Nikephorian Skutatoi ?

[Toms0lo]

Hi all !

I was surprised to see that Nikephorian Skutatoi were not allowed as "Armoured". This contradicts everything I have read so far on the subject (general public I confess: osprey , WRG publ,...)

What is the rationale ?

Thomas

[nikgaukroger]

There are 2 extant Byzantine manuals from the period one attributed to Nikeforos Fokas and the other to a slightly later general, Nikeforos Ouranos, which is an update of this.

The manual describes the infantry in non-metallic armour.

The old WRG book by Heath and Osprey's use various pictures, mostly of military saints, as their sources and these almost certainly depict officers rather than the ordinary infantryman.

[Omar]

I disagree with Nik on this one, but I can see why they made the decision the way they did. The manuals do detail padded armor and shields. I want to say I read chain as well, but would have to go through my copy of "Sowing the Dragons Teeth" to confirm.

The "Super Heavy" infantry that Dr. Dawson describes in his Osprey title (and his webpage - http://www.levantia.com.au/military/h_infantry.html ) I suppose could be considered officers, rather than rank and file. Personally, I could see a unit of veteran troops being in armor of that sort, or at least chain (if the common troops among the crusaders had access to it, I would think the rank and file of the Empire would as well.. but after Manzikert, maybe not).

I think the best that can be said for the period and armor is that we are not 100% sure. Given what they had to go on that was in print, the description and instructions for the rank and file was not armored as described in the game.

But, thats just my view on it. I am finding myself doing some 'creative interpretation' of the units.

[Toms0lo]

Thanks for the quick reply both of you.

Yes I also wondered that later crusader infantry were given the benefice of the doubt.

Thomas

[hammy]

I suspect that the crusader infantry have the option to be armoured because of the various references to the innefectiveness of archery against them. I am sure most of us have read of infantry marching with a dozen arrows sticking out of thier armour and no significant negative effect. To get Crusader battles against Arabs to work the infantry really need to be armoured.

[Omar]

Its my belief that most byzantine troops would of been armored about the same as the crusaders. The later crusaders took some hints from the Byzantine and Arab allies/enemies with modifications to their gear.

The 'pincushion' effect is a neat story. It is (likely) a suit of chain covered by a padded vest/gambeson of some sort. Padding slows arrow so that the chain wont get penetrated, and then keeps it stuck there. We actually tried that once with real armor and such.

[philqw78]

Its my belief that

But obviously not the belief of the list writers.

But I have other evidence for this:

Actually I do a fair bit of work on the lists, just not too much of the
creative stuff of late

Hammy

Hmm? Creative!? I thought research was better!

Anyway I'm reasonably happy with the lists 'cos I'm a gamer who has learnt most of his history from gaming. Don't try to alter stuff because you are the same. I believe, except for Hammy's Welsh, the lists are well researched

[davidharvey1]

There was significant economic growth between 900 and 1150, the Empire of Manual I was probaly richer that that of Nicephoras Phokas and more able to armour its infantry

David

[PaulByzan]

There was significant economic growth between 900 and 1150, the Empire of Manual I was probaly richer that that of Nicephoras Phokas and more able to armour its infantry

David

Possibly, but it's far likelier that the Empire of Basil II was richer still than all of them and he fits in the early Nikephorian Period At any rate, rich or not the Komnenan army of Manuel I is not allowed armored spearmen either. The main problem with the Nikephorian and earlier Byzanitne lists is the inflexiblity in allowing anything but one possible interpretation. By contrast, the various Islamic lists are allowed most possible options in armor, training, morale and fighting style. It is unlikely that at least the richer themes couldn't provide some of their frontline infantry with metallic armour. Also, there is a distinct possibility that the combination of padded armour and large shields and the foulkon formation wouldn't count allow them to count as armoured. Some other examples of this inflexibility: Outflankers and Cursores in the Maruikian, Thematic and Nikephorian lists are not given the option to to operate as LH even though the tactical manuals show them operating as skirmishers as well as battle type ambushers depending on the tactical situation. One good point of the Maurikian list is the recognition that the Skutatoi could operate as MF in rough terrain situations. Yet despite the fact that infantry was probably more prevalent in Thematic and Nikephorian Byzantine armies, the Skutatoi in those lists have lost this ability. The Thematic and Nikephorian armies studied the Maurikian Manuals, had to face enemies in wooded or mountainous terrain and were able to adapt and handle it, but they are not given this option. A futher question is why the Rus and Varangian mercenaries of the early Nikephorian period are not given the option of being armoured, superior or most likely both. Daylami are allowed to be superior based on written descriptions of them as fierce fighters. Well the same terms are used to describe the Rus/Varangians, especially the 6000 who joined Basil II. These were his primary offensive infantry. Their fast moving (MF maybe?) ferocious assaults on Byzantine rebels in the 980"s and against Georgian foes around 1022 AD are indicative of a superior morale. Also, as Basil II's favored troops it's unlikely that Basil wouldn't have had them sufficiently proteted to at least have the option to be armoured. Just some observations.

