Full length Byzantine soldier

We (at the moment) do not set as our task the consideration of the armament and equipment, structure, command and control system of the Byzantine army, casting only the most general look at the equipment and equipment of its soldiers in various historical era. And the wonderful illustrations of Christos Gianopoulos (Gianopoulos K., Belesos D. Byzantine Army 325-1453 gg.) Will help us in this.

Guard and army of the superpower Justinian.

Cavalry officer of the Eastern Roman Empire, 475 - 500 years

Depicted is a senior officer of the Guards Corps Scholariyev in full gear. We see an anatomical cuirass reinforced by anatomical shoulders, segmented bracers and a round shield with a scaly surface (once a symbol of the Praetorians, the Old Guard of the Roman Empire, disbanded by Constantine the Great after the Battle of Mulviev Bridge in 312).

And here is what the combat equipment of an elite heavily armed guardsman - an infantryman of the Justinian army looked like

The soldier is dressed in a lamellar cuirass (lorica lamellar), on his head is a late Roman helmet (cassis helmet; the helmets of soldiers who served in the palace, having a somewhat archaic shape, were gilded or made of bronze), and in their hands - a round shield of the old model (clipeus ), spear (hasta) and hatchet (analogue of the lictor poleaxe securis). On the belt is a German Sax knife. When the Excuvites accompanied the Emperor or representatives of the higher generals, they wore scarlet tunics and cloaks, belts adorned with gold and were shod in short boots (to the knees) of the cothurni (cothurni). When the Life Guards carried out the palace service, they wore katurns as high as mid-calf.

The officer of the early Byzantine infantry in combat clothing, 6 century

Depicted is one of many thousands of German mercenaries who served in the armies of the Eastern Roman Empire. Characteristic elements of national identification are: a German-style sax knife hanging on a belt, a heavy battle ax (a kind of francisca) and a wide periskelis (periskelis, a kind of pants worn by East Germans).

Junior officer of the Danube Legions during the reign of Justinian the Great

On the head of the officer depicted, a composite helmet of the Gothic or Frankish style (spagenhelm), chain mail is reinforced with a bib, and the yellow cloak carries colored stripes of insignia indicating the rank (this type of cloak was known as the “Bulgarian Sagion”, a short cloak). Armed with a long spear, a Frankish throwing ax (Francis), a North German single-blade Saxon knife and a heavy sword (not visible in the illustration).

Protostat - warrior of the front row of a unit of the Byzantine heavily armed infantry, 6 century

Front row warriors (as well as rear guard fighters) were equipped with heavier armor and larger shields than their comrades. The long chain mail of the depicted warrior covers the entire body (with the exception of hands protected by segmented metal bracers). The metal crest on the helmet indicates the rank of a warrior. Offensive weapons include a spear of the spiculum type, a spear of the Celtic type, a German single-blade scramasax knife and a sword with a wide blade (not shown in the illustration).

Warriors of the Macedonian Renaissance

Officer of the Imperial Life Guards Unit of Excuvita, 870 year

The armor of the elite units of the Byzantine army of this era combine oriental (Islamic) elements with traditional Roman style. On the head of the depicted guardsman is a helmet of the “Turanian” type, dressed directly on top of chain mail (which covers the head of the warrior). The body protection is a combination of chain mail and plate (lamellar) armor. The round shield bears the symbolism of the unit, and the armament is represented by a double-edged sword (paramerion), a combat two-blade ax (tzikourion; probably a version of the older Franciscan). White garmet is dressed on top of the lamellar klibanion and probably identifies one of the units of the Excuvites.

Another guardsman of the era is the fighter of Varanga, 1000 — 1050.

The warrior is one of the Slavic-Scandinavian and Saxon mercenaries who arrived in Byzantium, took the oath of allegiance to the emperor, joined the ranks of the Varangian Guard - and generation after generation faithfully served their new homeland. His main offensive weapon - The national large Scandinavian battle ax, an ideal weapon for causing serious harm to both people and horses. Auxiliary offensive weapons include a large Sax knife and a Scandinavian sword. The protective complex includes chain mail, a shield with pagan motifs (Odin's raven), a helmet with a scavenger and a solid barmitza, as well as segmented bracers and leggings.

Klibanarium or cataphract, 970 — 1071

The Byzantine Klibanarii (Clibanarii) or Klibanophoroi (Klibanophoroi), which became the key to many victories of the Romance weapons, owe their origin to the reform of the warrior emperor Nicephorus Foki. The heavy cavalryman had multilayer protection for the entire corps. The first layer was a cotton zava (zava), an under-armor robe that protected the metal component of the armor from sweat, and, as a result, rust. Then put on a lorikion (lorikion) - the basic element of armor, which was a chain of armor, which provided protection to the upper body (including the head). The third layer and an integral part of the armor of the Byzantine heavy cavalryman was the klibainion, the lamellar plate armor (cuirass, supplemented with pterygs). Finally, the Klibanion was worn with an epilorikion, a thick soft cloth made of waxed cotton that protected metal armor from heating in the sun (the word klibanion comes from the ancient Greek term klibanos, meaning “oven”). A characteristic feature of the armor was that it completely covered the body (leaving only the eyes visible). The arms and legs were protected by segmented bracers and greaves, and the shoulders were reinforced by additional shoulder pads. Hair bundles on helmets were dyed in different colors, indicating units. The horses were also well protected and carried heavy plate armor (polished metal or cowhide).

The infantryman of the Byzantine army, the middle of the 10 century

In this illustration, made on the basis of the reconstruction of Professor T. Dawson, based on information from the military treatise of Emperor Nicephorus Foki, we see that instead of a metal helmet, a soldier wears a turban of linen or cotton fabric wrapped around a cylindrical cap of soft material. This cheap helmet substitute absorbed the dynamic energy of a sword hitting the head. The body of the soldier is protected by a thick soft conch (zava) with removable sleeves. On his feet are leather boots to the middle of calves (mouzaria), and in his hands is a battle ax (tzikourion). The soldier also has a double-edged sword (spathion), not visible in the illustration, and a drop-shaped shield (scutari).

Scooter (shield bearer), the first row of the heavy infantry unit. 950 — 1000

We see the armored infantryman of the second half of the 10 century from the military contingent stationed in Constantinople. On the warrior’s head is an all-metal helmet of the “Turanian” type, worn over chain mail. The chain mail in growth (lorikion) is strengthened by scaly cuirass and segmented bracers. Lamellar shoulders and a convex oval shield (scutari) almost as tall as humans are additional protective elements. The main offensive weapon is a kontarion with a long blade and a dogwood or oak shaft, an ideal weapon that pierces both light armor and shield, and horse bodies.

