Komnenan Byzantine List Typo?

[PaulByzan]

OK, so I'm going to forbear about the lack of superior troops in the Komnenan list versus every other list in Swords and Scimitars, but there must be an error in the number of Byantine Spearmen allowed. A total of 8 bases in total is unhistorically low. Whether they were protected or unprotected, average or poor, the one thing the Komnenans never had a shortage of was spear armed infantry. For example the medieval Cypriots who had only one island to draw on can have 30 bases of spearmen. Also, low is the number of archer bases and javelin armed light foot. In his successful retreat from Philomelium toward the end of his reign, Alexios Komnenos marched his army in a hollow formation with hundreds of refugees, not to mention the Byzantine cavalry in the center of the heavy infantry formation which successfully told off the Turkish attacks. This is confirmed by Anna Komnena's history and by Haldon's more modern Warfare State and Society in the Byzantine Empire. I'm assuming this is a typo hopefully? The armies of John Komnenus and Manuel would have had larger numbers than Alexios due to recovery of lost Anatolian territories.

Richard/Nik: Comments?

Paul Georgian

[davidharvey1]

Paul, Richard and Nik

I also think that there is much questionable interpretation and a lack of latitude in the Komnenon list, indeed it could have been written by a Frank! ; I am most interested in the army of Manuel I and will leave the earlier period to others!

I posted the following on the swords and scimitars strand:

If the Komnenon Byzantine list is anything to go by, it is a bit of a DBM rehash.

The only changes to the Komnenon Byzantine list from DBM first edition are those I suggested for DBM edition 2 about 8-9 years ago and since then thinking has moved on. Birkenmeir's Development of the Byzantine Army, together with study of both primary Byzantine sources (Kinnamos and Choniates) for the later C12th all question the FOG assumptions about:

the massive (and in the list) non optional predominance of mercenaries in the later C12th,
many elements of army composition and
options for ally and subject contingents.

At the very least the list should provide latitude for a more Byzantine composed alternative.

Now where do I post the details of the above arguments so that they will get a hearing?

It seems to me that this is the place for a debate over some of the following points. As I have time to extract from the sources and recent research and with busy job, family and other voluntary groups to run that might be over a few weeks, I'd suggest that there is evidence to debate / allow latitude in the later for:

a relatively lower proportion of mercenaries - the proportion of foreigners is a relative thing and today's British army is seen to have a large proportion of non uk citizens with Fijians, Ghurkhas, South Africans and Anzacs - about 10%, such a propo0rtion or say 20% may have seen a lot to the Franks, who never had a good word to say of the Romans (Greeks) with their different value system. The native sources talk primarily of Romans and mention foreign contingent by exception, even Choniates who is out to put the darkest colour on Manual's reign and suggests many foreigners notes many ordinary Greeks joining the army as pronoiers in the same paragraph as he mentions the foreigners who do so.

it is also worth considering whether many of the foreigners were formed in national units e.g. latinikon, Skythikon - there is some evidence to the contrary

a much higher proportion of native heavy cavalry even after 1150 - the sources refer to Romans most of the time and to non Roman contingents by exception e.g. Kinnamos's account of the battle of Semilin, there is no evidence for a reduction in the numberr of native troops.

both picked troops and troops around the emperor warranting the option for superior status; both are mentioned on several occasions

access to Serbian, Hungarians and Turkish subject contingents at various times

the use of so called shock or vanguard troops - including possible survival of the former procurastores light lancers or of some cavalry lancers combined with bow and spear peltests

regards


David


[/list][/list]

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks for your feedback. No it is not a typo. Your comments have been noted.

However, as you know, the book has been published - it will be quite a while before we will be considering revisions.

[PaulByzan]

Thanks for your feedback. No it is not a typo. Your comments have been noted.

However, as you know, the book has been published - it will be quite a while before we will be considering revisions.

Richard thanks for responding. Understand revised army books will not be issued. However could issues like this not be resolved by including such changes to specific army lists in updated revisions of the FOG Errata documents as they are published? Another method is to include changes to previous lists in upcoming army list books.

Finally, curious why this is not considered a typo. Birkemeier's book on The Development of the Komnenian Army makes it clear in Chapter 6 The Soldiers of the Komneni that infantry in large numbers were present in all battles and sieges and any silence on them in the sources is due the chroniclers natural tendency to concentrate on the "sexy" cavalry and mercenary elite units.

Paul Georgian

[nikgaukroger]

It isn't a typo because what is printed is what was intended - a typo would be where what is printed was not what was intended

As for changes, as Richard says that will have to be after the lists in development are published, so you're looking at late 2009 at the earliest at present.

[davidharvey1]

All

In these days of web communities, let's Paul and I make our cases and if the community thinks there is validity in what we say, a proposed alternative list might well get used and could potentially be picked up - and tested in turn - when the paper version is edieted /errated at a later date.

I suspect I am going to prepare a piece for Slingshot focussing on the interpretations of the later period, don't know if Paul wants to take a similar aporcah to the earlier one

best

David

[davidharvey1]

All

In these days of web communities, let's Paul and I make our cases and if the community thinks there is validity in what we say, a proposed alternative list might well get used and could potentially be picked up - and tested in turn - when the paper version is edieted /errated at a later date.

I suspect I am going to prepare a piece for Slingshot focussing on the interpretations of the later period, don't know if Paul wants to take a similar aporcah to the earlier one

best

David

[nikgaukroger]

Nowt wrong with that IMO.

[PaulByzan]

It isn't a typo because what is printed is what was intended - a typo would be where what is printed was not what was intended

As for changes, as Richard says that will have to be after the lists in development are published, so you're looking at late 2009 at the earliest at present.

OK, so 8 bases of spearmen is what was intended for Komnenan (and Post 4th Crusade) Byzantines. So then the question is why, when all the modern and source related evidence says they had large numbers of spearmen in their field armies? What reason did the list writers have for believing that only small numbers of Byzantine infantry existed? What's the logic, I'm missing?

Paul Georigan

[rbodleyscott]

There is no need to make this issue confrontational. We have said that we are willing to consider alterations to the list in the future.

[PaulByzan]

There is no need to make this issue confrontational. We have said that we are willing to consider alterations to the list in the future.

Sorry Richard, didn't mean to sound confrontational. Should have added a smiley. As one of my friends e-mailed me after reading my reply, he said "You really take the Byzantines too seriously". Appreciate your fair reply.

Paul Georgian

[pyrrhus]

well that is a real disappointment I was going to build a komnenian Army for these rules ,Well maybe next time .seems every rules hates them so makes alexios that much greater . till 2009 cross your fingers.

[carlos]

It's a pretty good list though, especially if you play against their historical enemies. You won't miss the heavy foot at all...

[nikgaukroger]

The later end of the Komnenan list is certainly very effective IMO. Alexios' army isn't as strong though

[pyrrhus]

perhaps I will be tempted but I already play pyrrhics and that seems to be a C rated army as well two might be too much