Nikephorian Skutatoi ?

[Redpossum]

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.

If you had Zenobia shaking her hooters at you, you could accomplish miracles too!

And, uhh, what's TNE?

[Omar]

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

Well said... that, or a bibliography so I can go and look it up when I see a list and my first reaction is "ok, where the hell did THAT come from?"

[Redpossum]

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

Well said... that, or a bibliography so I can go and look it up when I see a list and my first reaction is "ok, where the hell did THAT come from?"

Right, Omar, but it's not going to be consistent, at least not in a sense of "this amount of equipment qualifies for Armored, and this lesser amount is Protected".

That's what they're saying about top-down design. Sometimes the rating is assigned not on the basis of equipment, but on the basis of how they need to play or perform to get historical behavior or results.

[PaulByzan]

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.

Oh, I believe we realize that only too well. The question is why? If you do not have lists to the same scale then what (or who) determines which armies are unfairly favored by scale creep? In a set of rules that is only geared for friendly historically compatible games this would not be such a problem, but in a game almost designed to be a major tournament set of rules, it is a major problem. FoG is an excellent set of rules, but lack of emphasis toward balanced army lists mitigates against fair playabiity. Yes I could just take the Kingdom of Aragon or Ghaznavids but like most gamers I have my historical favorites and one of them, alas for me, is Byzantines. And yes Nik I could provide you with documentation from the Armenian histories, Yahya's the Arab Historian's history which inlcudes Basil II's reign, and/or Genesios' History of the Emperors on the Thematic period, to bolster my points. I'd be happy to do so if there were any point. Can we assume an open-minded willingness to consider possible changes based on, as Delbruck so aptly put it ,"inherent military probabilty" backed up by historical sources?

Paul Georgian

[Omar]

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

Well said... that, or a bibliography so I can go and look it up when I see a list and my first reaction is "ok, where the hell did THAT come from?"

Right, Omar, but it's not going to be consistent, at least not in a sense of "this amount of equipment qualifies for Armored, and this lesser amount is Protected".

That's what they're saying about top-down design. Sometimes the rating is assigned not on the basis of equipment, but on the basis of how they need to play or perform to get historical behavior or results.

Ahh.. I must of missed that part. I guess that does make sense. But, some of the things just dont click with me. Why certain units are included in some lists doesnt really make sense, and it would help to know what the sources the designers used. The Contari of the Principate Roman list is a good example. Some of the decisions with the Byzantine lists has me scraching my head as well.

[SirGarnet]

I could provide you with documentation from the Armenian histories, Yahya's the Arab Historian's history which inlcudes Basil II's reign, and/or Genesios' History of the Emperors on the Thematic period, to bolster my points.

Paul Georgian

Paul, since the lists are Gospel only for tournament play, could you provide some of the very specific changes or additions that would improve the verisimilitude of informal Byzantine lists for non-tournament play (especially relating to the foot, as I understand there are design constraints for the mounted interaction)?

Thanks,

Mike

[nikgaukroger]

Can we assume an open-minded willingness to consider possible changes based on, as Delbruck so aptly put it ,"inherent military probabilty" backed up by historical sources?

Of course. I'm always interested in list stuff.

However, be realistic about when such may bear fruit - bluntly there will be no revised lists for years, it will all depend if and when Slitherine and Osprey think it is worthwhile.

BTW bored myself rigid reading Armenian histories when doing the lists - desperately dull IMO and often pure fiction (or perhaps more kindly, somewhat partial ), some useful stuff though, would be interested to see your take.

[PaulByzan]

Of course. I'm always interested in list stuff.

However, be realistic about when such may bear fruit - bluntly there will be no revised lists for years, it will all depend if and when Slitherine and Osprey think it is worthwhile.

BTW bored myself rigid reading Armenian histories when doing the lists - desperately dull IMO and often pure fiction (or perhaps more kindly, somewhat partial ), some useful stuff though, would be interested to see your take.

Oh, I perfectly understand that there maybe little immediate benefit but somehow these things tend to work out if enough people care. Already the latest FoG Errata contains several army list corrections.

Yes, for every Procopius or Agathias there are several more boring historians. Theophylact Simocatta wrote about the most fascinating time but his prose does not equal Procopius. Among the Armenian Historians, Matthew of Edessa is not too bad. As to whether they wrote fiction or were partial, they were certainly no more guilty of this than, say an Arab Historian like Tabari, whose writings seem to have been accepted without question. At any rate, for myself Yahya ibn Said is actually the most useful non-Byzantine source, since his history runs from 938AD to 1034AD, the height of the Nikephorian period. I've had a translation of his work from a Doctoral Disserttion done in 1977 by John Forsyth.

Paul G

[PaulByzan]

I could provide you with documentation from the Armenian histories, Yahya's the Arab Historian's history which inlcudes Basil II's reign, and/or Genesios' History of the Emperors on the Thematic period, to bolster my points.

Paul Georgian

Paul, since the lists are Gospel only for tournament play, could you provide some of the very specific changes or additions that would improve the verisimilitude of informal Byzantine lists for non-tournament play (especially relating to the foot, as I understand there are design constraints for the mounted interaction)?

