Thematic and Nikephorian Byzantine infantry

[nikgaukroger]

David Harvey raised this point that applies to both these lists:

all later byzantine spearman protected with no option to upgrade in any way, even for the 4000 strong Numeri;

[bahdahbum]

The praecepta militaria and the taktika speak only of coarse silk and coitton which point to padded armor . But in the works of Ian heath we find many representations of armoured soldiers and not only officiers .( ivory panels or caskets and so on ) .

Even Thimoty dawson in his book Byzantine Infantryman 900-1204 ( Osprey Warrior 118 ) writes pg 22" : mail was just asubiquitous in thr Eastern Roman Empire as it was in the medieval West . The generic type of a pull-on shirt nding somewhere on the thigh with elbow-lenght sleeves was the norm for infantry across the period here as well. So is it akin to the saxons and the select fyrd ( all are armoured ), the protected infantry of the normans or armoured Thegns . Byzantium was a rich country in the 10 and 11th century .

There is also mention of Scale armor and Lamellar Armor .

That does not mean that all soldiers were equipped with heavy armour . It was intended for them to be heavily equiped but surely it was not possible for every regiment to be well equiped . Some thematic regiments will surely have only no heavy armour , but other yes .

It is generally accepted that only the first ranks would be armoured with mail or even vambraces and greaves .

The praecepta militaria and the taktika explain that the infantry should be deployed in 7 rankes . The 2 first ranks being heavy infantry, followed by 3 ranks of bowmen and another 2 ranks of heavy infantry .

So it is far from impossible that our byzantine infantryman could be upgraded as being armoured in FOG , the second rank remaining protected .

My proposal is to allow an upgrade for 4-8 bases ( defensive spearmen ) to armoured in order to cover for this possibility .

Concerning the Numeri regiment, being part of the tagmata , it surely should be upgraded as it was part of the professionnal army but from what I read it seems that contrary to varangians , the Numeri regiment stayed as a garrison unit at Byzantium .

[rbodleyscott]

So it is far from impossible that our byzantine infantryman could be upgraded as being armoured in FOG , the second rank remaining protected.

I think that this statement indicates that we are talking at cross-purposes. We are well aware that Byzantine front rankers were armoured. That isn't in dispute.

However, it is against FOG policy to have front and rear rank bases of different armour class unless the rear rank is an entirely different troop type - and not even for HF/MF mixes.

Protected is the widest armour class category, covering a wide range of protection levels. In particular, foot battle groups with metal armoured front ranks and textile/leather armoured back ranks are treated as Protected.

We have written the army lists to a set of such criteria, not all of which are explicitly specified in the rule book. You may not agree with that policy, but it remains the policy.

That is why Byzantine infantry are graded as Protected. The same applies to Swiss pikemen and many other troops.

[bahdahbum]

For me the second rank bowmen is a different type of troop . But I bow to the policy of the rules but then :
Anglo Saxon select fyrds had a mix of padded armor and mail so why are they all armoured

[david53]

So it is far from impossible that our byzantine infantryman could be upgraded as being armoured in FOG , the second rank remaining protected.

I think that this statement indicates that we are talking at cross-purposes. We are well aware that Byzantine front rankers were armoured. That isn't in dispute.

However, it is against FOG policy to have front and rear rank bases of different armour class unless the rear rank is an entirely different troop type - and not even for HF/MF mixes.

Protected is the widest armour class category, covering a wide range of protection levels. In particular, foot battle groups with metal armoured front ranks and textile/leather armoured back ranks are treated as Protected.

We have written the army lists to a set of such criteria, not all of which are explicitly specified in the rule book. You may not agree with that policy, but it remains the policy.

That is why Byzantine infantry are graded as Protected. The same applies to Swiss pikemen and many other troops.

That being the case then why are the Dailami medium infantry granted the ability to be all armoured considering their empires technological advances compared with the Byzantine empire.

[philqw78]

their empires technological advances compared with the Byzantine empire.

Were the Byzantines more technologically advanced? I doubt it, they were probably behind in a lot of areas. And the technology for armour had been around for a while anyway so is irrelevant.

[nikgaukroger]

their empires technological advances compared with the Byzantine empire.

Were the Byzantines more technologically advanced? I doubt it, they were probably behind in a lot of areas. And the technology for armour had been around for a while anyway so is irrelevant.

Quite so - also what may be tecnologically possible/available is not the question it is what was actually used.

[bahdahbum]

That still doesn't answer my question : anglo-saxon fyrd , even select fyrd was not all equiped with chainmail, so why are they considered armoured and up to 40 bases ?