Sunset of the empire

Byzantine cavalrymen 13 — 14 centuries

The illustration is based on information from the Chronicle of Alexander the Great, a Byzantine manuscript of the 14 century. We see old-fashioned scaly armor, especially chic on a horse nobleman (probably a member of the imperial family). Bears armor and a horse. The characteristic details are chest straps, wide-brimmed helmets (typically a Byzantine piece of equipment at that time) and large convex drop-shaped shields decorated with a double-headed eagle or the image of the Holy Cross

Byzantine cavalryman of the Army of Paleologists, end of the 14 century

The illustration is based on information from the Chronicle of Alexander the Great, a Byzantine manuscript of the 14 century, as well as relatively unknown murals of holy images of medieval churches in the Balkans. This cavalryman wears composite armor consisting of metal plates (Klibanion) and chain mail in accordance with the modern Euro-Asian trend that dominated the Balkan armies. The helmet with wide brim well protected from the blows of the saber, and a full hood covered the entire face, with the exception of the eyes. Metal disc-shaped shoulders and bracers protected his shoulders and arms. In the hands of a warrior is a curved triangular shield. The main offensive weapon depicted in this illustration is the Turkish scimitar and eusplachnia, a kind of dagger of mercy.

Comments

[Lexus]

Thank you for the excellent article and design.
But they deserved Oleg’s shield

[Bar2]

modern pictures are passed off as some kind of "historical study", if the Byzantine warriors looked like this, why not show the very images that have come down to us from the times whence this Olennikov knows exactly what the real Byzantines looked like?
Members of the forum is a scam for suckers.

For example, what the military looked like in Britain, 1621 image of Michael Drayton.

All are in skirts and these are not Scots, but British.

[Albatroz]

Artists of this level draw on the basis of sources.
Some of them (sources) are indicated in the text.
By the way, how does any Baru2 (Pavel) know that the Scots are also British.
ATP for the stupid parallels of broello

[Albatroz]

Literate people distinguish stylization from real sources. Also

[RF man]

If "they draw on the new sources", then WHY NOT to quote from THESE sources - WHAT year and WHO is the author?

[Albatroz]

Why not quote from these sources

some of the sources are indicated, then show curiosity)

Who is author

Well this is not a memoir)

[RF man]

"Indicate sources" EVEN in "off-the-shelf STUDENT coursework" is a LINK to a SPECIFIC page. In "normal scientific research" - a scan of the REAL document. And such a "pseudo-scientific blah blah" - the level of "essay for a freshman." As well as "excerpts" from Wiipedia ...

[Albatroz]

We wanted a link to the page) We ask what we don’t do ourselves) oh well done) Finally, something came to you) We went down from Internet links to a "scan of a real document". And that's probably because you don't need to go to the archive, we parasitize on what the RGVIA will post?
cool!
By the way, where do you see "normal scientific research" in this case?
You are obviously just introduced to the illustrations ...
Or maybe the normal "Scientific Research" by Shpakovsky, who tells - what he sees in the pictures?) Don't tell me.
And what are the articles of the mythical Samsonov sprinkling with saliva - if not the stuffing of a person under the influence of the phases of the moon? Disguised and therefore not afraid of anything)
But when the author of this article offers real scientific research, replete with links to sources of various categories, they are not very honored. For the ignoramuses and not really reach, and the range of speculation is narrowed. Is not it?
And here it’s good - they sucked the pictures to the best of their understanding, and skoko views Wow
As for the essay for a freshman - you certainly know better

[Slavutich]

The article is good,
and the pictures are fantasy from "300 Spartans")))

[Albatroz]

Pictures, in my opinion, the best on the topic

[Slavutich]

the pictures are good, you can’t argue, but they are distantly related to reconstruction

[Albatroz]

Pictures are based on sources and made by a professional.
Everything is correct. Well, the criticized details are criticized (including) and not in the case. The term reconstruction is very peculiar) And these illustrations are much more relevant to reality than many reconstructions

[mark1]

A magnificent sight! .. But the long heavy chain-mail floors of the infantry, probably this is still not practical

[Albatroz]

But probably the knee closes.
And the main thing for the infantry (heavy) is not to run, but to stand to death? To be the backbone and the axis of the system

[mark1]

Probably ...))) But most likely I had to run, including in the ranks, and an additional swaying pood of unnecessarily long floors did not particularly contribute to this ...)))
Moreover, having such a wonderful shield.

[Albatroz]

Trained guys))
Well, at that time I think everything impractical was swept away right away. Not to frills)

[mark1]

Quote: Albatroz

everything impractical was swept away

I don’t argue with that. But there must be an explanation for everything. And if there is no explanation, then as a result such questions arise.))) Answers like "because" and "so it is necessary" are not about anything

[Han Tengri]

Quote: mark1

But running, including in the ranks, most likely had to

Interesting in what, in your cases? Especially in the stand!

[mark1]

Well, yes, yes - a change of position, rebuilding, retreat, attack were made at a slow pace to the sad music.

[Han Tengri]

Quote: mark1

Well, yes, yes - a change of position, rebuilding, retreat, attack were made at a slow pace to the sad music.

60-70 steps per minute is an offensive. 90 sh / m is a very fast onset.

[mark1]

So how is it? Conveniently? Can shorten by 15 centimeters? Or have you never worn this? Then put on a long cloak, thoroughly wet the floors and walk at the indicated speed of 500 meters, and then multiply by 5-8 efforts.

[Han Tengri]

Quote: mark1

So how is it? Conveniently? Can shorten by 15 centimeters?

No, uncomfortable. But whole legs are more important.

[mark1]

What about the head? And life in general? Long floors are more to cavalry, they covered the legs of a rider on a horse (cheap and cheerful). In general, I do not question the long chain mail in the infantry, but there must be a reasonable limit and a reasonable explanation for everything. In my unenlightened opinion, this is the liberty of the rector, because than to impose extra and uncomfortable 15-20 cm chain mail on the hem, it is better to wear leggings (especially for the guard then!) Although, in the presence of such huge shields, they are not necessary.