Thanks,

Mike

Mike,

IMHO, tournament play is exactly why flexibility is important in army lists since they are such Gospel for those events. At any rate, I wouldn't change a list for a game friendly or otherwise, unless I were running a specific scenario. Basically, I'll suck up the unpalatable inflexibility of the Byzantine lists and somehow figure out how to get the most bang for the buck.

Paul G

[nikgaukroger]

Oh, I perfectly understand that there maybe little immediate benefit but somehow these things tend to work out if enough people care.

I look forward to reading your stuff then.

[Toms0lo]

Thank you all for your comments

What I retain from this is

- that there seemed to be some room for allowing Byzantine Skutatoi to be armoured for certain "wealthier" periods…

- there doesn't seem to be "common" approach to the army lists: some, like Roman armies, are allowed a wide panel of options for their main unit types (which is fine for me), while Byzantines, although more than closely related (they were called Romans by their contemporaries) received a more restricted treatment.

- as for "the game balance" argument, the picture doesn't seem better either. Instead of being an acceptable defensive line around which the cavalry can evolve, it is now a component you have to protect/hide from their contemporary opponents. Indeed one rank of protected def. spear backed-up by a rank of bow are now frontally exposed to their historical enemies:
- shooting horsemen (LH 2 ranks or Cav. 1 rank): both shoot on equal terms but should anything go wrong there is no way the skutatoi can escape the cavalry, the opposite not being true.
- armoured superior cavalry: shock equal PoAs, superior should compensate the archers in support. Following melees: Cav + PoA and Sup. vs Aver. for the Inf. So serious probability the Protected Skutatoi will eventually loose.

To the upcoming subjective related arguments like "we cannot please all approaches/interpretations" which are by essence impossible to address, I would like to remind that having major actors of Ancient/Medieval history completely disappear from the gaming table, as happened too often in the past, IS an OBJECTIVE failure of a rule set.

I'm also quite aware that (as explained by Nick) there is no way the army lists will be republished in any foreseeable future, but this should not prevent us making remarks/suggestions to help improve future versions/updates of a game I like very much and has allowed me to come back to the period after yearsss of frustration.

Thomas

[grahambriggs]

And, uhh, what's TNE?

TNE is a Yahoo! group that looks at army list issues for DBx (though for DBMM that is often done on the DBMM group). Lots of knowledgeable people on TNE.

[hammy]

I'm also quite aware that (as explained by Nick) there is no way the army lists will be republished in any foreseeable future, but this should not prevent us making remarks/suggestions to help improve future versions/updates of a game I like very much and has allowed me to come back to the period after yearsss of frustration.

Perhaps someone might consider putting together an article or articles for Slingshot poposing and justifying alternate interpretations of FoG armies. It happened for DBM armies so why not FoG.

[babyshark]

- as for "the game balance" argument, the picture doesn't seem better either. Instead of being an acceptable defensive line around which the cavalry can evolve, it is now a component you have to protect/hide from their contemporary opponents. Indeed one rank of protected def. spear backed-up by a rank of bow are now frontally exposed to their historical enemies:
- shooting horsemen (LH 2 ranks or Cav. 1 rank): both shoot on equal terms but should anything go wrong there is no way the skutatoi can escape the cavalry, the opposite not being true.
- armoured superior cavalry: shock equal PoAs, superior should compensate the archers in support. Following melees: Cav + PoA and Sup. vs Aver. for the Inf. So serious probability the Protected Skutatoi will eventually loose.

I do not think that these points ring true. First of all, a lot of the contemporary opponents also have significant amounts of protected defensive spear. Second, the D.Sp.+Bw combination will be fairly strong against mounted (shoots just as well, larger BG means that is it more resistant to enemy shooting). Third, should the cav charge home, the D.Sp. (if steady) cancel any lancer POA and, although likely down a POA (for heavier armor) in melee, will have more dice. One BG against one BG is by no means a guaranteed win for the cav.

And the Cav cost significantly more.

Surely it makes sense that the heavy foot should be less able to escape a losing fight than the mounted. If the protected D.Sp. eventually lose, well, their historical battlefield role was always in support of the mounted, not to be the decisive arm.

$.02,

Marc

[Toms0lo]

Third, should the cav charge home, the D.Sp. (if steady) cancel any lancer POA and, although likely down a POA (for heavier armor) in melee, will have more dice. One BG against one BG is by no means a guaranteed win for the cav.

Precisely ! As I said: Shock is even PoA but contemporary cav. is usually superior and successive melees are PoA+ for cav. on top of "superior". This is already quite favourable... And should the spearmen become disrupted than it's even PoA++... This is pure base to base (2 deep) calculation, no support, overlaps, flank or whatever which is circumstantial.

Point is with favourable odds like this, you will try to engage them frontally, would they be armoured (like the late crusader foot), you probably wouldn't.

You will never hear me say "guaranteed", I already played to many FoG games to know that there is no such thing as "guaranteed"...

