Byzantine Lancers: how to use

[MarcoCato75]

Hi generals!

In the recent Slitherine tournament Im struggling with the Byzantine Lancers (lancers, 50% bow). I didnt play too many armies of this age before and I have the sensation that there is something that I dont understand properly.

I have some questions on them:

What is their "ideal" use? I didnt see any particular advantages in the addition of the bow, only a poor defensive tool when they are pinning infantry because 50% of archers not usually deal enough damage to cause a cohesion test in more than one unit (and that with some luck and shooting static).

Also I have noticed that most of the Byzantine armies uses them, which I suposse that they would have a role on armies of this era. How they work with other Byzantine units? There are other unit types (on Byzantine armies) which this guys could make a real threat?

Thanks for the advise

[deeter]

I'm curious too having lost every battle with them in the last DL. Did slightly better with them as a shooty/cav army.

Deeter

[SnuggleBunnies]

Use them in combination with other units. 50% bow combined with the fire of a light foot or skoutatoi/archers unit is enough to cause drops. They can also be used effectively in conjunction with horse archers to disrupt infantry before the charge, or disrupt enemy cavalry before contact. They don't do that well when you deploy them as just a mass of that type of unit - they need to be acting in support of other units to shine. They are a points inefficient way to fight other lancers, costing more for a capability they may not get to use before Impact, though even a few casualties inflicted can tip Combat Strength Modifier a bit in your favor. Below you can see how Morbio and I both attempt to utilize the 50% bow units in conjunction with other supporting missile troops.

Byzantium Endures Round 2:

Byzantine
https://youtu.be/7ilYtq3_0EI

Ostrogoth
https://youtu.be/atsm6G6ShoM

[stockwellpete]

I have had a few games using the 9thC Byzantines with the Alternative Gameplay Mod since the first post in this thread. I have fought against one of the 9thC Abbasid armies. Won 1 Lost 2 is my record at levels 3 and 4, so not the most difficult setting, by any means. I am finding the Byzantine list very awkward to use. I lost the first 2 games trying use those 50% lancers 50% bow types in larger numbers, but the Abbasid cavalry just beat them up really. For the third match, which I managed to win, I basically picked maximum Byzantine lancers without bows (I had to have 4 bow/lancers, but I didn't pick any more). And then I filled up with infantry - 7x skoutakoi and 2x massed archers. I don't pick skirmishers now at all.

With the combat ability of my lancers maximised, I was able to neutralise, but not defeat, the Abbasid cavalry by keeping it very much on the flanks. In the meantime, my skoutakoi and archers were able to get the better of the Abbasid foot in the centre and win the battle by about 15 points (53-38 - 50% rout level in the Mod).

So, at the moment, I am not really liking these 72 point Thematic bow/lancers very much at all. I don't know much about how Byzantine cavalry fought and what proportions of bow/lancers to lancers to horse archers they usually fielded.

[Jagger2002]

I haven't played the Byzantines in awhile but I remember them as a very interesting army and potentially powerful. But I think a player needs a fair amount of practice with the army to bring out the best in the Byzantines. It is definitely a tricky army to play.

And Snugglebunnies point about supplementing the lancer 50% bow with additional firepower is important. Firepower is an significant component of the Byzantine army.

[deeter]

The army I used has pretty mediocre infantry and not many either, so relying on shooting seems the best option. The cavalry are really disappointing as lancers and too expensive as shooters.

Deeter

[SnuggleBunnies]

The army I used has pretty mediocre infantry and not many either, so relying on shooting seems the best option. The cavalry are really disappointing as lancers and too expensive as shooters.