[Albatroz]

But in my opinion it is more reliable than a leggings.
Where there are leggings - there they are depicted.
In my unenlightened opinion, liberties are present precisely at Osprey. Or is it, for well-known reasons, beyond criticism and ideal? )

[Engineer]

There is an opinion (I emphasize, not a fact, but just an opinion) of the reenactors, which says that chain mail does not fit the figure at the waist and therefore all the burden falls on the shoulders.
To deal with this, a fold of chain mail is made in the region of the belt above the belt itself. It is alleged that so part of the severity goes to the waist. Maybe this is the key to long chain mail
Leggings are complicated. The ancient tradition of wearing greaves was most likely interrupted during the transition to the Middle Ages. So in the article in all the drawings of the Justinian era there are no any leggings, as well as leg protection in general. Yes, and in the Roman army they were not common and most likely were not worn in ranks by soldiers. In the west, the evolution of protective equipment for knights has bare legs, chain mail, and leggings. It turns out that the leggings are not easier. There is also a global trend that solid armor is more complex and much more expensive than chain mail. For greaves, this is also true.
Why Greece and Rome could afford leggings, and later Europe did not, I have only speculations. In Rome, as it is now believed, there was a high standardization and mass production of everything necessary. The division of labor and economies of scale were applied. During the collapse of the empire, the production base was sharply reduced and entire industries went into oblivion and revived only centuries later

[Albatroz]

The ancient tradition of wearing greaves was most likely interrupted during the transition to the Middle Ages.

But not in the state - the successor of the Ancient traditions. There should be saved first.

In Rome, as it is now believed, there was a high standardization and mass production of everything necessary.

Yes sir. Regarding equipment, emblems and uniforms, if you like

[mark1]

Quote: Engineer

chain mail does not fit the figure at the waist and therefore all the burden falls on the shoulders.

We look at the picture - there we see a belt fitting chain mail.

Quote: Engineer

So in the article in all the drawings of the Justinian era there are no leggings, as well as leg protection in general

Everything is correct, and in ancient Rome and in the era of Justinian, as in all other times, practicality comes to the fore. Why leggings, if there were huge (see the picture yourself) shields, the same applies to particularly "long" floors. When decreasing the size of the shield, the most balanced is the appearance of the Warangi fighter. Long floors are good in cavalry - a kind of substitute for leggings and covers the horse. The thesis about the high cost of leggings is broken as soon as you shift your gaze to the bracers, if you did one thing, then nothing prevented you from doing the other, if necessary.

[RF man]

You served in WHAT troops? "For the" infantry "there is a LOT of" important "things, but carrying TENS of kilometers" extra 5-10 kilos "is NOT a" trifle ". And" standing to death "in THEM for HOURS is also NOT a" trifle "

[lucul]

The Romans did not call themselves Byzantines.
It is a derogatory nickname for them - to tear it off from the proud Roman word, and give a name for some town, that is, take away their right to be called the successors of the Roman Empire.
Thus we pour water on the mill of Western propaganda.
According to the article - the pictures are good, the artist is friends with his head, and displayed majestic alpha males in the picture, but don’t understand what others do .....

[Albatroz]

Romei - the self-name of the inhabitants of the East Roman Empire. More precisely, even so. The most common self-name used by Byzantine authors, seeking to emphasize the direct state and legal continuity of the Byzantine Empire with the Roman.
And gradually it became more and more Greek and less and less Roman.
The Byzantines are a later name. However, at the end of the de facto empire and became Byzantine. When curled up to Constantinople (once Byzantium) and the area around it.

[Bar2]

Quote: Albatroz

Romei - the self-name of the inhabitants of the East Roman Empire

actually not so.
What is the name of the city of Rome on the Apennines? It is called Roma.
But, as Anna Komnina called 12c in her work "Alexiada" of the citizens of Constantinople, she called them ROMANS.
Those. again some sort of substitution of concepts.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Византийский_историки_Сокращенное_сказание_о_делах_царя_Алексея_Комнина_%281081-1118%29_Часть_1_1859.pdf

[Albatroz]

Actually, that's right.
Romans and Romans are synonyms.

Romei - the self-name of the inhabitants of the East Roman Empire. More precisely, even so. The most common self-name used by Byzantine authors, seeking to emphasize the direct state and legal continuity of the Byzantine Empire with the Roman.

[Bar2]

Quote: Albatroz

Actually, that's right.
Romans and Romans are synonyms.

it is unlikely
in the Book "On the Affairs of Alexei Comnenus" a lot of strange things that do not coincide with the official history, for example
-Alexei is not the emperor, but the king.
-Byzantium is not called Byzantium, nor empire, but only called "... the Romans against the Turks"
-Celt Ruselius attacks the Romans
-Langobards with Robert Norman attack the Romans
-The Romans for protection conclude an alliance with the Scythians.
-No Rome on the appenins is mentioned.

[Albatroz]

You are like a child. You understand everything literally.
Translator and context in general are not important for the source?
In the Russian translation - the king. All is correct.
From the word "Caesar" I mean the Roman Caesar.
Normans and attacked the Romans, all right.
This incoherent opus

Byzantium is not called Byzantium, nor an empire, but is only called "... the Romans against the Turks"

even hard to comment.
However, I am happy for you. started to read Alexiada. Though in translation and on the Internet. But even so)

[Bar2]

Quote: Albatroz

In the Russian translation - the king. All is correct.
From the word "Caesar" I mean the Roman Caesar.

neither Caesar nor Caesar. Anna did not distort the title of her father and called him the king.
And not the Normans, but the longbards led by Robert the Norman.

[Albatroz]

And "king" from which word did you come from?)
Was Anna Komnina personally interviewed or was the Russian translator translated into Russian?)

And gradually it became more and more Greek and less and less Roman.

wrote somehow above.
And the outstanding Byzantine scholar Dashkova has a wonderful work called "Emperors of Byzantium".
The Byzantine emperor (king, Caesar) - he is Vasileus. Call Vasilevs and you will definitely not be mistaken)
And the Normans and the Lombards attacked the Romans.

[Bar2]

Quote: Albatroz

And the outstanding Byzantine scholar Dashkova has a wonderful work called "Emperors of Byzantium".

I have a translation of 1859. under the editorship of Karpova

and that Dashkov, who did this and when did he get his own?

not Normans attacked, but Longobards and Celts. Longobards led by Robert the Norman.
By the way, the Celts is also a word from the 18th century Anna Komnina probably wrote -GALLS.

[Han Tengri]

Quote: Bar2

By the way, the Celts is also a word from the 18th century Anna Komnina probably wrote -GALLS.

The Greeks of France are still called - Γαλλία

[Bar2]

Quote: HanTengri

Quote: Bar2

By the way, the Celts is also a word from the 18th century Anna Komnina probably wrote -GALLS.

The Greeks of France are still called - Γαλλία

and the Turks in the Mediterranean Sea are called White-Ak Deniz, and Black Kara Deniz.
This order seems quite logical to the left of Tsar Grad / Rome, the Black Sea, to the right the White.