Thomas

[batesmotel]

While I haven't thought about this at any length, I wonder if the right way to deploy the skutatoi would be in four ranks rather than 2 (for a BG of 8 ) in this situation. This would make the POA even for melee against superior armored cavalry. I know the archers in the third rank still shoot in this formation but don't remember if the 4th rank ones would as well (as a second shooting rank). Don't have my rules at hand to check that or the point cost per frontage of the four deep skutatoi versus the two rank superior armored cavalry. As I recall historical doctrine (but maybe earlier than Nikephorian) the Skutatoi were intended to fight in a deep formation of something like 16 ranks.

Chris

Third, should the cav charge home, the D.Sp. (if steady) cancel any lancer POA and, although likely down a POA (for heavier armor) in melee, will have more dice. One BG against one BG is by no means a guaranteed win for the cav.

Precisely ! As I said: Shock is even PoA but contemporary cav. is usually superior and successive melees are PoA+ for cav. on top of "superior". This is already quite favourable... And should the spearmen become disrupted than it's even PoA++... This is pure base to base (2 deep) calculation, no support, overlaps, flank or whatever which is circumstantial.

Point is with favourable odds like this, you will try to engage them frontally, would they be armoured (like the late crusader foot), you probably wouldn't.

You will never hear me say "guaranteed", I already played to many FoG games to know that there is no such thing as "guaranteed"...

Thomas

[hammy]

While I haven't thought about this at any length, I wonder if the right way to deploy the skutatoi would be in four ranks rather than 2 (for a BG of 8 ) in this situation. This would make the POA even for melee against superior armored cavalry. I know the archers in the third rank still shoot in this formation but don't remember if the 4th rank ones would as well (as a second shooting rank). Don't have my rules at hand to check that or the point cost per frontage of the four deep skutatoi versus the two rank superior armored cavalry. As I recall historical doctrine (but maybe earlier than Nikephorian) the Skutatoi were intended to fight in a deep formation of something like 16 ranks.

Which is I believe why the Nikephoprians are allowed BGs of 8 mixed spear and bow while crusaders and most others are only allowed 6s.

[ars_belli]

I have to admit that I do not own a copy of Decline and Fall, and Byzantine warfare falls well outside my norfmal area of interest. However, this discussion has aroused my curiosity. Which historical battles cannot be represented using the current FoG Nikephorian army list, and why not? Citation of supporting passages from historical sources would also be very helpful, and greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Scott

[batesmotel]

After checking my rules, it looks like only LF archers can shoot from a third rank so my suggestion for using skutatoi four deep is less useful than I thought. In this formation they would have no shooting as far as I can tell.

[PaulByzan]

Oh, I perfectly understand that there maybe little immediate benefit but somehow these things tend to work out if enough people care.

I look forward to reading your stuff then.

Well then let's start of with my favorite problem with the Byzantine army lists, namely the lack of LH in the Maurikian, Thematic and Nikephorian lists. We don't even need to go the sources since Eric McGeer's Sowing the Dragon's Teeth contains all the information needed to justify the option for regular Byzantine LH in at least the Nikephorian list. First, while the lists in Decline and Fall allow for Proukousatores and Outflankers, they are restricted to Cv mode and not allowed the option of being LH. However, as described in McGeer's book in both the translations their function is mainly as skirmishers, a function more akin to LH than Cv. This is especially accurate as some of them are armed as lancers but clearly acted as skirmishers, a role only allowed to lance armed LH in FoG.

Some quotes for backup:

From McGeer's translation of the The Taktika on tactical function of the Prokoursatores: Chap 57, para 5. "If the enemy is advancing toward our units, you, the commander of the army, must send ahead five hundred or three hundred cavalrymen--not heavy kataphraktoi, but light and elusive--the ones the ancients called proukoursatores. They must be wearing their klibania only, and should set ambushes (a set-up rule in FoG) if they get the chance..." Then: "When our prokoursatores, the cavalrymen, make initial contact with the enemy, join battle with them, and the alarm goes up...", Para 10 "If though, when our units approach the enemy formations, these enemy formations remain in place, the prokoursatores should then move forward and begin skirmishing to open the battle."

Can't think of a clearer possiblity that native LH in the form of the prokoursatores were a regular feature of the Byzantine army and that they were not just scouts but active battle participants as skirmishers, not as Cv.

Weapons and armour. Again the Tatika, Chap 61, para 2: Prokoursatores must be set apart, five hundred cavalrymen. There must be proficient archers among them, one hundred or 120 men, and the rest of them must all be lancers." Later in the chapter: "These prokoursatores should not have an assigned station like the cavalry divisions for the reason that they are the ones who begin skirmishing and open the battle."

Again, clearly a function that would have probably 4-12 stands, some division of lancers/archers, Protected, and possibly a case tha they should be allowed superior status at least in the Nikephorian period, judging from their performance against the Rus in the 971AD campaign

Next post, we'll discuss the outflankers. BTW, I knew Eric McGeer personally when he was writing his thesis that led to Sowing the Dragon's Teeth and we had many discussions regarding the Byzantine military. I attended his presentation on the Kataphraktoi at the
Byzantine Studies Conference at JHU in the early nineties. Great guy. Lost track of him since he returned to Canada after a stint teaching at Harvard where we became reaquainted and I took a class of his.

Paul Georgian