Wolves from the Sea - Byzantine's hard judged

[nikgaukroger]

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.

Why let the truth get in the way of a good whinge

As an aside on the performance of one Byzantine army under FoG having faced two Nikeforians with the Hamdanids it felt right to me and I thought the Nikes were the dominant army out of the two. Interestingly both the Nikes we played were the later version which IMO was actually to the Hamdanids benefit and we'd have been worse off against the earlier version. As this is pretty much a straight up historical match up (bar the little date thing) I was quite chuffed with the way it played out

[philqw78]

thinking about the role of the menavlatoi

Although its not standard, Defensive Spear, Heavy Weapon, may well have worked better for these.[/code]

[bahdahbum]

but the whole discussion is not about : is the army strongh enough or not but is it historically correct and my answer is : NO . There is a possibility ( a very very strongh one) that varangian guards would have been armoured or heavily armoured much sooner than 1042 , that the flankers should or could be LH and that the heavy infantry might at least partly be armoured . Why is it possible for some lists to be open to such possibilities , and not the nikes

There is enough to at least open that list to those possibilities , to another point of view . It makes it the army it seems it was . Now as it is it feels wrong to me and from what I read I am not the only one .

But I will play it .

[hammy]

Perhaps those who feel that there are issues with the lists should consider putting together articles for Slingshot that combine the source information and reasoning to produce an alternative list. Either that or start posting FoG thoughts on TNE.

[nikgaukroger]

Perhaps those who feel that there are issues with the lists should consider putting together articles for Slingshot that combine the source information and reasoning to produce an alternative list. Either that or start posting FoG thoughts on TNE.

Wish they would.

[Toms0lo]

Funny, whole discussion reminds of the one we had on the same subject in November...
Where "Later Crusader" infantry was mentioned as having been granted more flexibility than the Byzantines

There clearly seems to be an issue here

viewtopic.php?t=8732

Tom

[Redpossum]

OK, I'll bite.

What's TNE?

[nikgaukroger]

And in November encouragement was given for some TNE type affair - nothing has happened though Not as if it is hard to set up a Yahoo group or Wiki or similar if you can be bothered (and before somebody asks again it is not going to happen within this forum for reasons explained).

[nikgaukroger]

OK, I'll bite.

What's TNE?

Same as it was when you asked in the thread Tom just referred to

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.

[tadamson]

but the whole discussion is not about : is the army strongh enough or not but is it historically correct and my answer is : NO . There is a possibility ( a very very strongh one) that varangian guards would have been armoured or heavily armoured much sooner than 1042 , that the flankers should or could be LH and that the heavy infantry might at least partly be armoured . Why is it possible for some lists to be open to such possibilities , and not the nikes

There is enough to at least open that list to those possibilities , to another point of view . It makes it the army it seems it was . Now as it is it feels wrong to me and from what I read I am not the only one .

But I will play it .

Bring your suggestions to TNE but be prepared to explain FoG terms like 'armoured', 'protected' etc. most contributors are DBM types.

I'm not part of the FoG list mafia but I suspect the answers are likely to be...

Fist lot of Varangians: These are just a bunch of Rus warriors sent to fight for the empire (much like many other barbarians). They are palace troops (ie under central command) not palace guard. There is no reason to see them any different from other Rus.

Flankers: Just another, very small, bunch of lightly armoured horse archers. I dont recall any evidence suggesting that they were dispersed skirmishers.

The heavy infantry, IIRC should have some men with metal armour but many were just fabric and leather. Your best hope to get a base or so of 'armoured' is to dig up manuals or illustrations with a significant number of well armoured chaps as evidence to support your thesis.


supporting evidence is the key............

Tom..

[nikgaukroger]

Bring your suggestions to TNE but be prepared to explain FoG terms like 'armoured', 'protected' etc. most contributors are DBM types.

And as there is already some Byzantine stuff on the TNE wiki and in the files section you may find knowledgable people to discuss with and may know info that supports (or otherwise ) your assertions.

[tadamson]

Yahoo group:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Tab ... xercituum/

Wiki:
http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbwiki.com/FrontPage

and an example from a TNE contributor on Byzantines of the period...
http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbwiki.co ... ine%20list

[PaulByzan]

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.

Dang Richard, you're right. That's one of the first things I noticed from the original DBM days was how your tag and mine (PaulByzan) both had Byzan in it.