[Albatroz]

And what, in 1859 Karpov is not a Russian translator ??))
Dashkov S. B. The Emperors of Byzantium, 1997.
and the Normans attacked, and the Celts and the Lombards and a bunch of who else

[Bar2]

Quote: Albatroz

and the Normans attacked, and the Celts and the Lombards and a bunch of who else

that's just neither the Celts / Galas, nor the Lombards, nor even more so the Scythians, are joined together chronologically and by the official history of the OI.
Celtic / Gali states were conquered as far back as Rome in the 4th century A.D.
-The Lombard state ended in the 7-8th century CE and was captured by the Franks.
Scythians are generally farce-speaking nomadic tribes that, according to the JI, did not even survive the beginning of a new era.
And in Alexiada, as we see Nitsche, they live in their own way in the 12th century. They have states and kings / sovereigns.
In short, there are no solid connections with the Olympics. Yes, and St. Sophia inscriptions on mosaics in Russian.

[Barcid]

The Celts are a term used by many ancient authors even before BC. And in the 18th century. The term Celts appeared in English.

[Bar2]

Quote: Barcid

The Celts are a term used by many ancient authors even before BC. And in the 18th century. The term Celts appeared in English.

you rather say how it was used by ancient authors, and appeared in the 18th century?
The term Celts was introduced by the English philologist Luid in the 17th century, more precisely.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кельты
But this is one and the same as the galls, so what did the CMU not like the galls?
And this means. That the term "Celtic" could not be used by ancient authors, and if it was used, then these authors are falsifiers.

[Han Tengri]

Quote: Bar2

But, as Anna Komnina called 12c in her work "Alexiada" of the citizens of Constantinople, she called them ROMANS.

Anna Komnina, right, wrote like that in Russian and in Cyrillic?

[3x3zsave]

Igor! What "Russian", what "Cyrillic" ??? You see her purely Tartar surname "Komnina" ?!
Ivanova, Vasilyeva, Komnina, Nabiullina ...

[Han Tengri]

"The wife is beautiful,
Only harmful badly.
The wife is beautiful -
The character is not simple! "(C)

[3x3zsave]

"Katya, Katya! - knock out,
I have horseshoes of a horse "(c)

[Han Tengri]

"Hello, Rose,
I, after all, from a frost.
Do you have today, Rose,
Happy end! "(C)

[Bar2]

Quote: HanTengri

Anna Komnina, right, wrote like that in Russian and in Cyrillic?

These are the inscriptions in St. Sophia in Istanbul.

in the church of st. Sophia in Istanbul has such a mosaic. Very interesting inscriptions.



very fuzzy, the first word is damaged
KONSTANTIS E / YON H`LO`LTOFO`L AUTOCRATOR PISTOS VASILEUS ROMAION O ...? MONOMA ...


but the second inscription is the most interesting
ZOE NEUSE VESTISTI AUGUST
those. Zoe brought the holy news.

and in what language is it written _ neusa / carries / brought the message / news of Augusta / holy? Well, obviously not in Greek.

August. This name of the eighth month of the year came from the Latin language, where the word “Augustus” was a masculine name meaning “sacred”. The name Augustus was appropriated by the Senate to the first Roman emperor Octavian (63 BC - 14 AD), and the last month of summer was named after the first emperor. Do you know the expression "august person"? So before they called members of the imperial family. The word august is of the same root as the word august, and the meaning is "sacred."

The origin of the word august in the etymological online dictionary G. A. Krylova

And Zoya just holds the scroll with the inscription / message.
The same thing is repeated on the scroll as in the left column.

[Errr]

This is Greek.

[Bar2]

Quote: Herrr

This is Greek.

neuse vestati is middle greek? As that "Middle Greek" is similar to Russian.

[Errr]

Look over the woman's figure for the first cross-shaped letter in the first line. I did not find such a letter in the Slavic alphabets, but I found such a variant of writing the letter "xi" in two Western Greek alphabets - Boeotian and Arcadian (see fig. Below).

Nevertheless, the inscription you presented on the mosaic in Hagia Sophia (circa 1020 CE) with the image of Emperor Constantine IX, Christ and Empress Zoe is nothing more than one of the variants of the Greek.

[Bar2]

Quote: Herrr

examine the first cross-shaped letter in the first line above the woman's figure. I did not find such a letter in the Slavic alphabets, but I found such a variant of writing the letter "xi" in two Western Greek alphabets - Boeotian and Arcadian (see fig. Below).

Have you seen the inscriptions on the Zvenigorod bell? There is not Cyrillic and neither Greek nor middle and front and no, but there is an inscription.
so what is this alphabet?

you can repeat the middle Greek ten times, but the words
-test is news
-Neus is to carry / bring
everything is in Russian.

[Errr]

Quote: Bar2

Have you seen the inscriptions on the Zvenigorod bell? There is not Cyrillic and neither Greek nor middle and front and no, but there is an inscription.
so what is this alphabet?

From Wikipedia:

On the outside of the bell were inscriptions in nine rows: the top six in Old Slavonic, and the bottom three in cryptography consisting of 425 characters.
The text of the inscriptions was allegedly composed personally by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

Only this is all you need? How exactly does this inscription on the bell of the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery correlate with the text of the Byzantine mosaic of the eleventh century? The cross-shaped letters on the aforementioned bell are not even in the bottom three lines of the cryptography. In fact, it turns out that this is the letter of the official Byzantine alphabet and it is called "ti".

[Bar2]

Quote: Herrr

But what are you all about? Which side does this inscription on the bell of the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery correspond to the text of the Byzantine mosaic of the eleventh century?

and the fact that there were a lot of different alphabets, and one should pay attention not to alphabets written by someone unclear, but to meaningful text that is read on old images.
Therefore, it is necessary to read the old texts in mosaics and explain why these texts in St. Sophia are read in Russian and why did you pronounce the Russian meaningful text into Sregean?

[xanthos]

If you know Church Slavonic, then a lot becomes clear, since the words are abbreviated on the icons. In Greek it is written like this "Κωνσταντινος ο εν Χριστω τω Θεω Αυτοκρατωρ Πιστος Βασιλευς Ρωμαιων." - "Constantine in Christ God Faithful Tsar Romeev."
And "Ζωη η Ευσεβεστατη Αυγουστα" (stress on U) - "Zoe the Most Pious Augusta".

[Bar2]

Quote: xantos

And "Ζωη η Ευσεβεστατη Αυγουστα" (stress on U) - "Zoya the Most Pious Augusta"

my translator gave out so

the word godly is not written as you wrote.

[xanthos]

The Google translator translated it into modern Greek, and in general, a different meaning turned out here. If literally "Life is (is) pious"

[Selevc]

Quote: Albatroz

When curled up to Constantinople (once Byzantium) and the area around it.

Sorry, the Eastern Roman or Roman Empire was not curtailed - it was turned by the Crusader Knights !!! When during the 4th Crusade destroyed the empire and Constantinople !!! The territory of the state was occupied by the crusaders and divided into small feudal possessions ... After such a blow to the back from their own Christian brothers, the Romans did not recover !!!
Yes, and the Romans are the Romans in Greek !!!

