1. I am grateful to Anthony Kaldellis, Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, Scott Kennedy and the journal's anonymous reviewers, all of whom provided feedback that improved this article. I am especially indebted to my colleague Joseph Lipp for being the first to see through Procopius’ figured speech.
2. D. A. Graff, The Eurasian Way of War: Military Practice in seventh-century China and Byzantium (New York: Routledge, 2016), 56 inter alia.
3. Procopius. Wars, 1.1.6–16; ed. J. Haury, rev. G. Wirth, Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, 4 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1962–1964). All translations are my own.
4. Views inside this camp vary slightly, but all assume that Procopius is, to at least some extent, doing nothing more in this passage than reflecting contemporary realities. C. Whately argues that Procopius presents mounted archers as “soldiers par excellence” (Battles and Generals: Combat, Culture, and Didacticism in Procopius’ Wars [Leiden: Brill, 2016], 182–185). M. Petitjean argues against Kaldellis that the image of contemporary archers is a positive one (an incarnation of Romanitas and a Homeric figure) and accepts Procopius’ image of archers as accurate (“Classicisme, barbarie et guerre Romaine: l'image du cavalier dans le monde Romain tardif,” Antiquité tardive 22 [2014]: 255–262). G. Greatrex implies the accuracy of the image and, in any case, does not include a debate on the topic in his survey of Procopian scholarship (“Perceptions of Procopius in Recent Scholarship,” Histos 8 [2014]: 76–121 at 93–94). P. Rance accepts the image as well, though he argues that it likely reflects an elite bias against infantry (“Narses at the Battle of Taginae [Busta Gallorum] 552: Procopius and Sixth-Century Warfare,” Historia 54.4 [2005]: 424–472 at 428–429). M. Whitby, again contra Kaldellis, argues for the accuracy of the image (“War and State in Late Antiquity: Some Economic and Political Connections,” in Krieg—Gesellschaft—Institutionen: Beiträge zu einer vergleichenden Kriegsgeschichte, eds. B. Meißner, O. Schmitt and M. Sommer [Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2005], 355–386 at 360). In support of his argument, Whitby cites I. Syvänne, who accepts Procopius’ description without any comment or analysis (The Age of Hippotoxotai: Art of War in Roman Military Revival and Disaster (491–636) [Tampere: Tampere University Press, 2004], 44–45). The accuracy of Procopius’ description is likewise accepted by G. Breccia, who presents Procopius’ account as a defense against lingering prejudices (“L'Arco e la spada: Procopio e il nuovo esercito Bizantino,” Νέα Ῥώμη: Rivista di ricerche bizantinistiche 1 [2004]: 73–99). W. Kaegi also takes Procopius’ portrait as accurate (“Procopius the Military Historian,” Byzantinische Forschungen 15 [1990]: 53–86 at 69–72).
5. Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.1; ed. H.S. Jones and J.E. Powell, Thucydidis historiae, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942).