Battle for Africa - The Defeat at Heliopolis

 

Roman Reenactors

The Beginning of the End 

for Roman Africa, Part II

What if . . . . ??????

In 425 BC the Greek playwright Aristophanes wrote:  "Ah! the Generals! they are numerous, but not good for much!"

So true.

Most generals appear to be vaguely aware that it is best to point their army in the general direction of an enemy. Beyond that "generalship" is often seriously lacking. The bulk of generals are little more than career bureaucrats who specialize in shining chairs with their asses. Add or take away one or two key generals out of any war and results can change radically.

A good example, take out U.S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman from the American Civil War and the South might have remained an independent nation.

So the question is, what if the invading Muslim Arabs had faced a younger Emperor Heraclius who had just crushed the Persian Empire? Facing him personally in the field at the peak of his powers as a general would have changed Middle East history.  Or what if the great early Muslim commander Khalid ibn al-Walid had died of food poisoning years before the Arab invasions had started?

History could have been very different. As it was the other Eastern Roman Generals showed modest to little talent. 

After successfully conquering Syria between 634 and 638, the Arabs turned their attention to Egypt. The attack on Africa took the Romans by surprise. Heraclius’s generals had advised him that the Muslims would need a generation to digest Persia before undertaking another wholesale conquest. The increasingly frail Emperor was forced to depend on his generals, and the result was complete disaster.

In 639, less than a year after the complete fall of the Sassanid Persian Empire, an army of some 4,000 commanded by Amr ibn al-A'as, under orders of Omar, began the invasion of the Diocese of Egypt. That relatively tiny force marched from Syria through El-Arish, easily took Farama, and from there proceeded to Bilbeis, where they were delayed for a month. But having captured Bilbeis, the Arabs moved again.

Egypt Was Conquered by Persia

In the early 600s, centuries of Roman rule in Egypt, Palestine and Syria came to a violent end with Persian armies invading and the lands being absorbed into the Persian Empire. For over 10 years the locals looked to Persia for their economy, laws, religious freedom and security. Constantinople and ties to Rome faded in the minds of an entire generation.

 In the summer of 629, the Persian troops began leaving Egypt and a fleet from Constantinople arrived at Alexandria to garrison the country with Roman troops.

But Roman authority in Egypt had been undermined by the 10 year rule of Persia and the religious freedom that came with it.

When the Muslims crossed into Egypt the local Coptic population was not very interested in defending an Empire that was crushing their freedom.

Roman Emperor Heraclius
Crowned Caesar Flavius Heraclius Augustus in 610. Latin was still the official language of the military and government. The Emperor faced invasions by Persians, Avars, Spanish Visigoths and Muslim Arabs. The Emperor personally commanded Roman troops in an invasion into the heart of Persia.  He crushed their Empire and forced Persian troops to evacuate the conquered Roman provinces of Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia.

Another 12,000 Muslim reinforcements were marching into Egypt to join with the 4,000 already there under Amr.. The smaller Arab force, commanded by a charismatic and tactically brilliant commander went behind enemy lines, and caused chaos all out of proportion to their size. 

The Roman commander Theodore had built up a considerable army of perhaps 20,000 men around the fortress of Babylon. 

Theodore had the opportunity to attack the smaller Arab army before the new army arrived. Instead out of fear? or excessive caution? Theodore remained inactive at Babylon.

The second army dispatched by Omar arrived at Heliopolis and began to lay siege to it. Amr retraced his route across the Nile River, and united his forces with those of the second army. They began to prepare for movement towards Alexandria – but scouts reported that Theodore and the Roman Army were finally on the move.

Why Theodore waited for the two smaller Arab armies to unite into one large army of 15,000 is not known. Perhaps Theodore was shamed by his officers for inaction.

Perhaps the morale of Theodore's troops was undermined by the reports of Arab victories against both the Persians and Romans in Syria and Mesopotamia. 

Heliopolis was a major city of ancient Egypt. It was the capital of the 13th or Heliopolite Nome of Lower Egypt and a major religious center.

The major surviving remnant of Heliopolis is the obelisk of the Temple of Ra-Atum erected by Senusret I of Dynasty XII. It still stands in its original position, now within Al-Masalla in Al-Matariyyah, Cairo.

Heliopolis is the Latinized form of the Greek name Hēlioúpolis (Ἡλιούπολις), meaning "City of the Sun".

Click to enlarge

Map from The Great Arab Conquests (1964)

by Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb, KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC

The Battle

So in July, 640 Theodore decided to march out of Babylon and take on the now united Arab force. He advanced across the plain to attack Heliopolis.

We do not know much about the Roman troops - how much cavalry, infantry or local militia for example.

What we do know is Amr fought a brilliant battle at Heliopolis. 

When the Roman Army began approaching, Amr divided his army into three separate units, with one detachment under the command of a trusted commander, Kharija. Under the cover of darkness this unit marched abruptly east to nearby hills, where they effectively hid. This unit was to remain there until the Romans had begun the battle, at which point they were to fall on the Roman flank or rear, whichever was more vulnerable. The second detachment Amr ordered to the south, which would be the direction the Romans would flee if the battle went badly.

The two Arab flanking parties had moved in the dark and were not seen by the Romans.

The two main armies met in desperate hand hand-to-hand combat. Once the Roman forces initiated contact with Amr's forces and commenced an attack, the detachment of Kharija attacked the Theodore's rear, which was completely unexpected by the Romans.

Theodore had not kept scouts out, or, if he had, he ignored their warning of the approaching Arab horsemen.

This attack from the rear created utter chaos among the Roman ranks. As Theodore's troops attempted to flee to the south, they were attacked by the third detachment, which had been placed there for just such a purpose. This completed the final break-down and defeat of the Roman army, which fled in all directions.