[Albatroz]

But it was curled and unfolded in different eras with varying degrees of success!
And eventually the Turks - the Seljuks, then the Ottomans turned aside!

[Albatroz]

It is interesting to see how ancient traditions gradually interfere with the eastern, European and Balkan

[Astra wild]

Dear author, the illustrations are beautiful and you tell me well, but the wish of the inquisitive cat, and all the women in the soul of the cat, tell me what was the difference between officers of different ranks? I can understand the epaulettes either in medieval England, by the length of the socks on the shoes: the longer the socks, the more noble the owner of the shoes, and here?

[Albatroz]

Can I talk to you about this?
I once argued with one friend about the identification emblems and symbols of the Roman legions. I proved to him that every legion had not only its own banners, but also emblems. Including a single shield for the entire legion.
He said - that who is what much.
The Romans are descendants of the Romans, successors of traditions. Including in uniformology. Parts had uniform emblems (Noticia Dignitatum), sultans with helmets (to whom they were assigned) and tunics of opr. flowers.
As for the ranks - a combination of geometric figures and other emblems on cloaks, special signs on tunics and special items of equipment (helmets, anatomical cuirasses) were highlighted by the command staff.
Do you agree?

[Astra wild]

Albatross, I decided in a purely logical way: the higher the rank the more noble, which means the sword will be lighter and more ornate. Armor is also not consumer goods, but rhombuses and geometric shapes. I thought - a peculiar uniform of one or another unit.
I know that Byzantium respected uniformity.

[Albatroz]

Naturally, the commanders could make their own rich amendments. But I'm about common unifying notation

[tlauicol]

Depicted senior officer of the Guards Corps Scholariyev

- well, even the surname is preserved

[Aaron Zawi]

Very interesting. Thank.

[kalibr]

Awesome !!! Just amazing, dear Alexey. But who painted this?

[OAV09081974]

Thank you!
Artist - Christos Gianopoulos

[Cympak]

The artist is a Greek. He did not make a historical reconstruction, but a stylization on the theme of the heroes of the "Greek epic". Everything is hypertrophied: huge shields, shoulder pads, long chain mail and armor. The wars are almost all shaved, but this is not Rome! The Greeks distinguished a peasant with a beard, and eunuchs and the Varangian guard went without a beard, but the Vikings had a mustache.
Maxim Zhukov has enough for all this "historical" creativity

[Albatroz]

Greek (and the Byzantine Empire became Greek) was doing reconstruction.
Unlike different Nicoles and poppy brights

[kalibr]

Quote: Albatroz

He said - that who is what much.

Wrong!

[tlauicol]

beautifully draws. arrows in the shield just how sports look, faked

[Engineer]

Justinian-era marines are equipped very cool. It does not fit in with the conventional wisdom about the decline of the Byzantine infantry at that time.

The Byzantine Klibanarii (Clibanarii) or Klibanophori (Klibanophoroi), which became the key to many victories of the Romance weapons, owe their origin to the reform of the warrior emperor Nicephorus Foki

It’s strange. Leones clibanarii are mentioned in the year 546. Maybe there was a long break in the formation of such detachments, and Fock just revived the tradition?

[Albatroz]

Well, as far as I know, those of the 6th century are more likely cataphracts.
Descendants of the Roman heavy cavalry, so to speak. A la Sassanids.
And Klibanariums (Klibanofora) Foki is a shell-shaped medieval cavalry. And in the acquisition, and in the defense complex. Unique 4-armor complex.
He moved the Arabs with her help not bad.

[Engineer]

As far as I know, in ancient times there was no strict difference between the Klibanarii and the cataphracts.
At a later time I do not know

[Earthshaker]

The main difference between kafraks and klibanarii is the progress in equipment - a saddle with a high bow and stirrups, which allowed them (klibanarii) to hold a shield with one hand, an arc spear. This could not but affect the tactics, speed and strength of the onslaught. Cataphracts held a long spear with both hands.

[Engineer]

Connolly writes that the cataphracts wore scaly, and the Klybanarii had plate armor. But this is in Roman time.
If about the era of Justinian, then I do not know if there was a strict differentiation between them. Edward unsubscribed that they were similar to the point of confusion.
Stirrups in the Justinian era have not yet appeared.
It is possible that you are right. But if so, then this difference could develop only from the 7th century with the spread of stirrups.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Cavalry in armor to VI in continued to be called catafracti and clibanarii. Although, one cannot but agree with the fact that the riders of the VI century. "Had little to do with the armored cavalry of antiquity." In the VI century, the Greek term "cataphractary" was used by the Anonymous VI century. and John Lead, the latter called the riders in the “armor” also the Andabats (άνδαβάται; andabatae).

[Engineer]

OK thanks
By the way, I compared the drawings of Gianopoulos, Nicholl and yours according to the Justinian era. The first two chain mail and the lamellar and zero scale armor, you have the opposite. I wonder why so?

[Edward Vashchenko]

Denis
good evening,
because in iconography of the VI century. so - there is no chain mail, the lamellar is almost, only scaly in the infantry, by the way, and if we turn to later iconographies? all X century? what is there ...
Here is the Klibanarium, here, X-XI centuries., Correct according to Nicephorus II Docks (Strategicon) wink:
Lamellar on a plate from the island of Ritz, we have already discussed this with you.
Nicolas also does not have chain mail or lamellar, if I remember everything, there is a V century, I even have a miniature, there was a "soldier" office delPrado, which together with Osprey (from them the magazine) VIM made.
I say this quite confidently, so in written sources the same thing, but here it’s more complicated.
By the way, according to the VII century. there are chain mail (plates from the Metropolitan - the Cypriot treasure).
It can be assumed that I wrote about it in the VO that chain mail did not disappear anywhere in the VI century, but it was used less, by the way, somewhere in the comments I quoted the number of chain mail and lamellar from the Lombards, and there are very few of them.

[Albatroz]

Nevertheless, chain mail in the 6th century did not disappear, being used no less actively than in the earlier or later eras (and possibly more actively). Deficiencies in reading iconographies or the data of a plate cannot be taken as an unambiguous given

[Engineer]

Nicolas doesn’t have chain mail or lamellar either

I'll check in the evening. But it seems like a lamellar (only small rectangular plates are visible, the rider’s straps are not visible, but it’s not clear whether the simplified image of the lamellar or the lamellar armor in general.) The rider of the same Leones clibanarii and all the other chain mail.

[3x3zsave]

Bravo, Alexey! Extremely unexpected material, for your authorship. I started reading, I thought: why did Vashchenko change his style ?? But no! Pleasantly surprised! Thank!!!