Concerning technology, the byzantines were in advance . They had a lamellar armor much strongher than chainmail ( not for every soldier ) .

[nikgaukroger]

That still doesn't answer my question : anglo-saxon fyrd , even select fyrd was not all equiped with chainmail, so why are they considered armoured and up to 40 bases ?

To repeat, yet again , a formation does not need to be wholly mail (or similar) equipped to count as Armoured, just a high enough proportion - which IMO the Byzantines did not have from the evidence I have seen, and nothing posted so far has changed my mind on that.

Concerning technology, the byzantines were in advance . They had a lamellar armor much strongher than chainmail ( not for every soldier ) .

In advance of whom? Anyway there is no distinction in the rules between mail and lamellar so that is irrelevant.

[bahdahbum]

Concerning armor : Dear Nick, I know there is no difference in "armour" if it is chainmail, scale mail or lamellar . What I wanted to say and was rather "short" in explaining is that the byzantine had develloped a kind of lamellar armor that seemed to be superior to other armor of that time and will devellop as a kind of brigandine . ( From Timothy Dawson's works ) . I remember also reading something in Ana Komnena's works something about the armor of the klibanophoroï being so hard that the normans could not pearce trough it but it might be propaganda .

Still from Timothy Dawson, it seems hat latter, lamellar armor was mor widespread and so in 12th century , infantrymen were more heavily armored and so , komnenan might have some armoured infantry ( as should nikephorians )

For the anglo-saxon fyrd as there is NO ecidence that the select fyrd was equiped with chainmail, I do not see why they are classified "armoured" . That might be another discussion but bear in mind : only 2 byrnies have been found and the only source mentionning mail are the sagas . It seem that around 1066, only the huscrals were really fully equiped with mail ( the anglo-saxon thegn from Osprey and Anglo-Saxon , weapons and Warfare, Richard Underwood )

[nikgaukroger]

only 2 byrnies have been found and the only source mentionning mail are the sagas .

Damn! Those accounts of heriots and the Law of Wergeld mentioning coats of mail from the C11th must be forgeries then, fooled a lot of academics along the way ...

OK, more seriously they are also mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle a few times as well I believe. Certainly more than just sagas.

The sources you've got seem to be missing some important, and mostly secure, evidence I'm afraid - at least as far as I can tell, but I wouldn't claim to be too well read on this.

Anyway, if you wish to continue analysis of Anglo-Danish fyrd it might better be done under its own topic as you suggest.

[PaulByzan]

their empires technological advances compared with the Byzantine empire.

Were the Byzantines more technologically advanced? I doubt it, they were probably behind in a lot of areas. And the technology for armour had been around for a while anyway so is irrelevant.

Quite so - also what may be tecnologically possible/available is not the question it is what was actually used.

OK, Nik let's take it for granted that the Byzantines, Rus, Muslim states, essentially every even semi-organized military of the 10th-11th centuries knew how to make and use metallic armor of one type or another more or less with equal skill. How can you categorically state that enough soldiers in a Daylami unit or a Ghaznavid infantry unit were so equipped so that the list authors knew "what was actually used" for those troop types and could allow it for those list. What is the absolute proof the list authors had (which you demand from those who are suggesting alternatives for the Byzantines) that determined that all Daylami infantry could be armored. I'm unaware of anything that could be so absolutely convincing, that it's a certainty, so I'm curious what the basis of the evidence was.

Paul G.

[PaulByzan]

only 2 byrnies have been found and the only source mentionning mail are the sagas .

Damn! Those accounts of heriots and the Law of Wergeld mentioning coats of mail from the C11th must be forgeries then, fooled a lot of academics along the way ...

OK, more seriously they are also mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle a few times as well I believe. Certainly more than just sagas.

The sources you've got seem to be missing some important, and mostly secure, evidence I'm afraid - at least as far as I can tell, but I wouldn't claim to be too well read on this.

Anyway, if you wish to continue analysis of Anglo-Danish fyrd it might better be done under its own topic as you suggest.

Well, unfortunately what is in histories and laws and manuals often is an ideal resulting from the wishful thinking of the men who authored such documents. This is BTW not a condition exclusive to the ancient and medieval worlds. The armies described in many WW II field manuals bore little resemblance to the neat and tidy descriptions, following lengthy combat action.

