Wolves from the Sea - Byzantine's hard judged

[tadamson]

Nik

can the TNE strand be added here - would make life so much easier

I think it would be better elsewhere to be honest. Putting it on the official forum would give it spurious authority and lead to possibly unrealistic expectations about changes to lists - especially if contributors to the existing lists were minded to chip in.

Having it elsewhere means the information is preserved but it would be clear that it is an unofficial project - although it would no doubt be useful and appreciated should there be revisions.

Why not just ask on TNE if members are willing to expand the scope to include FoG? Most of us are primaraly historians, and you, Richard and others are regular members anyhow.

Tom..

[tadamson]

As for some other comments here, there are very strong historical arguments to let early milites etc dismount at will given how frequently they did it.


rgds,

Tom..

[davidharvey1]

Relying on a statement that all members of the select Fryd had to have chain mail coat is itself risky unless there is much corroborating evidence – I seem to remember that the sources from the reign of Ethelred the Unready are full of rules, requirements and regulations because men with various military duties were not fulfilling them and were not properly equipped etc

The two primary military sources for the first half of the C10th that give at least as much credence to armoured Byzantine skutatoi as the Anglo Saxon sources to armoured Fryd are the Leonis Imperator Tactica and the Sylloge Tacticorum. Both describe a much higher standard of protection for skutatoi than that described circa 1000, with front rank infantry as heavily armed as the heaviest cavalry and ideally all skutatoi with metal armour – this does not mean they all had this standard but is at least as strong as the Anglos Saxon evidence and has wider supporting corroborative evidence.

Metal armour was clearly much less common circa 1000 for Byzantine infantry – why? two theories – I suspect that the major expansion in the army circa 950 meant that armoured cavalry were the priority rather than the much more numerous infantry. I also wonder if, fighting Arab enemies, metal armour for infantry was found to offer that much of an additional advantage in the type of warfare encountered?

David

[tadamson]

Relying on a statement that all members of the select Fryd had to have chain mail coat is itself risky unless there is much corroborating evidence – I seem to remember that the sources from the reign of Ethelred the Unready are full of rules, requirements and regulations because men with various military duties were not fulfilling them and were not properly equipped etc

The two primary military sources for the first half of the C10th that give at least as much credence to armoured Byzantine skutatoi as the Anglo Saxon sources to armoured Fryd are the Leonis Imperator Tactica and the Sylloge Tacticorum. Both describe a much higher standard of protection for skutatoi than that described circa 1000, with front rank infantry as heavily armed as the heaviest cavalry and ideally all skutatoi with metal armour – this does not mean they all had this standard but is at least as strong as the Anglos Saxon evidence and has wider supporting corroborative evidence.

Metal armour was clearly much less common circa 1000 for Byzantine infantry – why? two theories – I suspect that the major expansion in the army circa 950 meant that armoured cavalry were the priority rather than the much more numerous infantry. I also wonder if, fighting Arab enemies, metal armour for infantry was found to offer that much of an additional advantage in the type of warfare encountered?

David

There was of course no such thing as the 'select fryd'. However, assuming that the lists refer to the '5 hide men' (a unit of land equivalent to 5 hides but without any individual owning 1 hide or more), we have men equipped as theigns, riding in the mounted warband (with the theigns, eorls etc...) and wit the same heriot. A theigns required equipment was helmet, mail, sword, 2 shields, 2 spears and 2 horses. If they are referring to a limited callout of the ceorls well the least of these men were free farmers with a hide of land (determined as enough to support the ceorl, his family, servants and slaves) and only a minimal equipment requirement (spear, shield and seax), but they were wealthy compared to most dark age infantry (though I suspect that protected would be more appropriate for them).


Tom..

[nikgaukroger]

There was of course no such thing as the 'select fryd'.

True, however, it is now so commonly used by gamers it seemed better to use it. The better read can then lecture their hapless opponents on this and, no doubt, get thumped for being a smart arse

However, assuming that the lists refer to the '5 hide men' (a unit of land equivalent to 5 hides but without any individual owning 1 hide or more), we have men equipped as theigns, riding in the mounted warband (with the theigns, eorls etc...) and wit the same heriot. A theigns required equipment was helmet, mail, sword, 2 shields, 2 spears and 2 horses.

