- Welcome to SoA Forum.
Recent posts
#1
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: Intact Maya city discovere...
Last post by Ian61 - Jun 25, 2026, 08:24 PMQuote from: Jon Freitag on Jun 25, 2026, 06:02 PMThe jungle gives up another treasure!There's more to come. I am hoping for more from Brazil. Been expecting this LiDAR shows far more than is easily accessed - Rob gets very excited about this technology, of course it works under water as well so it gets used in making his charts.
#2
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: Intact Maya city discovere...
Last post by Jon Freitag - Jun 25, 2026, 06:02 PMThe jungle gives up another treasure!
#3
Army Research / Re: Byzantine Heavy Cavalry
Last post by davidharvey1 - Jun 25, 2026, 04:19 PMJust to add another layer of complexity, from about the ninth century onwards mounted archery seems to have become much more widespread across the Islamic military elite, not simply among the Turkic ghilmān. One reason I wonder about this is the Hamdanid literary evidence. Poets such as al-Mutanabbī, writing for Sayf al-Dawla, and Abū Firās al-Hamdānī, himself a frontier commander, repeatedly celebrate the elite cavalryman using the bow alongside the lance and sword. They are, of course, writing panegyric rather than tactical manuals, so they must be used with caution, but they do suggest that proficiency in mounted archery had become part of the expected skill set of the aristocratic cavalry more generally. It would therefore be interesting to compare this evidence with the Byzantine manuals and ask whether both military traditions were evolving in parallel under the pressures of the tenth-century frontier wars.
#4
Ancient and Medieval History / Intact Maya city discovered in...
Last post by Duncan Head - Jun 25, 2026, 03:17 PM #5
Army Research / Re: Jim Webster & The Aegates ...
Last post by Monad - Jun 25, 2026, 08:12 AMBefore Caesar's time, especially during the Punic Wars and after, the only transports in a fleet were horse transports. The infantry and cavalry for a consular army were conveyed by warships. When at their anchorage, the revictual fleet, which was part of the consular fleet, screened the anchorage. During the campaign, parts of the fleet were conveying new replacements and those that had been discharged. There was a lot of back and forth between the home country and the country of conflict.
#6
Ancient and Medieval History / Re: AI reading burned Herculan...
Last post by Nick Harbud - Jun 25, 2026, 08:03 AMBetter than a laundry list, I suppose.
Still, how do we know that what the AI has come up with bears any relationship to what might be on the page, rather than some demented hallucination it has dreamt up?
Still, how do we know that what the AI has come up with bears any relationship to what might be on the page, rather than some demented hallucination it has dreamt up?
#7
Army Research / Re: Byzantine Heavy Cavalry
Last post by Andreas Johansson - Jun 25, 2026, 05:43 AMFWIW, I suspect there may have been both gradual decline in the "thematic" period, and a western-influenced switch of the native cavalry to pure lancers in the 11-12C. It seems plausible enough that there was a revival of archery skills in around the 10C, at least in the more professional parts of the army.
Eastern influence could rhyme with this - the replacement of the Sassanids by the Arabs as the main eastern enemy would presumably reduce the pressure to maintain horse archery skills, while the increasing employment of Turks by the Abbasids from the 9th century would tend to increase it again. Then of course trajectories would diverge in the Comnenan period with the Seljuqs keeping emphasis on horse archers and dual-armed cavalry while the Byzantines appear to westernize.
(Mayhap related to the Comneni placing what seems to me oddly low importance on retaking the Anatolian plateau from the Turks compared to confronting Latin rivals?)
Eastern influence could rhyme with this - the replacement of the Sassanids by the Arabs as the main eastern enemy would presumably reduce the pressure to maintain horse archery skills, while the increasing employment of Turks by the Abbasids from the 9th century would tend to increase it again. Then of course trajectories would diverge in the Comnenan period with the Seljuqs keeping emphasis on horse archers and dual-armed cavalry while the Byzantines appear to westernize.
(Mayhap related to the Comneni placing what seems to me oddly low importance on retaking the Anatolian plateau from the Turks compared to confronting Latin rivals?)
#8
Army Research / Re: Byzantine Heavy Cavalry
Last post by davidharvey1 - Jun 24, 2026, 05:26 PMPersonally, I find myself wondering whether the traditional narrative of Byzantine cavalry evolution may be a little too simple.