However, in FoG we are dealing with a game not reality. Allowing reasonable alternatives based on manuals, histories and chronicles is fine as long as it applied consistently throughout the lists. IMHO, it has not been to this point. I have no issue with an interpretation allowing Anglo Saxon Select Fyrd or Daylamis to have armoured units based on idealilzed documents that may or may not have a basis in reality, so long as other lists (Yes the Byantines) also benefit. It seems only the Byzantines need absolute proof before they are allowed alternatives.

Paul G

[WhiteKnight]

This is the most detailed source I have been able to find on the Dailami...

http://www.zazaki.de/englisch/articels/ ... amites.htm

It doesn't seem to mention armour for the Dailami foot in general, though there's so much to read I may have missed it!

I do recall a source which I will have to look out stating that the dailami foot were armed as well as Sassanid nobles, which may imply most were armoured at that time? I believe there are contemporary illustrations of Dailami Guardsmen units in eastern armies who are armoured, but I can't find that source either! In any case, it wouldn't demonstrate the dailami as a whole or even mostly wore armour.

Maybe someone more knowledgable will be able to pick up on the sources I remember seeing?

Martin

[jcmedhurst]

Protected is the widest armour class category, covering a wide range of protection levels. In particular, foot battle groups with metal armoured front ranks and textile/leather armoured back ranks are treated as Protected.

We have written the army lists to a set of such criteria, not all of which are explicitly specified in the rule book. You may not agree with that policy, but it remains the policy.

That is why Byzantine infantry are graded as Protected. The same applies to Swiss pikemen and many other troops.

To repeat, yet again Rolling Eyes , a formation does not need to be wholly mail (or similar) equipped to count as Armoured, just a high enough proportion - which IMO the Byzantines did not have from the evidence I have seen, and nothing posted so far has changed my mind on that

So, we need a proportion to be armoured, but not just a front rank, so does this mean >25%?

Also, is partial metal armour enough? Or does it have to be full body protection? I just wonder, because many cavalry in the classical period did not have extensive metal armour.

Just asking..........

John

[rbodleyscott]

So, we need a proportion to be armoured, but not just a front rank, so does this mean >25%?

More like > 75%. Partial body armour + shield, more extensive coverage if without shield. (Note that the shield requirement does not apply to cavalry).

However, bear in mind that the criteria are flexible. Getting the relative effects correct within period is a higher priority than adherence to strict criteria. The lists have been written as an integral part of the rules system - they are not a third party add-on. Hence we have deliberately manipulated the list classifications to increase the historicity of historical encounters.

-----------

And in answer to the various comments about Anglo-Danish select fyrd:

Yes, you can argue that the requirements for thegns were not adhered to, but the Anglo-Danish list is written on the basis that they were. If we are wrong about that, it means that the Anglo-Danish list is wrong, not the Nikephorian Byzantine list. So not much point in labouring the point in this thread.

[nikgaukroger]

I have no issue with an interpretation allowing Anglo Saxon Select Fyrd or Daylamis to have armoured units based on idealilzed documents that may or may not have a basis in reality, so long as other lists (Yes the Byantines) also benefit.

This amused me mightily. So you are happy that the Fyrd are classified according to "idealised documents" but are not happy that we also do the same for the Byzantines as we have based them on "idealised documents", to wit the Praecepta and the Taktika

This topic is still missing much in the way of useful evidence.

[Toms0lo]

Yes, you can argue that the requirements for thegns were not adhered to, but the Anglo-Danish list is written on the basis that they were. If we are wrong about that, it means that the Anglo-Danish list is wrong, not the Nikephorian Byzantine list. So not much point in labouring the point in this thread.

Agreed but the debate is more around the benefice of doubt given to Dailami, Anglo-Danish select Fyrd, Later Crusader foot, etc... despite sometimes limited contemporary sources and questionable economical capacity, while not to the Byzantines for whom some evidence seem to exist too...
It seems to me that several lists were granted a whole range of different configurations/interpretations to cover doubts and to avoid being stucked in these kind of dabates. For me clearly the right way to go ! A pity this policy was not more evenly applied.

Thomas

[philqw78]

I think the policy was more: "Do the troops represented have the right effect on the battlefield". Not "Do they have the right armour and weapons". Catalan moogs are allowed to be protected, even though they generally armoured themselves with dish cloths and bed sheets and bugger all else. Also they get the choice on how to use/represent their big heavy sticks 'cos the writers couldn't agree on how to represent their effect.

[Delbruck]

Byzantines

Do not fear, when using Maurikians you can now bring along Sassanid allies - with elephants I am sure every Byzantine is delighted that when Khosrau fled to Constantinople he was wise enough to bring along his private elephant herd