You mean the sort of chaps we might call milites if they were continental?

[davidharvey1]

But how about the Byzantines and the Leonis Imperator Tactica and the Sylloge Tactourum......

Ok no response necessary, I'll leave these two heavy weight and unmined (in FOG terms) sources hanging.

David

[davidharvey1]

Nik said

I think it would be better elsewhere to be honest. Putting it on the official forum would give it spurious authority and lead to possibly unrealistic expectations about changes to lists - especially if contributors to the existing lists were minded to chip in.

Having it elsewhere means the information is preserved but it would be clear that it is an unofficial project - although it would no doubt be useful and appreciated should there be revisions.

An alternative point of view

Is n't there a real marketing advantage to putting this in house; here is a evolving project where the team are committed to continuous improvement improvements that would need enormous proof and due process with high hurdles eg proposals out for exposure for at least a year and approved as worthy of discussion by a moderators panel before ciculation as an exposure draft?

The thread would need clear terms and conditions to deal with your points above and time lines eg no action for 2 years.

Just becuase the discussion is here does not mean it has to be badged as official, but it does keep the traffic in the community . Yes hogh quality moderation would be needed

regards

David

[nikgaukroger]

But how about the Byzantines and the Leonis Imperator Tactica and the Sylloge Tactourum......

Ok no response necessary, I'll leave these two heavy weight and unmined (in FOG terms) sources hanging.

David

Ah, such misplaced certainty

Although to be fair as there is, as far as I am aware, no modern translations these have not been used as much as they might.

[nikgaukroger]

Nik said

I think it would be better elsewhere to be honest. Putting it on the official forum would give it spurious authority and lead to possibly unrealistic expectations about changes to lists - especially if contributors to the existing lists were minded to chip in.

Having it elsewhere means the information is preserved but it would be clear that it is an unofficial project - although it would no doubt be useful and appreciated should there be revisions.

An alternative point of view

Is n't there a real marketing advantage to putting this in house; here is a evolving project where the team are committed to continuous improvement improvements that would need enormous proof and due process with high hurdles eg proposals out for exposure for at least a year and approved as worthy of discussion by a moderators panel before ciculation as an exposure draft?

The thread would need clear terms and conditions to deal with your points above and time lines eg no action for 2 years.

Just becuase the discussion is here does not mean it has to be badged as official, but it does keep the traffic in the community . Yes hogh quality moderation would be needed

regards

David

I don't believe it is going to happen. IMO you'd be better directing your energy to getting something set up outside of this forum.

[davidharvey1]

Nik said

Ah, such misplaced certainty

Although to be fair as there is, as far as I am aware, no modern translations these have not been used as much as they might.

Not certainty, just reasonable and sceptical doubt - but this might leads to a discusion of Popper and one sided semi skeptisism

David

[nikgaukroger]

FWIW I think it is fair to say that we have generally followed/agree with Haldon's view of Leo.

[tadamson]

There was of course no such thing as the 'select fryd'.

True, however, it is now so commonly used by gamers it seemed better to use it. The better read can then lecture their hapless opponents on this and, no doubt, get thumped for being a smart arse

However, assuming that the lists refer to the '5 hide men' (a unit of land equivalent to 5 hides but without any individual owning 1 hide or more), we have men equipped as theigns, riding in the mounted warband (with the theigns, eorls etc...) and wit the same heriot. A theigns required equipment was helmet, mail, sword, 2 shields, 2 spears and 2 horses.

You mean the sort of chaps we might call milites if they were continental?

Most milites only had to have the one horse. But the English all dismounted at Hastings so they must be infantry

[nikgaukroger]

Most milites only had to have the one horse.

Well they couldn't help it being poor continentals rather than wealthy Englishmen

Actually there is a sort of serious point here. I think a lot of gamers have this view that anyone who wasn't a huscarl (we'll leave aside the mercenary huscarl thing here) was relatively poor and less well equipped than their mounted (we'll not go there just now either ) continental brethren, whereas, I understand, England was in fact possibly the wealthiest western country with the most monestarised economy west of Byzantium. There were very good reasons that Hardrada and William wanted it for themselves, not to mention Godwinson

[timmy1]

Unless my memory is failing me even more than usual, I have already requested and received permission for the TNE Yahoo group to be used for discussions of FoGR armies. The permission was explicitly for discussions of the type what is in an army and how it fights, rather than are Byzantine Bukolic lancers drilled superior, armoured, lance, dollymixtures, and Bow*.

