John Dandoulakis
INTRODUCTION
One of the main reasons why Byzantium has always attracted that much of attention, both in popular culture and in academia, is probably the fact that it is inadvertently seen in comparison and contrast to its immediate predecessors: ancient Rome and ancient Greece. With good reason, in terms of such attention, the high era of the Byzantine power, the era of the Macedonian dynasty from 9th to 11th century AD, bears the honors of both amateur enthusiast and academic popularity. While however, this is the most illuminated era of the Byzantine period, in terms of archeological, literature, artistic, and architectural remains and monuments, there is one area of study that is left, unusually and uncomfortably, empty of decisive evidence; the arms and armour of the imperial army of the period. This lack of
evidence becomes even more intense and uncomfortable when – inadvertently – put in contrast with the ancient Greek and Roman period in the same wider geographical area: we have abundant evidence for the arms and armour of all previous periods, from the classical Greek and the Hellenistic up to the later Roman and even parts of the early Byzantine period (4th century AD).
There are various factors to account as for the reasons of this archeological gap, however it will not be the topic of this article. Suffice it here to mention that, as far as the cause of historical re-construction and re-enactment is concerned, the thesis of this article is that notwithstanding the lack or scarcity of findings, we do have enough evidence at our disposal, to adequately and successfully re-enact this period, without resorting to bold and risky conjectures or assumptions. In fact, we are going to show how the level of educated guesses to fill in the gaps, can be limited to the minimum. Having said that, this article is not going to argue or claim to have the answer to every question. The period from the 10th to the 11th century AD in Byzantium is one that offers, by far, the most literature and artistic evidence for the imperial army. In the 10th century, alone, were written three of the most important Byzantine military treatises, two of them being actually attributed to some of the most well-known and celebrated Roman emperors (Leo VI the Wise and Nikephoros Phokas) and one of Basil II’s strategos, Nikephoros Ouranos. In those texts, a plethora of information and various terms about arms and armour have been provided.
Meanwhile, this is also the period of the so-called Macedonian renaissance in byzantine art (religious and secular). A large amount of highly sophisticated iconographical and sculptural art survives from this era, containing among a variety of themes, a plethora of displays of soldiers, military saints or whole infantry and cavalry battalions in battle formation. In light of the extensive scarcity of hard archeological evidence from this period, the texts of the military treatises and all the imagery sources when put together, present us with a variety of Medieval Greek terms (some of them not repeated anywhere else) and imagery shapes of objects that cause more confusion than clarification and create a true deciphering puzzle.
Yet, it is admittedly hard to decipher this, otherwise, vast pool of information. The answer to the reason for this hardship will be provided in the next chapter, which deals with the sources of Byzantine re-enactment and their management. However, the thesis of this article is that it is impossible, and it should be avoided, to answer every question that stems out of the plethora of information provided by the sources of this period. Over the recent decades, this resurgent interest in Byzantium and in the Macedonian dynasty era in particular, has caused researchers to seek and answer every single one of those – smaller or bigger – questions of the sophisticated terminology or the intriguing shapes of armour seen on imagery sources from this period. Of course, this did not appear to raise any concerns as long as most of the academic debate remained academic, that is, on paper and in printed editions. Concerns began to be raised and expressed when, and most notably over the last ten years, these debates were inevitably taken onto the actual field of historical reconstruction and re-enactment. There it became inevitably evident that there is a difference between, proposing a hypothesis for the interpretation of (i.e.) the pteryges or the klinavion on paper or on illustration, and actually going about re-constructing an exact historical replica of that piece of armour. The difference lies in the fact that a serious historical reenactor will have to get involved with experimental archeology, whereby a project as such raises the research criteria to a different level.
Thereby, in absence of archeological evidence the prospects of historical reconstruction are significantly limited. Because, it would not be enough for the research criteria of a historical re-construction, for an object to look like the imagery sources of the period. In the process of producing a historical illustration the researcher has the luxury to avoid any lack of evidence or uncomfortable question. Yet, when it comes to a historical reconstruction which is intended to be simply displayed at a medieval festival demonstration, a piece of armour for example, would have to be constructed in such manner that it would be suitable for use in real battle by a soldier and give him real survival chances. Hence, it becomes evident that in the absence of archeological evidence, the research criteria2 of historical re-enactment are sometimes very challenging to meet, since there are questions that are virtually impossible to be answered. In such cases, reconstruction and even historical illustration propositions as towards the possible interpretation of such objects, becomes highly conjectural and can be misleading to further research.
Undoubtedly, human curiosity cannot and should not be restrained, and in this day and age every qualified academic or amateur researcher is free and able to seek and answer every possible question of Byzantine historical re-enactment. However, historical reenactment and re-construction – if it is intended to be conducted properly – requires a certified method and adherence to a set of rules that inevitably limit it. It is true that, textual and imagery sources present plenty of fragmented information for various objects from every historical period. However, not everything can be re-constructed unless a set of certain criteria are met. Hence, it is warranted to declare that a) caution is required when making claims and unnecessary risks should be avoided, and b) answers to questions should not be rushed and not all problems need to be solved at once.
This article attempts a revision of the so far stated claims and academic opinions, as well as a presentation of our own newest research and its results, on the subject of Byzantine arms and armour of the 10th-11th century (900 – 1081 AD). The aim is to present an updated proposal for a concise image of the Byzantine infantry and cavalry soldier of this period, based on archeological evidence and most recent historical re-enactment experience, while limiting the amount of conjectural interpretation of the sources to the minimum. In line with this goal, our proposed image for the Byzantine soldier has
deliberately omitted pieces of armour, which are mentioned in textual or appear in imagery sources, but are deemed impossible to be re-constructed with adequate or satisfactory certainty.