Deeter

But as lancers they're the same as other Lancers in terms of poa. They just cost more for 50%bow. The thematic are above average so not quite as good at melee, but they're cheaper as a result

[MarcoCato75]

After reading all of your answers (and waiting to the weekend to make some experiments for my own vs IA) I reach some conclusions:

Use them in combination with other units. 50% bow combined with the fire of a light foot or skoutatoi/archers unit is enough to cause drops. They can also be used effectively in conjunction with horse archers to disrupt infantry before the charge, or disrupt enemy cavalry before contact. They don't do that well when you deploy them as just a mass of that type of unit - they need to be acting in support of other units to shine. They are a points inefficient way to fight other lancers, costing more for a capability they may not get to use before Impact, though even a few casualties inflicted can tip Combat Strength Modifier a bit in your favor. Below you can see how Morbio and I both attempt to utilize the 50% bow units in conjunction with other supporting missile troops.

This is one thing that I was suspecting.. Maybe their main problem is that they are a little expensive for what they provide vs other standard lancers.. I think that if they need other units to work properly are not a good investment in terms of cost-opportunity, if you compare it with other lancers available for other lists, which are good for their own. Also I personally I prefer units (and armies) that are really good in one role and this kind of cavalry maybe overextend their purpose a little much for me.

PD: great videos SnuggleBunnies! I watch your videos on YT since the last year and they were one of the reasons that I give a second try to this excelent game!

I have had a few games using the 9thC Byzantines with the Alternative Gameplay Mod since the first post in this thread. I have fought against one of the 9thC Abbasid armies. Won 1 Lost 2 is my record at levels 3 and 4, so not the most difficult setting, by any means. I am finding the Byzantine list very awkward to use. I lost the first 2 games trying use those 50% lancers 50% bow types in larger numbers, but the Abbasid cavalry just beat them up really. For the third match, which I managed to win, I basically picked maximum Byzantine lancers without bows (I had to have 4 bow/lancers, but I didn't pick any more). And then I filled up with infantry - 7x skoutakoi and 2x massed archers. I don't pick skirmishers now at all.

Also another thing to note is that Byzantine looks like and army that need some practise to be properly played. In the tournament I have the same problems against the muslim army in the second round... I choose a full cavalry composition and maybe a more mixed army could be more effective dealing with the more "classic" combination of lancers + deffensive spearmen that the muslims can bring

And Snugglebunnies point about supplementing the lancer 50% bow with additional firepower is important. Firepower is an significant component of the Byzantine army.

I have to admit that my previous knowledge about the Byzantine armies were practically nothing, but I wasnt expecting that they were a heavy dependent missile army.. You never stop learning!

Thanks for your answers guys!

[deeter]

Wish this discussion had come up before this last DL season. : )

Deeter

[Geffalrus]

If you want to understand where the army comes from, and some hints in how it should be used, it pays to go back to the source material. In this case, we have a Byzantine emperor who allegedly wrote an entire military manual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategikon_of_Maurice

Here are the key elements in my opinion:

1) Cavalry is the primary, decisive arm; Infantry exist mostly to occupy key terrain aka hills and engage after the enemy is weakened.

2) The Byzantines were less interested in destroying the opposing army completely, because weakening a foe on their border usually resulted in a more powerful neighbor taking their place. Their experiences with the Huns clearly informed a lot of their military doctrine. Better the devil you know than the one you don't.

3) As one of the only states around with a professional military infrastructure, the Byzantines could actually copy enemy military technology and make their own versions. Less effective than warriors who practiced those arts from birth, sure, but few other states could artisanally craft their own horse archers from scratch.

4) The culimination of all this was the Hybrid Lancer Horse Archer. These soldiers were trained to shoot the bow Hun style (forward, backwards, to the side, all while moving) and then switch to a short lance for an ordered charge once the enemy was disrupted. This was deadly against infantry. To defend against heavy cavalry, infantry naturally pack close together, but this makes them vulnerable to arrow volleys. To defend against arrows, infantry naturally spread out, but this makes them vulnerable to lancer charges. Against horse archers, the Byzantines switch to the lance and charge, rather than shoot it out with experts. Against dedicated lancers, the Byzantines were trained to act like horse archers and lure the lancer charge into a trap.