Given that seems to be where the experts are, I would imagine that they would be most welcoming.

[tadamson]

Unless my memory is failing me even more than usual, I have already requested and received permission for the TNE Yahoo group to be used for discussions of FoGR armies. The permission was explicitly for discussions of the type what is in an army and how it fights, rather than are Byzantine Bukolic lancers drilled superior, armoured, lance, dollymixtures, and Bow*.

Given that seems to be where the experts are, I would imagine that they would be most welcoming.

When L (name hidden to protect the innocent) was in one of his "I only speak DBM" phases, IIR - (ok I forgot)

[bahdahbum]

I am rather a fan of he Nikephorian byzantine army and here I present my arguments :
Varangian guard :I do not understand why you wait 1042 to create the varangian guard as an drilled , armoured or heavily armoured unit . I know , 6.000 varanians were given in 988 to Basile II by Wladimir of Kiev. They serve as bodyguard and their strenght is still recorded as 6.000 in 999 . I can understand why they are at the beginning considered as undrileld , average, protected offensive spearmen . But years after in 1034, they are defined as : Palation Varangoi ( Varangian guard ) and also in the Re Militari of Nikephoros Ouranos ( C 990-1000).
Serving as the emperor’s bodyguard, it would be logical for them to be armored . Generally speaking, a ruler has a tendency to give a better equipment to his guard unit . The empire was rich and had access to good armor . so why wiould the imperial varangian guard unit NOT have access to such equipment . We must also take into account the fact that the varangians used as bodyguard would have to replace lost or damaged equipment, be it swords, shields or armor . It wold not take so long before they would be more byzantine like than russ like  .
Sagas around 1030 mention norsemen returning home with part of byzantine equipment / uniform which point to an organised unit .
They are dismissed in 1040 as a guard unit and come back in 1042 . ( sources Army of the dark ages 600-1066 , Ian Heath and Osprey 89 same author )
My question is , why are they not given status as Guard before 1042 ? the equipment is the same, they come back as guard after a palace revolution ...so I must admit I do not understand . I my own opinion, they could easely have achieved an drilled superior/elite status much earlier , let’s say 1000 AD .
They would have received a kind of uniform rather early . Byzantines were fond of uniforms and guards in red uniform , bearing axes are mentionned in 900 by a certain Haroun Ibn Yahya , so we might deduce it is the same uniform that was given to the varangians .
Let us consider antother elite unit, another historical period : 1789, french revolution , 1800, creation of the consular guard which will become in 1804 the imperial guard . In 15 years , an elite unit is created . 11 years latter it meets his fate at Waterloo . The origins of that guard unit lays in the conscript of 1789 ... a raw , untrained civilian .
So why could varangian warriors, nieuwly equiped with byzantine armour, not become a trained elite unit in say 10-20 years, why wait 1042 .... I am aware that since the publication of the osprey books, historians have found new elements, but I think not so much as to eliminate the varangian guard as an elite unit before 1042 . I would settle for 1000 , not 1042.

As Steven Lowe wrote
Varangian Equipment
As the Emperor’s bodyguard, the Varangian Guards would be expected to have helmet, armour, shield and a good weapon as a bare minimum, and those without them would have been supplied from the Imperial Armoury. And those who had their own gear would have gradually replaced it as equipment broke or wore out.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/egfroth ... Armour.htm

and by the same autor
Varangian Armour
It would be reasonable to assume that as Imperial bodyguards, the Varangians would be expected to wear armour in battle. If only for self-protection, the Emperor would want to ensure that those charged with keeping him alive were not killed themselves. However, it is unlikely that many new recruits had their own armour; in northern and western Europe, the recruitment pools from which these guardsmen came, it was scarce and expensive. It is my contention that the majority of new Varangian Guardsmen, arriving without armour, or even helmets, would have been supplied with Byzantine armour from the Imperial arsenal.

