ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI
LAB. OF BUILDING MATERIALS
PROJECT: EC FORTMED
MONUMENT: CASTLE OF SERVIA
SUBJECT: FORTIFICATION AND WARRIORS
IN THE SOUTHERN BALKANS,
A D 1000-1500
Prepared by: Plutarchos L. Theocharides
Plutarchos L. Theocharides
FORTIFICATION AND WARRIORS IN THE SOUTHERN BALKANS,
A D 1000-1500
Byzantium, as the direct heir of the Easter Roman Empire, was also bearing
the Greco-roman tradition in military organization and methods of warfare. The
Byzantines, were copying, studying and working out the Hellenistic and Roman
military treatises on tactics, siege warfare and war technology. At the same time, new
military treatises were being complied, in contrast to what was the situation in
Western Europe, during the Early and High Middle Ages. These treatises were aiming
to a cool-headed and rational view of war, on the grounds of a knowledge that could
be gained also academically by the future administrative and military elite of the
Empire. However, Byzantium was never really advanced, in front of the ancient
fortification and siege warfare tradition, being more concerned with the preservation
of it, rather than with developing it. Crusedos mark, in general, a period of gradual
change, after which Byzantium was declining, while Western Europe was forwarding
to a technological vanguard, having made properly useful its long and close contact
with the East.
Control and defense of the vast Byzantine territory was made possible by a
series of interdependent fortification works, ranging form the imposing walls of the
large metropolitan cities, to the smaller military forts and the small fortification
protecting the rural estates, to the Balkan Poninsula, the walling of the two
metropolitan cities, Constantinople, capital of the empire, and Thessaloniki, was
already completed in Early Christian times and was maintained effective for a
thousand years, up to the Ottoman conquest. The last resistance of these two cities, in
1453 and 1430, respectively, was achieved from inside the walls and their outer
defensive lines, as they were planned and formed a thousand years before, in the 5th
century. This is, of course, an extreme example, indicative of the high effectiveness of
those enormous enterprises of the Eastern Roman Empire, which remained
outstanding, without any other similar fortification work in medieval Europe. In 1204,
the sight of Constantinople was a totally incredible spectacle for the eyes of the
westerners of the Fourth Crusade. The rest of the cities of Late Antiquity in the East
were gradually shrunk up to the 7th century, or were abandoned and replaced by new
and smaller urban centers (named “castra”), erected on steep and inaccessible sites to
control and defend the productive countryside, the roads, or the passages through the
mountainous country. Such a “castron” was the fortified town of Servia, controlling
the mountain passage from Western Macedonia to Thessaly.
The defense of fortifications against raids or long-lasting sieges, rested on the
size and the successive lines of obstacles they posed to the enemy. In military theory,
but also in cases like Constantinople and Thessaloniki, which were erected on plain
ground, outer circuits and ditches were necessary. These elements were also keeping
the siege machines of the enemy as far as possible from the main walls, particularly
wheeled siege – towers, the famous “helepolois” of the Hellenistic past. At the same
time, heavy artillery pieces installed on top of the tall towers of the city walls, were
intending to harm enemy’s siege equipment long before it reached the outer ditch. In
the case of the inaccessible “castra”-towns, however, as well as of the other forts of
the mountain passages (“kleisourai”), the decisive factor was the exact and proper
selection of the site for the erection of the stronghold. Byzantine military treatises
vividly describe this vital need for the discovery of the proper site, a hillside, having
steep slopes and even, if possible, being surrounded by a hardly dividable river, or an
isolated promontory, having one and only narrow access. All these particularities
were greatly reducing the significance of several hostile siege machinery. It is not
therefore strange that the topic, on which the majority of the Byzantine military
writers mainly insist, is the need for a careful preparation of the stronghold, in order
to stand a siege. That is, gathering of foodstuffs, equipment and raw materials to serve
for repairing or replacement of weapons and, also, for special constructions.
Specialized craftsmen should be also available, such as carpenters, weapon-makers,
tailors etc. A special attention was paid on ensuring water supply (mainly by cisterns
within the castle) and on methods of avoiding threaten on aqueducts or springs. There
are several cases where a water source was either incorporated in the enceinte by
means of a projecting wall, or was given a safe access by means of a built, hidden
corridor (fig. 1)
Siege warfare employed much of archery, assault on walls and gates with
battering rams and other devices, efforts to climb on the walls by wooden ladders or
wooden siege-towers, and, of course, all that action aiming to the failure of such
assaults. Inventiveness was of crucial importance, so engineers and skilled
construction workers, mainly carpenters, were making part of the expedition armies,
as well as of the defenders. The practice of tunneling for the collapse of walls and
towers, was much favored from the Late Roman period (when it is also testified
archeologically), up to the last siege and fall of Constantinople in 1453. This practice
was equally shared by the Middle East opponents of Byzantium, Sassanians, Arabs
and Turks. The besiegers were trying to undermine the walls, while the defenders
were digging to break into their mines and smoke or flood out the enemy.