FoG2 kind of gets some of these things right, and some not so right. The lancer poa works great at trapping infantry in place to be shot, and pushing horse archers around with the charge. Against lancers, though, things fall apart. Hybrid lancers don't evade like other bow cavalry, so heavy western lancers can charge them no problem, and then win pretty easily. And if you bring the superior hybrid lancers, you're paying 8 extra points for a unit that they will charge anyway just to stop you from shooting. I've said elsewhere that I think hybrid lancers should have evasion capability, but not everyone agrees with me. *shrug* As it stands, there are ways to mimic the Byzantine lure strategy - either by keeping hybrid lancers at a far distance and hoping the superior enemy lancers move aggressively, or by using those Byzantine army lists that have large amounts of pure bow cavalry.

Army Composition and Unit Tips

I'll second a lot of what Snugglebunny said, and elaborate on a few other things. The major weakness of the Byzantines is that they pay a LOT for hybrid units that perform worse when facing pure units in their element. The key is to do your best to make those pure units operate outside of their element. Some examples:

- If you have a Middle Byzantine list with Skutatoi/Archer infantry that are hybrid bow/defensive spears, enemy 36 point defensive spears will beat down your 47 point Skutatoi/Archers; instead, make enemy infantry face your hybrid lancers. Infantry charging lancers are at a huge poa disadvantage, and have to deal with the lancer cohesion penalty. Most times they will pass the check and your lancers will bounce back. But the infantry will take damage and will be slowed down. If they don't want to charge, then they get to sit there and be calmly shot down by the hybrid units.

- Those same skutatoi/archers work wonders against lancer cavalry. Lancers hate charging spears and usually just have to sit there and trap them. But now they're facing a spear unit that can just calmly shoot them at close range for big damage over time.

Other general tips:

- Skutatoi/Archers love being on hills. The extra 25 poa helps in melee vs. basic spears, and the elevation allows for them to fire over skirmishers or vice versa. This plays into the primary role of Byzantine infantry to just hold the good ground.

- If you can, bring the Power Units. Some Byzantine armies have access to uber powerful units for their time period. The Byzantine 551AD list (Belisarius Army) has access to 72 point armored superior spears and 54 point superior spears. While few in number, these units can punch quite heavily in melee fights against most units. The Middle Byzantine lists (900-1000) have access to Klibanophoroi and Varangian Guards. These are horribly expensive units, but they have high morale and massive armor. They can act either as deterrents or sledgehammers in the right situation. Normally, most enemies want to immediately charge Byzantine units to stop the arrows, but the presence of power units makes that less appealing. The Klibs in particular are pretty fantastic as they allow the Byzantines to take an expensive advantage in cavalry fights, and if they get trapped in melee with spears, they are still very, VERY hard to kill. With high armor POA and Elite morale, I've rarely seen them drop cohesion, and they can be relied on to fight to the death in most cases. Of course, expensive power units exacerbate the point cost problems inherent in the Byzantine army, so be careful.

- Comitatensis units in the Early Byzantine list are over-priced for what they do. They cost as much as Imitation Legions, but have substantially less utility. The Auxilia Palatina that also carry the Darts POA are 6 points cheaper than their Impact Foot twin, so hopefully the Comitatensis will drop from 51 to 45 points soon. That should help the early list a bit with cost efficiency.

In summary, the Byzantines just aren't an easy list to use. They're not Medium Foot spam; they're not beefy heavy infantry; they're not cheap horse archers. They take more than a bit of practice to figure out. How do you handle rough ground? How do you prevent enemy units from engaging you before you're ready? Much like the Strategikon, you will need a specific strategy for each type of enemy you face.

[rbodleyscott]

I've said elsewhere that I think hybrid lancers should have evasion capability, but not everyone agrees with me.

The representation of Byzantine hybrid cavalry units in the game is based directly on the tactics described in the Strategikon.

I have quoted passages supporting the current representation in your other thread. Perhaps you would like to quote passages supporting your position?