Another point of view I defended was : why not at least permit one unit of infantry to access to an armoured status ( 4 front bases ) to represent the tagmata and the real possibility that the tagmata had heavier first line infantry, the famous SHI of ancient WRG rules . I know FOG says that the armoured status of a unit is the average of the armour , but heavily armoured first ranks ( as says Leo ) and padded armor at the rear ranks might be considered as "armoured" . It seems to me that sometimes you are very open to interpretation, sometimes, much less Ok I might be in favor of a strongh byzantine army so what ...
Writing , as it was done in this post that allowing byzantine skutatoï to be armoured would be making them too strong makes me wonder : what about the armoured Ghaznavid spearmen ? . Aren’t they strong because they only have LF as rear support and not MF . The byzantine empire had the means to equip it’s army . So why would they have not done so . Anglo Saxons can have a lot of armoured sprearmen ( Wolves from the sea ) . Norman knights will have a real hard time against them but that does not seem to be be a problem contrary to armoured skutatoïs .
Finally the flankers : following byzantines strategy books, they would use up to two units of 500 cavalrymen , from whom about 80-100 would be bowmen, the others lancers . Lighly equipped and whose function would be to harass, ursue and trick the enemy to an early charge , which seems to indicate in terms of Fog an LH , lancer unit  .
OK , it is only my point of view and I will continue reading some books on the subject ( currently Warfare state and society in the Byzantine World b John Haldon )
Regards

Jacques Wilputte

[PaulByzan]

Jacques, you have hit the mark on every one of your points. Many of us have expressed these same arguments and the reaction seems to be nothing can be done at this time. It's fairly clear that the list authors of Decline and Fall and the probably the Byzantine list authors in other FoG army books (who are probably the same people) have very little interest (with the possible exception of Hammy) in Byzantine armies under the rules. The "home team" maximum flexibility advantages given to the Muslilm armies (which the list authors seem partial to for their personal use), the Anglo centered armies (understandable given where the rules writers originate) and the Sassanids (everyone loves Sassanids) contrasts strongly with the inflexibility allowed to the Byzantine lists. Oh well, we will soldier on with our handicapped Byzantine forces until the golden day when some revision to the lists may give us more viable Byzantine armies.

Paul G.

I am rather a fan of he Nikephorian byzantine army and here I present my arguments :
Varangian guard :I do not understand why you wait 1042 to create the varangian guard as an drilled , armoured or heavily armoured unit . I know , 6.000 varanians were given in 988 to Basile II by Wladimir of Kiev. They serve as bodyguard and their strenght is still recorded as 6.000 in 999 . I can understand why they are at the beginning considered as undrileld , average, protected offensive spearmen . But years after in 1034, they are defined as : Palation Varangoi ( Varangian guard ) and also in the Re Militari of Nikephoros Ouranos ( C 990-1000).
Serving as the emperor’s bodyguard, it would be logical for them to be armored . Generally speaking, a ruler has a tendency to give a better equipment to his guard unit . The empire was rich and had access to good armor . so why wiould the imperial varangian guard unit NOT have access to such equipment . We must also take into account the fact that the varangians used as bodyguard would have to replace lost or damaged equipment, be it swords, shields or armor . It wold not take so long before they would be more byzantine like than russ like  .
Sagas around 1030 mention norsemen returning home with part of byzantine equipment / uniform which point to an organised unit .
They are dismissed in 1040 as a guard unit and come back in 1042 . ( sources Army of the dark ages 600-1066 , Ian Heath and Osprey 89 same author )
My question is , why are they not given status as Guard before 1042 ? the equipment is the same, they come back as guard after a palace revolution ...so I must admit I do not understand . I my own opinion, they could easely have achieved an drilled superior/elite status much earlier , let’s say 1000 AD .
They would have received a kind of uniform rather early . Byzantines were fond of uniforms and guards in red uniform , bearing axes are mentionned in 900 by a certain Haroun Ibn Yahya , so we might deduce it is the same uniform that was given to the varangians .
Let us consider antother elite unit, another historical period : 1789, french revolution , 1800, creation of the consular guard which will become in 1804 the imperial guard . In 15 years , an elite unit is created . 11 years latter it meets his fate at Waterloo . The origins of that guard unit lays in the conscript of 1789 ... a raw , untrained civilian .
So why could varangian warriors, nieuwly equiped with byzantine armour, not become a trained elite unit in say 10-20 years, why wait 1042 .... I am aware that since the publication of the osprey books, historians have found new elements, but I think not so much as to eliminate the varangian guard as an elite unit before 1042 . I would settle for 1000 , not 1042.