Why let the truth get in the way of a good whinge

As an aside on the performance of one Byzantine army under FoG having faced two Nikeforians with the Hamdanids it felt right to me and I thought the Nikes were the dominant army out of the two. Interestingly both the Nikes we played were the later version which IMO was actually to the Hamdanids benefit and we'd have been worse off against the earlier version. As this is pretty much a straight up historical match up (bar the little date thing) I was quite chuffed with the way it played out [/quote]

Now Nik as you know whining and moaning about the unfairness of this and that is one of the pillars of wargaming. What good would a game be if we couldn't disagree on things. One thing though, the FoG pro-Byzantine forces are formidable and massing huge amounts of research and logic in our favor. The struggle continues! As long as there are men like Jacques, David and myself fighting for them, the Byzantines will never surrender.

BTW, it's not interesting that the two Nike's you played were late period, it's logical. The late decline list is better under the rules than the early height of the empire list.

Finally, thought I knew every britishism but chuffed =?

Paul G

[nikgaukroger]

Finally, thought I knew every britishism but chuffed =?

Quite pleased.

See, we even offer an educational service here

And I'm sure we're looking forward to you posting a link to where you will be presenting you research.

[bahdahbum]

I had a look at that link :
http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbwiki.co ... ine%20list
It is very near my own point of view : a very distinct possibility that the varangian guard ( or it's equivalent ) existed before 1042.

But I have some remarks : why build up an alternative list as everything could be resolved very easely in the erratas :

- allow for the possibility, given the probabilities and historical texts , to upgrade 4-6 varangian mercenaries to varangian guard either armoured or heavily armoured , superior or elite earlier than now proposed .
- allow for the possibility that the flankers could be fielded as LH lancers . ( the byzantine treatise says one or two group of 500 men, lightly armoured with +/- 80 bowmen . their role being to goi to the ennemy and entice him to come towards the byzantine line or chase them )
- for the infantry ic could be max 4 HI INF armoured , but it is less important to me .

another remark : the real issue is why for some list , given the lack of evidence, are we so open minded and not for this list . Why for exemple do we allow for king arthur and his "knights" , why is it possible to field roman auxilliaries as HI or MF following the how we consider the auxilliaries being used , why in some other list some Szekler cavalry can be fielded LH or CV , Bow or Sw or SW/spear because we are unsure of how they worked ...
And I do not critisize the huge and magnificient work done by the autors, but it is time to express what I hear more and more often and I also think : in some cases some list were a bit "rushed" and it is time to rediscuss some list .

So will discussing the possibility of modiying the list be productive . Are the conceptors willing to hear and if yes under what exact terms . What do they need as evidence as there is more than enough and already discussed at lenght .

What evidence : historical texte compiled by Haldon, traductions from the tactica and other texts , historical latin, greek and muslims texts describing the varangians as wearing chainmail ( see http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbwiki.co ... ine%20list ), norse sagas describing in 1030 the return of former varangians guards, the only logic that bodyguards and imperial elite units would wear better equipment ...if that's not enough to be a distinct possibility , what is !

So what do the conceptors need !
And what would another long discussion on TNE bring

Honestly , to me, suggesting to open another discussion on a forum where that discussion has already been done years ago seems to me pointless . There is enough element for the conceptors to decide to amend or not the list .

So it is said, now let's get positive : is it wporth continuing discussing the subject

[rbodleyscott]

why build up an alternative list as everything could be resolved very easily in the erratas

Because, as has been stated before, the Errata sheet is only for typos and the like and is not going to be used as a back door for amending the lists.

Of course it is worth discussing the possible changes that may be made to future versions of the lists, but it will be some time before these appear in print.

The purpose of putting it on TNE (or equivalent) is so that the discussions don't get forgotten by the time a 2nd edition is being produced. The list team is still working on forthcoming books and does not at present have the time to codify suggested future revisions.

In addition to the Yahoo list, TNE has a wiki on which list proposals can be permanently posted for future reference. We made much use of these in devising various FOG lists.

So if you are serious about wanting revised lists in due course, you have been advised how to go about it.

[nikgaukroger]

But I have some remarks : why build up an alternative list as everything could be resolved very easely in the erratas :

OK, to repeat for the hard of reading - the errata are not going to be used to rewrite lists. Your ideas are a rewrite not errata and it isn't going to happen. The onwners and publishers are not into that. I hope that is clear enough.

Therefore, it has been suggested that in order for your thoughts to be available should the lists be rewritten some years down the line that these thoughts are put into something akin to TNE, maybe in the form of an alternative list, so that it is available to whomever undertakes that. TNE has shown how useful that approach is. Or you can choose not to - your choice really. I very much hope you do choose to do so - I'm a list junkie and may even want to comment.