[vladcub]

Anton, I myself was surprised by the authorship. We have already formed a certain stereotype of perception: Oleinev - PMV, GV, a description of a certain event and "debriefing", and here Byzantium and a description of equipment. A pleasant surprise

[Reptiloid]

Greetings to you, Vlad! There is a book by Alexey Vladimirovich ----Varangian guard of Byzantium.
Several publications have already been here before.

Quote: vladcub

Anton, I myself was surprised by the authorship. We have already formed a certain stereotype of perception: Oleinev - PMV, GV, a description of a certain event and "debriefing", and here Byzantium and a description of equipment. A pleasant surprise

[vladcub]

At the German mercenary face erupting. I would prefer not to communicate with this: FIG knows what is in his head?

[3x3zsave]

Yes, like any mercenary: loot and women!

[vladcub]

Moreover, I would not dare to trust this. Something is remembered in history, as mercenaries betrayed someone: "no money, no Swiss"

[vladcub]

Comrades, have you noticed the windings of the Exguvita Swan Guard?

[Engineer]

By the way, in the last two pictures the cavalrymen are armored by the most I do not want. But at the same time they carry huge shields. It seems to me doubtful. For the 14th century it looks like an anachronism and nonsense.
Nevertheless, iconography is thought to be a very complex thing and it is necessary to treat it with caution.

[Engineer]

I looked for comparison Men et Arms for the authorship of Ian Heath (McBride drawings)
Klibanofora armored somewhat heavier than the cataphract according to Heath but with a small shield
The shields of scooters and the Varangian guard at Heath and Gianopolus coincide one to one apparently from one source
Who is interested

[Albatroz]

The shields of scooters and the Varangian guard at Heath and Gianopolus coincide one to one apparently from one source

Why is it necessary from one source?
Each era has its own type of shield. As a priority.
Probably here it has to be.

[Engineer]

I'm talking about the drawings on the shields. Raven at the Varangian and a star at the scooter. They are identical for both authors. The Klibanophores also have a literal coincidence. Or maybe one of the authors spied on another

[Albatroz]

But is it not easier to explain that the emblems on the shields simply identify the same part?
Raven is a common emblem of Varanga.
Other units also differed in shield emblems.
Is such an option possible?

[Engineer]

Of course it is possible. But I'm talking about sources of information from both authors. If in the sources written about the logo of, say, a crow, they will draw it in different ways. And if the emblems are drawn the same way, then there was some kind of initial ancient iconography, or even one from the other tore off. I just found this moment interesting. You can compare scooters and Varangians not only on shields. Something very similar, something not.

[Albatroz]

About the Varangian shield.
Here is probably the most famous image. The source.

Image of the Roman centurion Longin from the mosaic of Nea Moni, about. Chios (de facto officer of Varanga). The shield is painted blue, decorated with small stones along the edge, the central field is edged with white pearls. The raven is half black - half blue; the four dots around the raven are supposed to represent the rivets for the belt.
Probably this acoluf is drawn from it.

But there were illustrative sources with red shields.

Probably we are talking about different units inside Varanga

[Cympak]

These are historical reconstructions, and not fantasies about the "Tsargrad space marines", which in the article

[Albatroz]

Don't Show Cympak Illiteracy (Alex)

[Cympak]

You would have to read, serious books on the history of medieval Byzantium, a young man. You can see that you are interested in the issue, but it is also obvious that you do not own it.

[Albatroz]

It seems to me doubtful. For the 14th century it looks like an anachronism and nonsense.

The cavalrymen quite successfully performed the functions of a traveling infantry. For the infantry (by the way, and standing on foot) a big shield is not an anachronism, is it?
It’s just like that.
Well, you rejected the shield in relation to the European cavalry tradition in this era (13-14). But what about the Balkan? These are two.

[Engineer]

Still an anachronism, as it seems to me.
General trend armor is getting heavier - shields are decreasing. In the penultimate figure in the article, the shield is not just large, it is abnormally large and completely redundant.
In the Balkan tradition, it is not strong, but there was a junction of influences of the Greeks, nomads and the West. Just by analogy above is also doubtful.

[Albatroz]

Armor is heavier in Europe.
In Byzantium, in principle, as far as I know (and it can be seen from the illustrations) - in the 13-14 centuries. stagnation on this part.
In this era, her cavalry is no longer an analogue of the Western European.
To draw full analogies (in my opinion) is not entirely correct here.
It’s more likely to compare with the Russian heavy cavalry (combatants), who also retained large shields.
East and south european chip?

[Engineer]

Armor is heavier in Europe.

And the Byzantines already have almost everything except solid white armor. But the trend is found to be the same and immediately, heavier armor, smaller shield .. Look at how small the shield is at the Klibanofor. Moreover, the armored riders and the beside are depicted without shields at all. Maybe it was, or maybe it's the conventions of the fine canon
Here are the same miniatures from the "Novel of Alexander", that is, the original source

The very almond-shaped shields of the riders, but they are not huge at all, but quite harmonious and do not raise any questions. The almond-shaped shields of the foot soldiers look somewhat large. Everything is logical again
Gianopoulos has his own understanding of proportions. He draws the same scooter shield much larger than McBride. And in the almond-shaped shields of the riders, he seemed to have completely lost his sense of proportion.

[Albatroz]

Okay. Although the 10th-century Klanbophore has a small shield, it has full armor. Heavy.
But cavalrymen of the 13-14th centuries armor are not so heavy. More precisely, they seemed to freeze in the 10-11 centuries. And for 13-14 centuries it’s a bit different. By Western European standards, this is rather average than heavy cavalry.
Why can't the shield compensate for the lack of solid protection? After all, we don’t see full armor, as in Europe, (the large white armor you indicated) ...
By the way, I pointed out the riding infantry not in vain. Of the West European knight of those years, the infantryman, due to severity, is useless. And the Byzantine or Russian is quite. And the Byzantines and the Russians had to fight not so much with the west as with the east. Is mobility more relevant than full protection?

[Engineer]

Everything is a little wrong or everything is almost so but ...
By booking, this is a heavy cavalry compared to the west. Cataphracts are super heavy. This is for 10-11 centuries. It is simply not necessary to compensate the lack of protection for the rider in scaly or plate armor, shoulders, bracers, a helmet with a caramel, and a large shield with a large shield. Europeans do not have a comparable defense complex. Even in the 13th century, 100% is relevant. On the 14th, some claims can be made (or maybe not), but everything is not bad there.

Of the West European knight of those years, the infantryman, due to severity, is useless

Offtopic, but on the whole the dismounted knight is a serious fighter in any era and the more armored the more serious.
My main complaint about the drawings in the article is to trim the sturgeon, that is, the almond-shaped shields of the riders. The most important thing is that according to iconography, they are really much smaller. No further explanation is needed. Draw as in the sources and all.
On the shields of the foot soldiers, I think the same thing, but I will not be so categorical.