[stockwellpete]

This is a very interesting discussion. I am using the Alt Gameplay Mod and I am not allowing myself skirmishers - and I had another win today (54-46) at Governor level with a Byzantine 740-903AD army against the Arab Abbasid 836-873AD army. So for 1200points, I picked . . .

1x Tagmatic Lancers/Archers - 72pts
2x Armoured Noble Lancers - 128pts
6x Thematic Lancers/Archers - 324pts (5 of these are compulsory)
5x Armoured Muslim Lancers (Mediocre) - 220pts
8x Skoutatoi - 352pts
1x Raw Skoutatoi - 24pts
2x Massed Archers - 72pts

Again, I was able to occupy the Arab cavalry contingents for long enough to let my infantry destroy the Arab foot in the centre. I put all the Tagmatic and Thematic cavalry on one flank with one sub commander and all the Muslim lancers on the other flank with two sub-commanders. My C-in-C was in charge of the infantry.

My lancer/bow cavalry tried to keep their distance for as long as possible, just sniping when they could, while the Muslim lancers steamed into the Ghilmans and roughed them up a bit before eventually being beaten. Eventually most of my cavalry were chased off, but by then I had completely destroyed the Arab infantry, losing only one contingent of skoutatoi in the process.

What would you pick against the Abbasids at 1200pts?

[Geffalrus]

The representation of Byzantine hybrid cavalry units in the game is based directly on the tactics described in the Strategikon.

I have quoted passages supporting the current representation in your other thread. Perhaps you would like to quote passages supporting your position?

Strategikon, Book 2, Subsection 10 "Lance Pennons"

- "We do not recommend having pennons on lances because.......(they are forking useless is what I would wager was Maurice's first draft of the passage).....and it interferes with the firing of the archers of the rear ranks. Moreover, in charging, in retreating, in WHEELING ABOUT, it is no slight inconvenience....."

In FoG2, lancers, once within a certain range of infantry or cavalry, are basically committed to sitting in front of those units until death or glory. This is because they have no evasion mechanic, which means that if they are ever charged in the flank by anything better than massed archers, they are well and truly forked. Bow cavalry are much more free to exposed their unit flanks because they will run away in that situation. Does that sometimes get them into trouble? Absolutely. But generally only if cavalry is involved. Against infantry, they're largely safe. But with lancers, it is much easier to trap them in combat. Lancers only have the Fall Back escape, so a single unit directly behind them traps them, whereas it takes multiple units to fully trap bow cavalry. So to reiterate, lancers when flank attacked by infantry are in trouble in a way that bow cavalry are not.

This is not to say that lancers are bad, just that they are designed in a specific direction. They move until they enter proximity of another unit, at which point they essentially have to stand and fight. To me, this runs counter to what we know of Byzantine military strategy, which was oriented around minimizing friendly losses. Byzantine cavalry were expensive because of how much training it took to turn them into lancers and archers. It was a huge investment. Standing and fighting is a great way to waste that investment. Evasive cavalry is a necessary component of a military strategy that wants to conserve their own soldiers.

At their inception, Byzantine hybrid cavalry were designed to emulate the Hunnic cavalry they had recently faced. And the Parthian Shot tactics of the Huns (and others obviously) was a key component. If Byzantine horsemen were only using arrows during the charge towards the enemy, they would never have been trained to fire to the side or behind them. Those skills are only used if you ride up close to someone and then ride away. The Byzantines were definitely not as good as the Huns or the Persians at riding up and shooting and running, which I feel is partly represented in the game by how weak 50% bow is on above average lancers. What's missing is the running, specifically away from superior lancers like you see in most Frankish style lists.

