Free Belisarius: The Last Roman General by Ian Hughes Page B

Unfortunately, the wooden shafts of these weapons have all rotted away, leaving only the metal heads behind. Without the shaft, the heads have probably been classified as either spear or javelin heads. It is likely that in order to work effectively, the shaft would need to be at least 8ft in length, otherwise it would be difficult to correctly balance the lance and have enough overlapping the head of the horse to make it a viable weapon frontally.
     
    Swords
     
    The style of sword used had also changed from earlier centuries. Three distinct new types are seen in the archaeological record. The first, the ‘Straubing/Nydam’ type was between 68 and 80cm long, and was less than 4.4cm in width. The second, the ‘Lauriacum/Hromowka’ type was only 55.5 to 65.5cm long, but had a width of up to 7.5cm. The final examples are of the double-edged ‘Avar’ type, and are much longer at 100 to 107cm. All had wood, bone and/or ivory hilts which have long since perished.
     
    Much has been made of the difference in sword types, yet the diversity can easily be ascribed to fashion or simple regional variations. Furthermore, due to their wide difference in styles, the idea has arisen that they were produced to face different troop types. This is extremely unlikely.
     
    Firstly, there would have been large logistical difficulties in ensuring that troops who may be faced by heavily armoured warriors, for example, had the correct style of sword. Secondly, the troops had to buy their own weapons: they would clearly not be willing to pay for two swords and carry both during a campaign, only deciding on the day of battle which they should use. This is clearly unrealistic. The most that needs to be said is that troops with the option would probably buy the one that they preferred – possibly with horsemen buying the longer Avar type to give them extra reach – but again it would come down to cost and personal preference.
     

     
    Bows
     
    Apart from the javelin, the main missile weapon was the bow. The Romans appear to have changed the bow in use at some point from around the second century onwards. Prior to this they had used the older ‘static-limb’ bows, usually deriving their power from the compression of the wooden fibres that formed the body of the bow. Later, they adopted the more powerful horn-composite reflex bows that had been developed on the steppes of Central Asia.
     
    The advantage of the new composite reflex bows is that they were more powerful than the older types whilst still being smooth and easy to fire. After the adoption of the new bow, the Romans (and then Byzantines) copied the Hunnic practice of concentrating on power and accuracy when firing, rather than using the Sasanid tactic of relying more on sheer volume of arrows delivered.
     
    The Byzantines also adopted the ‘up-to-date’ steppe and Central Asian fashions of an hour-glass or box-shaped quiver, allowing the cylindrical quiver to fade away. Again, this is where personal taste came in to which item of equipment should be bought; the same bow as the rest of the troops is likely to have been enforced for military reasons, the style of quiver was personal taste.
     
    At this point it is important to mention the extensive use of mercenary Hun units by the Byzantine army. Although in theory their use was simply an extension of the Byzantine conversion to horse archery, they had a formidable reputation as warriors and archers. This is mainly due to their adoption of the asymmetrical composite bow. Perceived as an adaptation for use by mounted bowmen, in the asymmetrical bow the lower limb is shorter than the upper limb. This results in a bow that is easier to fire from horseback, since the lower limb tends to make less contact and be less interfered with by the horse.
     
    Yet this does not take all of the known factors into account. Extensive research by modern bowyers and archers has established that, although the asymmetrical bow requires much more skill