[Albatroz]

For 10 - 11 centuries, I say that the Byzantine heavy cavalry is ahead of the rest)
later some questions begin (13-14 centuries).
an armored knight in an infantry fighter is a fighter, but it’s only barely moving and God forbid it falls.
Didn’t I like my comparison with the Russian defense complex? But in my opinion there is much more in common than with the Western one. Probably the common enemy (east) left its mark, and not only. Maybe of course I'm wrong

[Engineer]

an armored knight in an infantry fighter is a fighter, but it’s only barely moving and God forbid it falls.

It will rise on its own and will again be very dangerous
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc

Didn’t I like my comparison with the Russian defense complex?

By the end of the XII century. due to increased armor, the amygdala shield decreased slightly, lost the umbon and, possibly, other metal parts.

This is Kirpichnikov about Russian shields. Exactly the same global pattern. A well-armored rider does NOT need a large shield.

[Albatroz]

Well, I got away without Kirpichnikov) I completely forgot about him honestly, and I don’t remember the comparative analysis of Russian and Byzantine armor.

It will rise on its own and will again be very dangerous

foot knight? And why, having fallen off his horse, he could not get up without assistance?

A well-armored rider does NOT need a large shield.

Of course. You yourself are right and answered.

well armored

And for the developed Middle Ages, Byzantine booking was already not so good. The kid in the lower illustration is far from the knight chained in armor. By the way, his shield is not so big.

the rider

Well, if the horseman also performed the functions of an infantryman (which for the Byzantines and Russians was in a greater order of things than in the west), then a shield is necessary for him.
And because the horse is not lucky to drag the shield.
Traced and continuity with the ancient tradition. Roman cavalry had no small shields.

[Engineer]

The thread of the dispute is lost as usual in a long dialogue)

Kid on lower illustrations far to the knight in the armor. By the way, his shield is not so big.

I wrote about the previous figure

On the last but one In the figure in the article, the shield is not just large, it is abnormally large and completely redundant.

The "kid" in the lower booking illustration is at least as good as a 14th century knight, except for the protection of his legs. Lamellar armor with a skirt against the brigandine. Shoulders both here and there only at the "boy" are superimposed on the armor. Splint bracers against gauntlets. Here, rather, this "kid" has an advantage or parity. The helmet is worse than the bascinet hunsgugel, but Europeans quite often used bascinets without a visor at all with a chain collar. And in the West there was a chapel de fer - the same hat. There is parity.
There is no leg protection at all. Here inferior.
I do NOT want to argue that the shield in the bottommost picture is too big. My posts were about the previous drawing. I will only note that the warrior is armored at least "well" by the standards of the 14th century, except for the legs. But his shield is large, but not large enough to give protection to these very legs.

And why, having fallen off his horse, he could not get up without assistance?

This is an "urban legend" about the knights. It has long been refuted, first by historians, and then by reenactors.

Well, if the rider also performed the functions of an infantryman (that for the Byzantines and Russians there was a greater order of things than in the west)

This is an assumption, not a fact. It would justify it.

[Albatroz]

Thank God that I was not lost.
We agree that booked in this era are weaker than peers.
I don’t know about the legend, I read articles in scientific (seemingly) magazines.
Well, the bottom promise is confirmed by the RAM. I read somewhere about cavalry, Nicene, which, depending on the situation, dismounted. Although I agree, something needs to be clarified.
And here's more about the big shields. Not at all like an anachronism

Byzantine soldiers of the XI-XII centuries.

[Engineer]

Thank God that I was not lost.

Completely lost
Here is my original post

By the way, in the last two pictures the cavalrymen are armored by the most I do not want. But at the same time they carry huge shields. It seems to me doubtful. For the 14th century looks like an anachronism and nonsense.

You put a picture from a previous era.

Byzantine soldiers of the XI-XII centuries.

And vigorously claim that no, not an anachronism. Of course, for the 11th century, it’s certainly not anachronism that is a large pan-European almond-shaped shield, let’s recall the tapestry from Bayeux. For 12 back and forth, for 13-14 it’s an anachronism, albeit not in form, but in size. (rather in form too, but there is no desire to dig so deep). And so, in the penultimate figure in the article, a dismounted warrior, 200 after 11-12 centuries, holds a shield that even longer and wider than pictured by mcbride

We agree that booked in this era are weaker than peers.

I wrote that it is NOT worse for the 14th century. Apparently, it's time to finish.

[Albatroz]

The picture I brought only to the word, what does the eyelid have to do with it.
As evidence that large shields were inherent in the Roman (above) and Byzantine cavalry.
[quoteI wrote that it is NOT worse for the 14th century.] [/ quote]
But they themselves noted above that

The helmet is worse than the Hunsgugel bascinet, but Europeans quite often used the bascinets without a visor in general with a chain collar. And in the West there was a chapel de fer - the same hat. There is parity.
There is no leg protection at all. Here inferior.

Do the knights have a hat?
Okay, I was interested in the details and your position. Let's finish

[Engineer]

Ok finished with shields

Do the knights have a hat?

And among the knights and even the kings

Chapelle de fer Charles VI Valois

[Albatroz]

Let them finish, just do not want to see the Byzantine specificity, drawing direct parallels with the west)
I know perfectly about helmets - hats. The question is different - how much is a combat attribute. Especially in the era of completely closed dog muzzle bascinets, and even more so for the king. Take a break?
Roman tournament cavalry helmets were also. But when they wore

[Engineer]

If you know perfectly well, then you also know why multiple holes around the perimeter
and a few holes above. That's the answer as far as this is a combat attribute

[Albatroz]

I also know that in the era of the bascinets, such a helmet was just a means for the king to "show off", no more

[Albatroz]

By the way (to the one above). Where the klibanofor is booked at a level or more, the shield is small.
Where the cavalryman is actually medium rather than heavy (2 photos from the bottom) and the shield is enlarged. Everything is logical. Additional protection

[Cympak]

Europeans conquered Constantinople in 1204 and controlled it until 1261. Therefore, in Constantinople - the capital of the Latin Empire, they dressed and armed in much the same way as the Western knights

[Albatroz]

Europeans conquered Constantinople in 1204 and controlled it until 1261. Therefore, in Constantinople - the capital of the Latin Empire, they dressed and armed in much the same way as the Western knights

Yeah.
It was the western knights who "dressed" like Western knights.
The autochthonous part of the army and dressed autochthonously.