As Steven Lowe wrote
Varangian Equipment
As the Emperor’s bodyguard, the Varangian Guards would be expected to have helmet, armour, shield and a good weapon as a bare minimum, and those without them would have been supplied from the Imperial Armoury. And those who had their own gear would have gradually replaced it as equipment broke or wore out.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/egfroth ... Armour.htm

and by the same autor
Varangian Armour
It would be reasonable to assume that as Imperial bodyguards, the Varangians would be expected to wear armour in battle. If only for self-protection, the Emperor would want to ensure that those charged with keeping him alive were not killed themselves. However, it is unlikely that many new recruits had their own armour; in northern and western Europe, the recruitment pools from which these guardsmen came, it was scarce and expensive. It is my contention that the majority of new Varangian Guardsmen, arriving without armour, or even helmets, would have been supplied with Byzantine armour from the Imperial arsenal.

Another point of view I defended was : why not at least permit one unit of infantry to access to an armoured status ( 4 front bases ) to represent the tagmata and the real possibility that the tagmata had heavier first line infantry, the famous SHI of ancient WRG rules . I know FOG says that the armoured status of a unit is the average of the armour , but heavily armoured first ranks ( as says Leo ) and padded armor at the rear ranks might be considered as "armoured" . It seems to me that sometimes you are very open to interpretation, sometimes, much less Ok I might be in favor of a strongh byzantine army so what ...
Writing , as it was done in this post that allowing byzantine skutatoï to be armoured would be making them too strong makes me wonder : what about the armoured Ghaznavid spearmen ? . Aren’t they strong because they only have LF as rear support and not MF . The byzantine empire had the means to equip it’s army . So why would they have not done so . Anglo Saxons can have a lot of armoured sprearmen ( Wolves from the sea ) . Norman knights will have a real hard time against them but that does not seem to be be a problem contrary to armoured skutatoïs .
Finally the flankers : following byzantines strategy books, they would use up to two units of 500 cavalrymen , from whom about 80-100 would be bowmen, the others lancers . Lighly equipped and whose function would be to harass, ursue and trick the enemy to an early charge , which seems to indicate in terms of Fog an LH , lancer unit  .
OK , it is only my point of view and I will continue reading some books on the subject ( currently Warfare state and society in the Byzantine World b John Haldon )
Regards

Jacques Wilputte

[hammy]

Interesting points on the Varangians and the date when they could be considered to be active. I suspect that what may be the issue here is that there is a tendancey in the lists to not have too many before and after dates in the same list so you don't get:

A = 1 before 300
A = 2 from 300
B = 3 before 320
B = 4 from 320
C = 5 before 332
C = 6 from 332
D = 7 between 321 and 328
D = 8 at other dates
etc.

FWIW I don't really think the Arab lists are that much more flexible than the Byzantines and still stand by my guns that FoG is the first set of rules that has ever had me seriously looking at buying a Byzantine army.

[rbodleyscott]

It's fairly clear that the list authors of Decline and Fall and the probably the Byzantine list authors in other FoG army books (who are probably the same people) have very little interest (with the possible exception of Hammy) in Byzantine armies under the rules.

Very far from the truth.

My domain name ("byzant.demon.co.uk") should give you a clue where my sympathies lie.

[bahdahbum]

I will use my byzantines , but I wanted to point out there was a possible discussion on a few very important details . Having too many dates "from/to" is not always the best thing . But in the case of the varangians, there is only ONE date to consider : when do we consider them being varangian GUARD . I am pretty sur if you say for exemple year 1000 AD , and give a few LH yopu will hear " almost" no more complains

I was also thinking about the role of the menvlatoi ( I write it from memory so sorry if I mispelled it ) . The historical rôle was to stop an healivy armored cavalry charge with a very big and strongh spear . The rules are as they are and so cannot cover every special case . But here, having them deployed as HI, protected, heavy weapon does not give them they rightfull role . I have not found any good solution to this .