Customer Reviews

Byzantine Cavalryman C.900-1204 (Warrior)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Not to say that the infantryman of the period hadn't real importance; of course they had a vital role. But the author (and the manuals like strategikon or the Tactika) clearly shows us that Byzantine infantry of the time in study was a mobile fortress where the cavalry rallied and paused for the next attack. The author is a renowned academic and editor of a military medieval magazine that has a significant advantage of being an experienced reenactor and weaponsmith. The art by Giuseppe Rava is strong and full of passion like always (welcome to Osprey): detailed and accurate paintings.

From the sources of the recruits (Strateia and some garrisons, also from allied nations but integrated in the regular units), their maintenance, organization (Themes and Tagmas, and the subdivisions), training and experience of battle, the author gives a very good introduction. Not forgetting some issues that clearly are worth detailing a little bit more, like the several types of cavalryman: the archers, the Khoursores and the Katafraktoi and their evolution, weapons (subjects that the author has a great knowledge), and the very important questions of belief and moral (we must not forget that the eastern christhians had no concept of holy war...killing was a deadly sin in the eastern Roman empire).

Great book, with good art, photos, glossary and timeline. And the important reminder that the Byzantines and their neighbours considered themselves Romans (something that many forget that Byzantine empire is a quite "modern" idea from the XVI th century).

Osprey's `Warrior 139 - Byzantine Cavalryman c. 900 - 1204' is intended to be a companion volume to 2007's title on the Eastern Roman infantryman of this same period.

The author, an expert in medieval armor and combat techniques, presents a convincing portrait of the cavalry of the Eastern Empire. They played a diverse number of tactical roles - many were equipped for skirmishing or scouting missions, while others were equipped for close combat.

The Byzantines copied the fighting styles of Turkish cavalry - fighting unarmored and with composite bows - but not with the same great effect. The tradition of the kataphractos - the heavily equipped lancer dating (in the Roman Army) to at least the 2nd Century AD remained in tact up to the beginning of the Empire's terminal decline in the early 13th Century.

This is a detailed and highly recommendable look into the cavalrymen of the Byzantine Empire, examining both the armor and the personal life of the man that wore it; it is a well-researched source on the elite defenders of a declining Empire that faced enemies as diverse as Turkish tribesmen and Frankish crusaders.

Here Timothy Dawson has produced a follow-up volume to his 'Byzantine Infantryman'. As the title indicates, this concentrates on the cavalry arm of the Byzantine army. The main shortcoming of the previous volume was that it was highly theoretical and based largely on the 10th century military manuals with very little information on what actually happened as opposed to the theoretical version of events proposed in the military manuals. To be fair, most Byzantine chroniclers were more interested in campaigns than battles and thus the literature on military life is poor, but there are snippets available. This volume corrects that, and Dawson looks at a much wider range of literature, in part because more information is available on the cavalry, and in part because it seems that Dr. Dawson has become better acquainted with the material.

However, this volume has some serious flaws. It contains so many basic factual errors that I am forced to give it three stars. If it weren't for the fact that a number of renowned Byzantinists use Dawson's academic works on military equipment, I'd be inclined to never read anything of his again and drop it down to two stars. In this case, I suspect that Dawson does know what he is doing, but that does not excuse a sloppy book. For example, he claims that Constantine made a new imperial capital at Constantinople, but this is not the case. It was nothing more than a dynastic capital (see David Potter's `Roman Empire at Bay'). He also claims that Syria and Egypt fell due to religious dissatisfaction, but the situation is far more complicated than that, as Walter Kaegi has demonstrated. Dawson says in the text, despite contradicting his own chronological table, that Basil II took power in 975. He took power in 976. He also claims that civil war caused the loss of territory to the Turks after the battle of Manzikert in 1071, but Mark Whittow has demonstrated (in 'Alexios I Komnenos: Papers') that factionalism and the collapse of the thematic structures had a far greater impact. He also puts forward the idea that the archer/lancer unit as described in the 'Strategikon' of Maurikios were still active in the 10th century, but there is no evidence for this. I could go on, and if anyone wants further comments on the multitude of historical errors in this work, or wants to hear about some of the other ones that I have not mentioned here, please leave a comment on this review and I'll get back to you.

In sum, this book is rife with historical error, but represents a slight step forward for Dr. Dawson from his last book. Most of the mistakes could be cleared up by some better research, a proofread by a proper textual historian, and perhaps a better editor. This is not a bad book, but if you want to read, read it carefully, and use the good parts, like Dawson's research on the equipment, but ignore the rest.

As someone with a general interest in medieval military history, but without a deep knowledge of Byzantine military practice, I found this a useful overview. Dawson does a good job of discussing the available evidence, and provides a clear summary of how Byzantine cavalry units were (probably) recruited, trained, organized and deployed for battle. Dawson is particularly good in his detailed analysis of the cavalryman's armor and weaponry. The illustrations, both artist's re-creations and photos of period atifacts, are for the most part clear and complement the text. I would have liked to see a couple of 'case studies' of specific battles, to show in more detail how Byzantine cavalry tactics worked (or, on occasion, failed to work), but I realize that may not have been feasible due to the space limitations of the Warrior series format. My only real caveat is that Dawson has a tendency to say that something "must have been" thus-and-so, for example, "Ultimately...the sense of belonging must have fallen upon the institution of the army itself." Usually when he makes this sort of statement, he makes it clear that he's extraploting from limited historical evidence, and his conclusions seem generally reasonable, but statements like this, not always backed up by detailed discussion of the evidence (or lack thereof) still make me a little twitchy. Overall I think this is a worthwhile purchase for anyone interested in the subject.

As been noted in the other reviews of this book. This is a good investment for those who wish to extend their knowledge about the Elite of the Eastern Roman Empire Army. In clear , concise language the author lays out before the reader the Story about Byzantium's Horse Soldiers. I must also commend Osprey for it's improvements in illustrations since the its great loss of Mr. Mcbride. Well Done!

Timothy Dawson's latest book for the Osprey Warrior series, "Byzantine Cavalryman--c.900-1204" is solidly researched and contains a lot of information. If it were organized in a way that made it a bit easier to read, I would have added a star. Despite that fact, it is very worth having for anyone interested in the military history of the period.