[WhiteKnight]

I'm still unsure about all this!

On the one hand, the compilers of the FoG army lists have clearly done extensive research and produced lists which are primarily for competitive gaming. They don't suggest that their lists represent what specific armies in specific battles were made up of...we often don't know anyway. All they have done is suggest what a typical army of its kind might have looked like and given a bit of choice and latitude of interpretation without overcomplicating or allowing for the construction of "superarmies". There will always be cases where a meticulously researched army fails to fit within a published games-focussed list.

On the other hand, some armies in the FoG list books have some "colour" added to them, sometimes in the interests of those who already have armies of a particular type or based in a particular way, sometimes to show a commitment to a theoretical possibility. Therefore, I have some sympathy with those who would claim that the standards of verification of sources have not been equally applied to each list.

Ideally, each list should have been accompanied by a bibliography/references so readers can check the interpretations of the sources that led the authors to their conclusions, but I guess that would have increased costs a little and delayed publications further.

I can't quote verbatim, but thinking back to the first ancients army list book I ever saw, probably around 1975-80, it said something like.....lists were first designed and published to prevent gamesmanship and totally unrepresentative armies taking the table and to promote some degree of trust between players. If a player's army differed from the published list, you were entitled to ask why the army's owner had come to that view and take him on his merits. After all, it was possible that the player had more information about a specific army than the list compiler, or had an equally valid but different interpretation of the sources.

Not sure where that leaves us! Maybe in competitions, we must live with lists as published until revisions are officially sanctionned...you enter the competitive FoG world, you play by the rules and lists! However, outside of that, anyone is at liberty to adapt lists ( and rules, too if you wish) as suits themselves and the people they game with?

Martin

[nikgaukroger]

Not sure where that leaves us! Maybe in competitions, we must live with lists as published until revisions are officially sanctionned...you enter the competitive FoG world, you play by the rules and lists! However, outside of that, anyone is at liberty to adapt lists ( and rules, too if you wish) as suits themselves and the people they game with?

Martin

What consenting gamers do on their games tables is up to them.

[PaulByzan]

Moderator edit - I wish people would review what they post to see that the formatting is correct. I have tidied this one up.

Bring your suggestions to TNE but be prepared to explain FoG terms like 'armoured', 'protected' etc. most contributors are DBM types.

I'm not part of the FoG list mafia but I suspect the answers are likely to be...

Fist lot of Varangians: These are just a bunch of Rus warriors sent to fight for the empire (much like many other barbarians). They are palace troops (ie under central command) not palace guard. There is no reason to see them any different from other Rus.

Flankers: Just another, very small, bunch of lightly armoured horse archers. I dont recall any evidence suggesting that they were dispersed skirmishers.

The heavy infantry, IIRC should have some men with metal armour but many were just fabric and leather. Your best hope to get a base or so of 'armoured' is to dig up manuals or illustrations with a significant number of well armoured chaps as evidence to support your thesis.


supporting evidence is the key............

Tom..

IMHO, sharing a TNE with DBMers doesn't seem to be the best idea. Anyone still playing DBM is suspect on general principles. We should probably try to get a FoG one.

Palace Troops are not Palace Guard. Yeah, Ok I'll buy that. However since I if I'm a Byzantine Emperor I expect my Palace Troops to fight in the field agains nasties with bows, javelins and spears, while my Palace Guard stays behind in my Palace looking pretty, I'm sure as hell gonna give the best armor available to my field troops. Also, they were not Rus, they were mostly Swedish Viking types who the Kievan Duke found too pricey for his wallet so gave them to Basil who could both pay and equip them. Their battle honors under Basil II and his successors should also classify them as Superior status.

OK, so you want supporting evidence of the outflankers as skirmishers, here you go:

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, Klibania and shield would rate them as 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

Yes, not all Byzantine infantry had metal armor, etc. All Jacque, David and I are asking for is consistency of allowabiity in the army books. Where is the "supporting evidence" that any Daylami unit ever had all metal armor or that the Anglo Saxon select fyrd or any Moslem infantry unit had all metal armor but those BGs are allowed the Options. In the late Thematic and Nikephorian periods, the Byzantine formed small Themes called Kleiseraurchies (sp) which were basically forces guarding frontier mountain passes into and out of Anatolia. Most of those troops were infantry as made sense for that kind of duty and their is at least as much logic for them to be more heavily armored than their counterparts in the more secure inner themes where the bulk of the cavalry was.

Paul G