Looking at the tenth-century manuals, particularly those associated with the age of Nikephoros Phokas and John Tzimiskes, integrated archery appears absolutely central to Byzantine cavalry doctrine. Whether every cavalryman was genuinely proficient with both bow and lance is perhaps unlikely, but the ideal seems to have remained a force capable of combining missile fire, manoeuvre and shock action, plus different formations for detached skirmish and harrassment. For battle though where formations contained distinct ranks of archers and lancers, they were still intended to operate as a single tactical system.
What interests me is when and why this appears to change. My current understanding is that there is a gradual evolution from predominantly dual-armed cavalry, to mixed formations of specialist lancers and archers, and eventually towards cavalry whose primary battlefield role was shock combat with the lance. If that is broadly correct, the decisive period of change seems to have been the eleventh century, rather than as used to be thought gradual previous decline - though there would have been internal variation by geography and over time and by class/quality of troops.
The Norman and Lombard wars seem particularly relevant. Byzantine commanders increasingly encountered highly effective western heavy cavalry, while at the same time relying more on specialist horse archers from Pecheneg, Turkic and later Cuman backgrounds. It seems plausible that this may have encouraged greater specialisation rather than the older ideal of every cavalryman performing multiple functions.
A related question concerns horse armour. We have literary evidence for barded horses and I believe there are some archaeological finds from Constantinople, possibly from the later Komnenian period, which have been interpreted as horse armour. Is there comparable archaeological evidence from the tenth or eleventh centuries, or are we largely dependent on the manuals and artistic depictions?
There are also questions about army size with Sylvanne suggesting very large cavalry armes operating in the C10th. Add to that influence from the east, whether Arab or later Turkic which are often ignored.
Looking at the tenth-century manuals, particularly those associated with the age of Nikephoros Phokas and John Tzimiskes, integrated archery appears absolutely central to Byzantine cavalry doctrine. Whether every cavalryman was genuinely proficient with both bow and lance is perhaps unlikely, but the ideal seems to have remained a force capable of combining missile fire, manoeuvre and shock action, plus different formations for detached skirmish and harrassment. For battle though where formations contained distinct ranks of archers and lancers, they were still intended to operate as a single tactical system.
What interests me is when and why this appears to change. My current understanding is that there is a gradual evolution from predominantly dual-armed cavalry, to mixed formations of specialist lancers and archers, and eventually towards cavalry whose primary battlefield role was shock combat with the lance. If that is broadly correct, the decisive period of change seems to have been the eleventh century, rather than as used to be thought gradual previous decline - though there would have been internal variation by geography and over time and by class/quality of troops.
The Norman and Lombard wars seem particularly relevant. Byzantine commanders increasingly encountered highly effective western heavy cavalry, while at the same time relying more on specialist horse archers from Pecheneg, Turkic and later Cuman backgrounds. It seems plausible that this may have encouraged greater specialisation rather than the older ideal of every cavalryman performing multiple functions.
A related question concerns horse armour. We have literary evidence for barded horses and I believe there are some archaeological finds from Constantinople, possibly from the later Komnenian period, which have been interpreted as horse armour. Is there comparable archaeological evidence from the tenth or eleventh centuries, or are we largely dependent on the manuals and artistic depictions?
There are also questions about army size with Sylvanne suggesting very large cavalry armes operating in the C10th. Add to that influence from the east, whether Arab or later Turkic which are often ignored.
#9
Ancient and Medieval History / AI reading burned Herculaneum ...
Last post by Duncan Head - Jun 24, 2026, 04:52 PMhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/24/ai-read-papyrus-scroll-burnt-vesuvius-eruption
I suppose if here is any philosophy which can carry on being, well, philosophical, after being burned up by a volcano, then it would be Stoicism.
I suppose if here is any philosophy which can carry on being, well, philosophical, after being burned up by a volcano, then it would be Stoicism.
#10
Ancient and Medieval History / Supernatural meaning of mediae...
Last post by Duncan Head - Jun 24, 2026, 01:43 PMhttps://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2026/jun/24/game-of-stones-how-paintings-of-marble-reveal-a-world-of-magical-medieval-mysticism
A very unusual and intriguing sidelight on mediaeval and Renaissance art and thought.
A very unusual and intriguing sidelight on mediaeval and Renaissance art and thought.