtedly inspired by various other works. A logical choice was book X. all the events of which are not only consistent with the description included in Book X of Strategikon. I have elected to analyze one book of Strategikon in the context of antiquarian information included therein. but are also of greater military importance and had a more profound psychological effect. however a comparison of contents suggests that Περὶ Στρατηγικῆς predates Strategikon. An analysis of factual literature shows that these are the only two events that are consistent with Maurice’s description. believed to be the date of the events at the fort of Akbas. as I believe that the date of 583. and that Maurice expanded on some of the tactics included in it. Transformation of Roman warfare Στρατηγικῆς and Strategikon in the context of Περὶ Chapter 10 contains a detailed analysis of Strategikon with regard to the work of Syrianus Magister. which clearly seemed more antiquarian in character than the rest of the treatise.
Its author combined antiquarian aspects with practical aspects. Further study of antiquarian and practical aspects of Strategikon is required. The thesis of this work. . and at the same time honors the legacy of antiquity and makes practical use of earlier works. stated in the title: Mauricii Strategikon. as there are still numerous sources. and as a result created a treatise that corresponds to the reality of waging war at the end of the 6th century. a practical manual of military tactics and an antiquarian work should therefore be deemed true.The results of numerous analyses made it possible to determine that Strategikon is a unique work. and which might have served as inspiration for Maurice. which were not analyzed herein.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.