Content area

Full Text

ABSTRACT

This article deals with the significance of asymmetric warfare in the mountainous terrain during the Byzantine-Arab Wars in the 10th century. De velitatione bellica (the primary source) remains a unique kind of theoretical work which stems from the author's own experience in minor engagements with enemy raids. The tactics described in the treatise are most likely the result of decades of evolution in frontier warfare on the mountainous Byzantine-Arab border. As such, they are an invaluable testament to the medieval understanding of asymmetric warfare. Thanks to the author of the treatise we know how the Romans/Byzantines repelled enemy invasions and halted the advance of large forces into their own territory. This makes De velitatione bellica a valuable resource, useful for the understanding of the 10th-century conflict between the Byzantine Empire and the Hamdanids.

Key words: Hamdanids, Byzantium, military treatises, De vellitatione bellica, assymetric warfare, the Phokas dynasty

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)

Since the earliest days of history there have been situations when a smaller force would face off against a numerically superior enemy. It wasn't uncommon for David to achieve victory over Goliath, but that always required extra effort and ingenuity from the weaker side. Usually, instead of rushing into a pitched battle, the defenders would look for ways to negate the advantages of the other army. One solution, favored particularly by the civilian population, was to lock oneself away behind strong fortifications,1 and if no suitable location was available, one could always seek refuge in the woods2 or in the mountains. However, in order to carry out active defense it was best to stay outside of fortified strongpoints. Only then was it possible to employ guerrilla tactics, to exhaust the enemy by launching constant attacks, disrupting communication lines, cutting off supplies and destroying smaller units. Today, military operations against a significantly stronger enemy are referred to as asymmetric warfare.3 In the antiquity and the middle ages there was no such distinction;4 it was a regular conflict fought with the assumption that a pitched battle would be too risky. Interestingly enough, the idea was usually to weaken the enemy enough to eventually force a decisive battle and destroy the opponent's manpower.

But sometimes small frontier conflicts evolved into permanent ho^ilities, without any...

Show less