Theodore survived, but with only a tiny fragment of his army, while the remainder was killed or captured. Many survivors retreated to the Fortress of Babylon.

Aftermath

In the battle's aftermath, most of southern and central Egypt fell to Amr's forces. The defeat at Heliopolis was crucial, as it removed the last Roman force standing between the Islamic invaders and the heart of Egypt. However, not only did the Battle of Heliopolis leave Egypt practically defenseless.

The defeat encouraged the disaffected natives, most of whom were Monophysite Christians and had suffered on-and-off persecution at the hands of Constantinople, to rise up against their Roman oppressors.

Although the Eastern Empire was certainly by lineage the Roman Empire, its traditions, language, and ruling elite, by this time, were Greek. The Greeks of Egypt, whose numbers could scarcely equal a tenth of the native population, were overwhelmed by the universal defection of those same natives from obedience to the Roman Empire. As Bury wrote in the History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene:

”The Greeks had ever been hated, they were no longer feared: the magistrate fled from his tribunal, the bishop from his altar; and the distant garrisons were surprised or starved by the surrounding multitudes.”

Bishop John of Nikiu said, "And thereupon the Moslem made their entry into Nakius, and took possession, and finding no soldiers (to offer resistance), they proceeded to put to the sword all whom they found in the streets and in the churches, men, women, and infants, and they showed mercy to none. And after they had captured (this) city, they marched against other localities and sacked them and put all they found to the sword. And they came also to the city of Sa, and there they found Esqutaws and his people in a vineyard, and the Moslem seized them and put them to the sword.

Sir Walter Scott was correct when he said “the fate of Byzantine Africa was decided at the Battle of Heliopolis.” 

The permanent loss of the Egypt left the Roman Empire without an irreplaceable source of food and money.

Late Roman Reenactors

The East Roman Army was a direct continuation of the eastern portion of the Roman Army, from before the division of the empire. How the Eastern Roman soldiers dressed we know almost nothing.

During early Byzantine times, shields were recommended to be painted the same color in order to distinguish the troops. 

By the fifth century, soldiers were being paid in cash to purchase their own armor and equipment. This meant that a high degree of uniformity in appearance must have been unlikely.

Armor was non-standard. A soldier might have brought his grandfather's old armor & sword. Also, uniforms themselves were not a concept at that time. So colors of the tunics worn by different men in the same unit could vary.

mm

Photos from Magister Militum

The Beginning of the End 

for Roman Africa

Battle for Africa - Siege of Babylon, Egypt

(Heliopolis)    (Glubb, Great Arab Conquests)    (Heliopolis)

Late Roman Army Archers

 

From The Barcarii Facebook page

The Late Roman army used archers or sagittarii extensively in the infantry and cavalry units and these ranged from light all the way up to heavy units, often mixed or intermingled with the main troops or raised as dedicated sagittarii units.

In terms of the equipment used by a sagittarius, the main bow is generally understood to be the composite bow, sometimes referred to as the Hunnic bow, which used asymmetric limbs. The lower limb was the shorter of the two. This composite bow was reinforced with bone or antler laths - 2 on each limb and 2 more in the central grip. Few remains have survived in the archaeological finds and what has is invariably the laths - the wood and other perishable remains having long since rotted away.

These bows were common in the eastern portions of the Roman Empire and had a long tradition in the Nomadic, Syrian, Arab and other cultures. In the west, which did not have a strong bow tradition, the self-bow or ‘arcubus ligneis’ predominated, examples of which survive in the Nydam finds.

These were long bows with asymmetric nocks, sometimes with horn or iron tips or cordage bound about the limb - but not always. These bows were used in the Late Roman army as mainly training bows for the recruits until they were competent enough to progress onto the main composite bow as describe by Vegetius (Book 1, 15).

In this context, it is worth noting that the only Imperial or State fabrica dedicated to the manufacture of bows was located in the west at Pavia, indicating that the eastern portions of the Empire were manufacturing composite bows using local craftsmen in sufficient numbers that the army suppliers could purchase them in volume out with a fabrica need.

The quiver is represented on a number of illustrations, mosaics, carvings and statuary, often in mythological contexts. It is usually a leather tube with perhaps a wooden core, with sometimes a fringed decoration and a cap to protect the arrows from the weather.

The Nydam finds contain a wooden tube made of maple grooved to allow straps or fabric to be wound around for carrying. The position of the quiver is a matter of some debate.

Conventional opinion usually states that quivers were carried hung from the belt whereas back-slung quivers are relegated to mythology and not actually worn as such in warfare. However, various manuscript illustrations and carvings do show back-slung quivers which hint at a more complex situation.

As always, in reality, the needs and demands of the moment will outweigh convention or training and it might be that in a main battle-line or siege quivers were hung from the belt to aid drawing while skirmishing or hunting or on an extended march, they were then slung across the back so as to not impede movement.

The advantages of sagittarii in a naval or riverine context do not need to be overlaboured here. As Vegetius makes clear in his section on naval warfare, missile weapons predominate over ramming prior to boarding.

The images below show a variety of Late Roman archers using the composite bow and self-bow after the Nydam model. The composite bows on show here lack the bone or antler laths and are therefore anachronistic as far as is known. It is possible that the ‘arcubus ligneis’ referred to by Vegetius is not actually a self-bow after the Celtic or Germannic models but instead a lesser composite by lacking the laths and hence merely a wooden bow as understood by the Romans.

Recruits therefore train on this model before progressing to the more powerful Hunnic version. This, however, is speculation. Such a bow would not survive in the archaeological finds and so remains unknown.

The Barcarii