Paul Georgian

[davidharvey1]

Work by Jonathan Harvey suggests substantial economic growth leading up to 1150 and that Anatolia may have been a dead weight on the economy under the Macedonian emperors.

However, at the risk of being repetative, Paul is right that the Byzantines get limited choice and many of their enemies complete flexibility and as noted before the Komnenian list is materially wrong as the sources show – as the moderators have suggested, some time I will find the time to provide the alternative list. Back to the C10th, metal armour was given as a choice by the source when available – even if it was an option only for a limited proportion of troops e.g. the Numeri the regiments defending the long walls, it seems a trifle directive and against the spirit of FOG to rule out any upgrades at all.

And, at the risk of being boring, no-one has yet offered a justification of why the – otherwise excellent - rules cannot cope with single rank Tagamatic cavalry (fought in 5 ranks and were effective, this equates to a single rank in FOG, but no-one is going to do this as a single rank is ineffective) . (This para with a large smile).

[hammy]

One key point that needs to be considered is that as far as FoG classification goes BGs will normally all have the same level of protection. The only exception being for light foot.

Swiss pike for example would have front rank troops that could fit armoured or even heavily armoured but by the back of the formation they would be lucky to be considered protected. As a result a number of formations are given an averaged level of protection so in the case of the Swiss they whole BG counts as protected.

[nikgaukroger]

as the moderators have suggested, some time I will find the time to provide the alternative list.

I really would like to see something like TNE done for FoG - TNE has proved very useful - you have to accept that there will be no replacement lists in the foreseeable, but it is a good way to get things lined up for the future by getting the evidence set out and the arguments in place.

[Omar]

Its my belief that

But obviously not the belief of the list writers.

So it seems.

In the end, the list is as it is, right or wrong. Play with what we have.

[PaulByzan]

One key point that needs to be considered is that as far as FoG classification goes BGs will normally all have the same level of protection. The only exception being for light foot.

Swiss pike for example would have front rank troops that could fit armoured or even heavily armoured but by the back of the formation they would be lucky to be considered protected. As a result a number of formations are given an averaged level of protection so in the case of the Swiss they whole BG counts as protected.

Couldn't agree more regarding mixed armour in most historical units. Frankly, except for Early Imperial Roman Legionaries, dismounted medieval knight units or special Guard units (Varangians, Caliphal bodyguards, etc), it's doubtful that any ancient or medieval units had the same level of armour for all their personnel. The Swiss Pike unit BG cited above lacks shields and the rear ranks are guys in shirts or hunting jerkins. Protected is a perfectly valid classification based on some protection from their pikes as well as the front rank armour. First Rate Byzantine Spear Units whose front rankers would have metallic mail or lamellar armour and rear ranks with padded fabric and large shields would certainly be better protected than the Swiss unit and the BG should be given the option of being counted as Armoured. Common sense indicates that a Crusader infantry unit or a line Daylami unit would have no more metallic armour within its ranks, than a first rate Byzantine Skoutatoi Unit of Basil II or his crack Varangian/Rus mercenaries, yet the crusader infantry or Daylami can count their BG's as armoured while the Byzantine BGs can only be protected. Something to consider from a list balance viewpoint.

Paul Georgian

[nikgaukroger]

Common sense indicates

A phrase that in list terms translates as "I have no evidence for this but I'd really like it in my army."

[davidharvey1]

I really would like to see something like TNE done for FoG - TNE has proved very useful - you have to accept that there will be no replacement lists in the foreseeable, but it is a good way to get things lined up for the future by getting the evidence set out and the arguments in place.

