Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

310 11. the army, c. 420,602
The eastern armies preserved the Roman military reputation through to
the end of the sixth century by capitalizing on available resources and
showing a capacity to adapt to a variety of challenges. Not all battles were
won, but two successful tribal kingdoms in the west (Vandals, Ostrogoths)
were destroyed; Persian aggression in the east was contained and a substantial
increase in Roman territory achieved on the north-eastern frontier; the
Danube, which Hunnic attacks appeared to have removed from Roman
control, was re-established as a frontier and held in spite of Bulgar, Avar
and Slav incursions. Correct tactics played their part, since the Romans
were sufficiently professional to realize that different opponents had
different strengths and weaknesses to be encountered or exploited: these
were observed and carefully listed in Maurice’s Strategikon xi under four
headings: Persians; Scythians – namely, Avars, Turks and comparable
Hunnic tribes; the fair-haired races such as the Franks and Lombards; and
finally the Slavs and Antes. Guidance was offered on the best tactics for use
against each. The Romans also noticed military ideas that could be adopted
from their enemies, with the Avars being the most influential example in
the sixth century: their bows, tents and body and horse armour were highly
regarded, and their flexible battle array was thought to be superior to the
traditional single lines favoured by the Romans. 93
The best individual soldiers in the Roman army were undoubtedly cavalrymen:
Procopius, in the introduction to his Wars, selected the mounted
archer as the epitome of the modern warrior, perhaps in part because this
was such a contrast to the traditional Roman legionary equipped with shield
and sword. The archer’s skill as a horseman and the power of his heavy bow
may have been borrowed from the fifth-century Huns, and Huns continued
to serve throughout the sixth century, but training in archery was also
recommended for all recruits. 94 But the army possessed a variety of skills:
in conflicts with Persians the Romans were advised to rely on the superiority
of their charge, which points to the existence of high-quality heavy
cavalry armed with lances; against the Avars infantry were needed to lend
stability to the battle line in its severest test, an indication that good foot
soldiers were also available. Undoubtedly the heterogeneous origins of soldiers
contributed to the range of their specialities, but it was intended that
these abilities be taught to the internal Roman elements in the armies.
An important contribution to Roman superiority, at least over enemies
in Europe, was their ability to construct and defend powerful fortifications.
Roman torsion-powered siege engines were sufficiently complex to be
beyond the skills of most tribal groups, unless like the Huns they managed
to acquire assistance from Roman captives or deserters. Apart from the
Huns, the only tribal group with an effective siege technology were the
93 Maurice, Strat. i.2, ii.1. 94 Procop. Wars i.1.8–16; Maurice, Strat. i.2.28–30.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008