The Byzantines favored several stone or arrow-shooting machines, like the
ancient-planned catapults and ballistae and, particularly, that kind of trebouchet,
which was rope – pulled and had an eastern origin. The ballista was shooting long and
heavy arrows and could be mounted within the chambers of the wall –towers, while
catapults were installed on the tower platforms. Large artillery of this kind had a rage
up to some 400 meters. The range of a large trebuchet of the rope – pulled kind,
should have been much smaller, but this machine was much more handy than the
catapults. Byzantine siege artillery included also incendiary weapons which were
shooting the Greek Fire. The study of Byzantine siege machinery faces, however, a
serious problem in the scarcity of relevant descriptions of actual (and not only
academicals) use of it, and in the lack of reliable pictorial information. Illuminated
manuscripts contain some evidence, but there is often the question of whether an
ancient pictorial source was simply copied, or whether an obscure, or even
exaggerated ancient invention was tried to be understood (fig. 2,3)
Similar is the problem, regarding the study of Byzantine armour. Armoured
warriors in the Balkans were, generally speaking, more heavily protected than their
eastern opponents, and less than their western ones. Yet, the serious lack of attested
material evidence, in contrast with the plenty of our knowledge on oriental and
western armour, poses a problem in the understanding and in reconstructing the
appearance and equipment of Byzantine armies. On the other hand, the numerous
pictorial sources (frescoes, illuminated manuscripts etc) share, most often, the
conservatism and stylization of Byzantine art, so that their use has to be done with
care )figs 3, 4)
The armies of the Easter Roman Empire had already developed the Roman
and Hellenistic heritage of armour, forced by the new and crucial circumstances of
Late Antiquity and being, seemingly, particularly influenced by their Iranian foes
Later on, Byzantine armour continued in shaping its own medieval aspect, sharing
much of the Early Medieval context valid also in Western Europe and being
influenced by the steppe peoples. Armor in the states of Bulgaria and Servia, which
were formed later in Byzantine territory, must have been developed within the same
context, as scarce archeological material demonstrates. Serbia had been influenced, in
a certain degree, more directly by western European practices.
Body armor consisted of iron helmet, mail corselet (or lamellar, or made of
scales), pieces for the protection of arms and legs, and shields of various types and
sizes (round, oval and kite shaped). Famous are the cataphract cavalry (all – armored
horsemen), armed with both face an bow. Horse – archery and the bow were specially
favored among the rest of medieval weaponry, listing lances, javelins, slings, swords,
maces and axes. From the 12th century onwards, the number and role of mercenary
troops was increased in the Byzantine armies, and also some western influence is
recorded, including the use of the portable crossbow. After 1204, when
Constantinople fell to the hands of the Crusaders and became the capital of a
temporary Latin state for 57 years, the Byzantine territory was partitioned in several
minor states. Their troops, consisting of a rich variety of warrior – types, were
overrunning the land during the turbulent 13th and 14th centuries, Byzantines from the
minor Greek states and afterwards from the Paleologan Empire of Constantinople,
Franks from the Latin states, Serbians and Bulgarians, and, together with all the
above, their mercenaries, being mainly western Europeans, Cumans (steppe – people
settled around Danube) and Turks (fig. 5, 6). Ottoman Turks grew rapidly during the
14the century and entered the scene dynamically, managing to dominate all over the
Balkans by the middle of the 15th century (fig. 7)
Cannon seem to have been introduced in the Balkans via the Adriatic coast,
and by the end of the 14th century are recorded to have been used in field action by
both Serbs and Ottoman Turks. Some years later, Ottomans started developing its use
in siege warfare, the example of the final siege of Constantinople in 1453 being the
most celebrated. The use of cannon caused a rapid evolution and radical change in the
planning of castles, yet, there wasn’t any more time for Byzantium to make use of
anything of all this development in fortification.
Figures
1. Plan of the Castron of Redina (after N.K. Moutsopoulos), with a built, covered
tunnei, going down from the great tower – keep (nr 1) to the water reservoirs
(nr 2) by the torreni
2. Battering ram on a tower – like siege machine, and a siege scaffolding with a
platform on top, in an 11th century manuscript (Vatican Library)
3. A rope – pulled trebuchet, in a 13th century manuscript (Madrid, National
Library)
4. Saints Mercunos and Artemios, in frescoes of the end of the 13th century
(church of the Protaton, Mount Athos)
5, 6. Reconstructions of armored warriors in the LKate Byzantine Balkans, 13th
and 14th centuries (after David Nicolle and Angus McBride)
7. Ottoman armor of the 15th century (metropolitan Museum, New York)
Bibliography
C. Foss, D. Winfield, Byzantine Fortifications, an Introduction, Pretoria 1986
F.W. Marsden, Greek and Roman Artilery, Oxford 1969
T. Kollias, Byzantinesche Wallan, Vienna 1988
D. Nicolle Hungary and the fall of Eastern Europe, 1000-1500, London 1988
P. L. Theocarides, “Hysteroromaika kai protobyzantina krane”, in Praktika tou A’
Diethnous Symposiou ke Kathemerine Zoe sto Byzantio,
Athens 1989, pp. 477-506