[Albatroz]

And what does the Nicene Empire have to do with Constantinople, and, clever man Alex?
National center for the union of Byzantium and the expulsion of the Latins. Perhaps the fact that the Nicene emperors returned Constantinople and restored the national empire.

[Cympak]

In the 13th century, the western knightly cavalry was still in chain mail. Only at the end of the 13th century does the brigantine appear.

[captainvp]

Of the West European knight of those years, the infantryman, due to severity, is useless.

A controversial statement, at least with regard to the 14th century, when the West European knight often dismounted in battle. A good example is the battle of Poitiers, where both sides fought both on foot and on horseback. You yourself in one of the comments claimed that for heavy infantry protection is a priority over mobility. Just that case.

[Han Tengri]

Quote: Engineer

General trend armor is getting heavier - shields are decreasing.

Try to understand the logic behind this decrease. The large almond-shaped shield turns into a "truncated", triangular shield only after the appearance of topfhelm, when it is no longer necessary to reliably cover the lower part of the face with a shield, but it is still necessary to cover, in an equestrian collision, the body and left leg. The triangular shield only disappears with the expansion of full plate armor. Because if they put a spear at your brigandine at full gallop, then, even without breaking through the plate, they will provide you with a lot of "pleasure" from a couple of broken ribs, and the battle is not over yet and you will still swing the sword for a couple of hours. The cuirass no longer supports this BDSM option.

Quote: Engineer

In the penultimate figure in the article, the shield is not just large, it is abnormally large and completely redundant.

What is excess? On the warrior, the lamellar armor and the lower part of the face are covered by devils.

[Engineer]

Tophelm developed in connection with the practice of ramming with a spear in which the Western knights had no equal. Monstrous spears and increasingly large horses put them above all in this regard. The Byzantines did not need such an evolution.
The triangular shield could really develop in connection with the appearance of tophelm and could for other reasons - a more convenient overview
Lamellar armor is good. The shield is designed primarily for covering the head and body.
The legs of a warrior are covered by the bosses. A long shield is not needed. And his shield is also too wide. Look at the almond-shaped shields at McBride and in miniature. Necessary and sufficient and generally harmonious.

[sergo1914]

I understood. Wearing pants, the Romans became Byzantines! Fomenko - move over.

[Albatroz]

Wearing pants, the Romans became Byzantines

an amusing conclusion) where is it said about this?

[sergo1914]

Quote: Albatroz

Wearing pants, the Romans became Byzantines

an amusing conclusion) where is it said about this?

Drawings for the article.

[Albatroz]

Where does it say that, I quote "Putting on pants, the Romans became Byzantines"?
I think this is your author’s conclusion Sergey)

[sergo1914]

Quote: Albatroz

Where does it say that, I quote "Putting on pants, the Romans became Byzantines"?
I think this is your author’s conclusion Sergey)

Deductive method. Strengthened by the syllogistics of Aristotle.

[Albatroz]

Well, I (the usual observation method) see that you attribute your findings to others)

[Selevc]

"Having put on trousers, the Romans became Byzantines"?

It seems to me that the Romans didn’t always wear togas - for example, try to cross the Alps in toga in the winter, spend the night by the fire, or make the transition under the cold winter wind ... Don’t freeze yourself wow ???

It seems to me that the phrases "Romans wearing pants ...", "Romans and Greeks wore togas ..." are very conventional and just as fair as to say "all Russians wore bast shoes ..." - this is just a cliche or a cliche of historians! !!

[sergo1914]

Quote: Albatroz

Wearing pants, the Romans became Byzantines

an amusing conclusion) where is it said about this?

Previously, I did not trust the rumors that historians only take people after an IQ test. Cons convinced me. Gentlemen, historians, how much do you need to gain? twenty? 20?

[Albatroz]

So you are a historian?

[sergo1914]

Quote: Albatroz

So you are a historian?

Question in the mirror?

[Albatroz]

No, the question is you. Say that IQ you like a historian) Yes, and just interesting - from a psychological point of view)

[Kapitan a]

Interesting pictures. Thanks to the author. We look forward to continuing. Is it possible (since such a booze has begun) about the tactical formation of troops throughout the existence of the empire something to bring. Thank.

[voyaka uh]

The Roman Empire lasted until the 14th century in its eastern part - Byzantium.
That is 1500 years of the Roman Empire!

[Albatroz]

Probably only Chinese is longer.
That generally practically preserved until now

[sergo1914]

Quote: voyaka uh

The Roman Empire lasted until the 14th century in its eastern part - Byzantium.
That is 1500 years of the Roman Empire!

Is it a toast or a statement of fact?

[Albatroz]

1500 years is only in our era
And so 2200
The fact is this. And longer indeed, only Chinese civilization

[Looking for]

FANTASERS.

[Reptiloid]

Wonderful article!
Just wonderful! Many thanks, dear Alexey Vladimirovich.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

To be honest, reconstructions without photographs of source images raise considerable doubts, especially of the antique type, sultans, wide-brimmed trousers or vice versa, bare legs, and leggings. And even Byzantine pictures on icons and books should be taken very carefully - Romagna was an extremely bureaucratic and formalized country, whose intrigue was openly nostalgic for the ancient past. Artists did not draw what they saw with their own eyes, but what tradition demanded. Lamillar armor demanded tradition, they drew it, but what was really there should be looked at by archaeologists. Oh, about the ancient sultans and bare legs, and I am silent for a while. The same thing with chroniclers - to use the modern names of barbaric peoples in chronicles was a sign of bad taste - that’s where the Romans (who are actually Hellenes) fight with the Celts, Gauls, Scythians, Hagarians (who are actually Europeans, Slavs, Turks and Arabs) .
By the way, the historian Procopius of Caesarea (XNUMXth century) repeatedly uses the term "Byzantines" (at least in Russian translation), but not in relation to all the inhabitants of the Romagna (they are for Procopius Romei), but in relation only to the inhabitants of Byzantium-Constantinople.

[Fevralsk. Morev]

Such armor had to be made (manual labor) and arm the army. How much money was spent!? With people ripped off in the form of taxes, excise taxes and tariffs. Nothing changed. This is all in peace.

[Dalton]

Yes.
Now we know what the Byzantine soldier looked like. The illustrations perfectly complement and refine the outdated images in the once published Osprey brochures.
Despite all the efforts of the osprey lobby, trying to pass off its (ospreyevsky) vision of the question as the only true one (offering its lengths for hem and shields), he did not read anything that would detract from the value of this remarkable material.

[Charlie]

Such infantrymen with turbans on their heads were probably a good present for enemy swordsmen. This turban can withstand a blow with a sword from above. One. Maybe two or three, until they chopped it into cabbage. But of course he did not save from a side blow. From oblique strokes too. Campaign these infantrymen suffered heavy losses in the wheelhouse.