Nikephorian Questions





by Graeme Walker





The book, Sowing the Dragons Teeth, by Eric McGeer contains copies of two similar military manuals, the Praecepta, by Nikephoros Phokas, c. 969, and the Taktika by Nikephoros Ouranos, c.1000AD. The latter often copies the former, word for word, but incorporates changes made during the intervening 30 years, as well as other materials. The work by Nikephoros Phokas apparently borrowed heavily from a slightly earlier work, the Sylloge Taktikorum. The wealth of manuals and commentaries from the 10th century allows us to look at the army organisation of the Byzantine empire in great detail. The current book raises several questions, three of which I would like to discuss here.





1. The correct size of Nikephoros Phokas' infantry army?



A Chiliarchy

400 pike bearers

300 archers

200 javelineers



100 menavlion2 bearers





1,000 men

12 Chiliarchy model

12,000 men

16 Chiliarchy model







16,000 men

2. How were the Chiliarchies and Dekads organised ?







A Chiliarchy, showing the relative positions of the Hekakontarchs and the Pentakontarchs.







As mentioned earlier, each Chiliarchy is made up of 4 specialist units. The majority of these, the pike bearers and the archers, form their battle line in a block 100 men wide by 7 deep. The javelineers form the wings of this block, and the menavlatoi stand in a row behind, in front or where ever they are needed.



Within the block of 700, the positions of the higher officers are known. Nikephoros says that a Hekatontarch stands in the middle of each line of 100, while a Pentekontarch stands on each wing of the line, and is in charge of the men between himself and the Hekatontarch. Of the officers, only the position of the Dekadarchs is not described. McGeer seems to have thought of the Dekads in the classical model, as files with all the Dekadarchs in the front rank facing the enemy, and with their subordinates behind them. Although he admits that there doesnt appear to be an Ouragos, or file closer, at the rear of each file, he does not consider the possibility that the Dekads were organised in some other way, probably because there is no precedent. The problem with his interpretation is the break in the chain of command. The Hekatontarch and Pentekontarchs control order along the ranks in which they are stationed. To assist them, Dekadarchs should logically be aligned in the same way.















Left corner of the Chiliarchy, showing the Pentakontarchs and the most likely alignment of the Dekads.







That Dekads form up in one long line, one beside the other, can be deduced from looking at the Menavlatoi unit. This is distinct from the main block of troops, and the wings. It forms one rank, 100 men long, and stands to the rear of each Chiliarchy in the initial stages of battle, until it is required.



Similarly, when the breadth of an ancient Greek phalanx was to be made greater, the classical solution was to halve the depth of all files and put the rear half along side the front half, doubling the breadth. Nikephoros, instead, takes one rear rank of soldiers, marches them off to the left or right end of the phalanx, and by forming them into 3 shorter lines, one behind the other, extends the front 3 ranks of the phalanx by 33 men. These examples illustrate a major break from the organisation of classical armies.















Expanding the front.







Commands and communication passed from the front to the rear in a classical phalanx, but the Byzantine manuals clearly show that, by the 10th century, these were passed along a rank, to the left or the right, rather than from the front to the back. The Byzantine units line up beside their officers5.



A possible explanation for the change is this. Nikephoros' battle line is simply the organisation that the multiple units of a classical phalanx would have used when on the march, one behind the other. When such a phalanx arrived at a battle site, each unit would line up to the left of the one it had followed on the march, taking up much time and requiring more time to reorder the line in its new orientation. Nikephoros simplified the process of drawing the army up for battle by making it fight in the same order it marched. Each member of each unit had only to turn 90 degrees on the spot, to be in position for battle. The only other innovation was to draw this long line into a closed defensive formation, similar to a circle of covered wagons, to protect against flank and rear attacks.





3. How large was a Dekad?



Bibliography



Go to Dumbarton Oaks to learn more about Sowing the Dragons Teeth

Footnotes





McGeer, 1995, on pages 203-4.



Menavlion = a heavy spear or javelin used to fend off cavalry charges. PB.



McGeer, 1995, on page 202.



= Campaign Organization and Tactics, Dennis, 1985, pages 241-335.



As the chiliarchy (or taxiarchy) itself may have been a relatively new formation, such an innovation in command structure may have been among its distingushing features. The term does not appear in manuals before the middle of the 10th century, such as the Taktika of Leo the Wise (c. 900). McGeer, 1995, page 203. PB.



Taktika chapter 57, McGeer, 1995, on page 99.



Additional evidence comes from De re militari, chapter 4, the infantry squads posted to watch approaches to the camp were eight men; or in the outer watch posts four men, called a tetradia. Dennis, 1985, pages 265-267. PB.





BACK TO START PAGE