_________________
Nik Gaukroger

"Sacrificing minions: Is there any problem it can't solve?" - Xykon

"So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy!"

http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/




Nik

Rules systems and lists are ever evolving and with so many armies anything approaching perfection is impossible; but all in all a really good job done .

why not start with a TNE stream on this forum but with some tight rules on postings - debate continues on this army lists stream, but where a reasoned and detailed case for substantial revisions to army lists or new lists is presented on the army list stream ir can be transferred to the TNE stream. The criterai for the posting on the TNE stream is that the proponent of the change or addition must present a case which:

puts credible interpretations of evidence which are substantial and individually and collevtively cohernant, whether or not the moderators agree
place the interpretations in the current list into a zone of credible doubt that they might be either wrong or that the alternatives given should be broadened

The TNE stream can then become somthing like a wiki as discussion develops on the start point of reinterpretation.

regards


David

[Delbruck]

Common sense indicates

I think common sense really means inherent military probability.

Such as, it is more probable that Byzantine heavy infantry units were more heavily armored than feudal Georgian or Armenian infantry, and were at least as heavily armored as less well financed crusader infantry.

A phrase that in list terms translates as "I have no evidence for this but I'd really like it in my army."

Actually, I find the opposite to be true. The less evidence there is for an army the more options the army is given.

Example 1: the city-state of Palmyra is given more cataphracts and foot archers than the empire of Iran (which it was copying). These cataphracts must have magically sprung from the ground like the skeltons from the teeth of the Hydra, and just as quickly disappeared. Or the Palmyrans must have had a Manhattan style project to create such a powerful force in such a short time.

Example 2: the Nikephorian Byzantines have zero LH. The Early Sassanids are given 90 bases of LH, the logic being that the Sassanids were the succesors of the Parthians and the Parthians had a lot of light horse earlier in their history. I am not aware of any evidence that the Early Sassanids fought like the Parthians at Carrhae. On the contrary, I am under the impression they had difficulty dealing with horse archer type armies.

I think the only thing people are looking for is a consistent approach for all army lists.

[nikgaukroger]

Example 1: the city-state of Palmyra is given more cataphracts and foot archers than the empire of Iran (which it was copying). These cataphracts must have magically sprung from the ground like the skeltons from the teeth of the Hydra, and just as quickly disappeared. Or the Palmyrans must have had a Manhattan style project to create such a powerful force in such a short time.

Or you are failing to realise that, unfortunatly, the numbers in army lists are not absolute and lists are not necessarily to the same scale.

Example 2: the Nikephorian Byzantines have zero LH. The Early Sassanids are given 90 bases of LH, the logic being that the Sassanids were the succesors of the Parthians and the Parthians had a lot of light horse earlier in their history. I am not aware of any evidence that the Early Sassanids fought like the Parthians at Carrhae. On the contrary, I am under the impression they had difficulty dealing with horse archer type armies.

The problems they had were with the Hepthalites at a time when the Sasanid state was a bit shaky and the shah led the army headlong into a ditch ... When they recovered from this they beat the Hepthalites.

Alas, unlike the Nikeforians, we have pretty much zero direct evidence of the C3rd Sasanids, however, there is evidence of a serious change in their army in the first half of the C4th under Sapor II.

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

I like the idea of a FoG TNE.

We would need a separate thread per army discussed but that would seem to make sense. This might also evolve into something that list notes could be created from.

I really would like to see something like TNE done for FoG - TNE has proved very useful - you have to accept that there will be no replacement lists in the foreseeable, but it is a good way to get things lined up for the future by getting the evidence set out and the arguments in place.

_________________
Nik Gaukroger



Nik

Rules systems and lists are ever evolving and with so many armies anything approaching perfection is impossible; but all in all a really good job done .

why not start with a TNE stream on this forum but with some tight rules on postings - debate continues on this army lists stream, but where a reasoned and detailed case for substantial revisions to army lists or new lists is presented on the army list stream ir can be transferred to the TNE stream. The criterai for the posting on the TNE stream is that the proponent of the change or addition must present a case which:

puts credible interpretations of evidence which are substantial and individually and collevtively cohernant, whether or not the moderators agree
place the interpretations in the current list into a zone of credible doubt that they might be either wrong or that the alternatives given should be broadened

The TNE stream can then become somthing like a wiki as discussion develops on the start point of reinterpretation.

regards


David

Regards

[nikgaukroger]

Greetings

I like the idea of a FoG TNE.

We would need a separate thread per army discussed but that would seem to make sense. This might also evolve into something that list notes could be created from.

It would work best, I think, as a sub-forum within the Army Lists forum - seems logical. However, the version of the software currently used does not allow such nested sub-forums and I'm not keen to have another main forum opened up, however, its not really my call as to whether one is so ...