Mauricii Strategikon; a practical manual of military tactics and an antiquarian work

Summary

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 armys 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 armys structure presented in Strategikon, the second chapter includes an analysis of a Roman soldiers 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 Maurices 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

based completely on Strategikon. The aim was to present to the reader the new approach to tactics used by respective army formations. This made it easier to identify the new tactical ideas employed by the Roman army at the end of the 6th century.

The analysis of the campaign of 586 in light of Strategikon

The fifth chapter is, in a way, a summary of the first four chapters. It includes a detailed analysis of the campaign of 586, starting from the Roman Persian negotiations and ending with the description of events following the battle of Solachon. The analysis was based on the work by Theophylact Simocatta, whose account of the events was confronted with the information included in Strategikon. This allowed for emphasizing the usefulness of numerous ideas described in Strategikon. Unfortunately, the rather lacking descriptions of military operations make it impossible to fully verify the practical applications of Strategikon. Nevertheless, it is evident that the treatise was based on the then-current art of war, and faithfully represents the state of the Roman army of the time. This is evidenced by the behavior of Roman officers described by Simocatta, 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, 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. Apart from analyzing Roman tactics, this makes it possible to verify if Maurices knowledge concerning the warfare of the states bordering Rome was consistent with reality. The results show that the Roman strategists acted in strict accordance with the suggestions included in Maurices treatise, and that Strategikon did in fact faithfully represent the reality of waging war against the Persians and the Avari people.

Roman military discipline in light of Strategikon

Chapter 7 commences the investigation of the antiquarian aspects of Maurices treatise. It contains an analysis of the Roman military discipline and military penal law included in Strategikon in the context of Justinians Digesta and the Leges militares by Ruffus. A detailed philological analysis and historical source analysis led to a conclusion that Digesta, though they did constitute the binding collection of laws, were not the legal basis for the Roman military law as presented in Strategikon. On the other hand, all articles of the military law were compliant with the laws of the

Digesta, by which we may conclude that the military law described in Maurices treatise was established in accordance with the binding legal codes. A cross-analysis of Leges militares, Strategikon and Digesta, has shown that the work of Ruffus includes sections consistent with the other two works. The author of this work suggests that the text by Ruffus should be dated differently, as written in the years following the creation of Strategikon. An analysis of content shows that Leges militares includes sections clearly copied from Digesta and Strategikon, whereas Strategikon did not copy anything from Digesta. It seems improbable that Maurice only copied those sections of Ruffus Leges militares that did not also appear in Digesta, which means that the work by Ruffus must have been written later than both Digesta and Strategikon, and Ruffus simply made a compilation of information included in Strategikon, Digesta and one other source, which did not survive to this day. This is corroborated by both a linguistic as well as philological analysis of works being studied. Apart from these issues, the author of this work made an attempt to answer the question if the military law included in Strategikon was originally created by Maurice, or if it was simply a compilation of military regulations. Based on the information currently at our disposal it is impossible to give an unambiguous answer to this question, however all evidence points to the latter being the case.

Influence of the work of Aelianus Tacticus on Strategikon

Chapter 8 deals with a historical digression included in book XIIB of Strategikon. The author of this work studied ancient historical sources to trace the origins of Maurices knowledge on the Roman legions. The results were astonishing, as it turns out that Maurice did not describe the structure of a Roman legion, but a Macedonian phalanx. Therefore, he must have based the description on the work by Aelianus Tacticus, who gives exactly the same information when describing the structure of a Macedonian phalanx.

Epitoma rei militaris by Vegetius and Strategikon

Chapter 9 consists of two parts. In the first part the author studies the army tactics presented in the work of Vegetius, and confronts it with the treatise of Maurice. The results made it possible to determine that Maurice was familiar with and made use of Vegetius work, a case in point being the similarities between both works in the description of tactics. The second part of the chapter is devoted to Regulae Belorum Generales written by Vegetius, which Maurice included in full in his Strategikon, even going as far as to retain the order of individual sections. Each section was thoroughly studied with regard to the philological aspects and the contents, and the results

prove that a Greek translation of Regulae Belorum Generales was included in Strategikon as part of the book .

Transformation of Roman warfare and Strategikon

in

the

context

of

Chapter 10 contains a detailed analysis of Strategikon with regard to the work of Syrianus Magister. The analysis did not confirm the existence of any direct relationship between the two works, however a comparison of contents suggests that predates Strategikon, and that Maurice expanded on some of the tactics included in it.

Antiquarian character of Book X of Strategikon

Chapter 11 sums up the study of the antiquarian character of Strategikon. I have elected to analyze one book of Strategikon in the context of antiquarian information included therein. A logical choice was book X, dealing with siege warfare, which clearly seemed more antiquarian in character than the rest of the treatise. The study confirmed this. 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. However, one might hazard a statement that although Strategikon was undoubtedly inspired by various other works, it is difficult to specify such portions of text, where its author simply elected to copy a section of an earlier work.

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, as I believe that the date of 583, believed to be the date of the events at the fort of Akbas, should be revised. Maurices description may just as well refer to the retreat from the fort of Chloromaron in the year 586, all the events of which are not only consistent with the description included in Book X of Strategikon, but are also of greater military importance and had a more profound psychological effect. An analysis of factual literature shows that these are the only two events that are consistent with Maurices description, which makes it possible to conclude that Book X of Strategikon was written shortly after 583 or shortly after 586. The author of this work believes the latter date to be more probable.

Conclusion

The results of numerous analyses made it possible to determine that Strategikon is a unique work. Its author combined antiquarian aspects with practical aspects, and as a result created a treatise that corresponds to the reality of waging war at the end of the 6th century, and at the same time honors the legacy of antiquity and makes practical use of earlier works. The thesis of this work, stated in the title: Mauricii Strategikon; a practical manual of military tactics and an antiquarian work should therefore be deemed true. Further study of antiquarian and practical aspects of Strategikon is required, as there are still numerous sources, which were not analyzed herein, and which might have served as inspiration for Maurice.