Here is a website describing the use of entire Numeri to use the Parthian Shot to draw out strong enemy cavalry. Numeri were not light cavalry formations, nor were they the specifically identified Flankers that FoG2 replicates. They would have been just like the rest of the main body of the cavalry. Their sources include the Strategikon as well as subsequent works: http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Byzantium ... ctics.html

So in summary, my position is backed up by the source material that specifically mentions retreating and wheeling about in the context of lance/bow armed cavalry. It is backed up by the fact that the Byzantines were modelling their cavalry off of the steppe nomads they'd faced in combat, tactics that involved cavalrymen learning how to loose arrows in - all - directions. And it is backed up by the fact that the Byzantine military prioritized force preservation which was best served by evasive tactics that weakened the enemy before charging. All of which leads me to suggest that all hybrid cavalry with 16 AP, not just the Mongol Best Equipped, get evasion. This would leave Klibanophoroi as the ponderous tanks that they should always be, while increasing the mobility and survivability of less well equipped Byzantine cavalry.

That's my suggestion, take it or leave it. You're free to disagree. We're attempting to model a computer simulation on imperfect records of battles thousands of years ago; there is no perfect answer. I disagree plenty with how you portray Macedonian pikes, and yet I still use them.

[Athos1660]

I know nothing about the Strategikon, so I can’t tell about the tactics of Byzantine hybrid cavalry.

And I have no strong views about them. Just a couple of questions/thoughts :

- In game terms, if they could escape from lancers, wouldn’t that make them a bit too powerful ? It is a bit like giving them the best of both worlds : they could shoot whenever needed, evade if too weak, charge if strong enough, make the coffee if someone wants…

- Realistically speaking, being able to evade means being much faster. What would make them faster than pure lancers like say the Frankish you mention ? Training ? Horse breeds ? Lighter equipment ? ... ?

(btw one could argue that there is always (at least) a (small) gap between a military manual wrote by a leader and its application in the field, between what is wished and what is actually done.)

[BMAXIMUS]

Should they have light spears instead of lances then ?

[BMAXIMUS]

- Realistically speaking, being able to evade means being much faster. What would make them faster than pure lancers like say the Frankish you mention ? Training ? Horse breeds ? Lighter equipment ? ... ?

The way I understand it is, evading (like pushing forward) is not a capability but a behavior. For some reason (some being been able to do a full turn without needing the other player intervention making MP game faster) the player can't chose if unit evades or not (which can be desirable or not) but he can chose which troop it select. Cavalry evades, lancers don't. If you need to hold the line you chose lancers otherwise cav with light spears are as good. Obviously this is not as simple since your choices are limited by the army list.
Maybe a solution would be like you can dismount cav have an option to equip (some) lancers with light spears during deployment ...

[Geffalrus]

I know nothing about the Strategikon, so I can’t tell about the tactics of Byzantine hybrid cavalry.

And I have no strong views about them. Just a couple of questions/thoughts :

- In game terms, if they could escape from lancers, wouldn’t that make them a bit too powerful ? It is a bit like giving them the best of both worlds : they could shoot whenever needed, evade if too weak, charge if strong enough, make the coffee if someone wants…

- Realistically speaking, being able to evade means being much faster. What would make them faster than pure lancers like say the Frankish you mention ? Training ? Horse breeds ? Lighter equipment ? ... ?

(btw one could argue that there is always (at least) a (small) gap between a military manual wrote by a leader and its application in the field, between what is wished and what is actually done.)

1) It would mostly effect them when - they - get charged. Instead of a predictable effect - they stand and fight - it would add an element of complexity where they may stand or they may run. You see this with light spear cavalry a lot, where you don't usually put them with the main line infantry, because they just turn 180 degrees, flee four spaces or whatever, and take multiple turns to get back. All of which leaves your infantry vulnerable. Light spear cav work great farther out in the open where their mobility really shines. This change would make the hybrid lancers less useful mixed into the main line, and thus they'd end up more on the flanks or at least independent from the infantry. Keep in mind, the shooting and charging of the Above Average variety are not particularly strong - unless - they're facing a disrupted enemy, or a flank. The superior versions are decently strong, but a lot more expensive.

2) As BMAX said, evasion is more behavior/doctrine rather than physical capability. The various light spear armored cavalries running around are heavy just like the lancers, but their doctrine involves more flight. It's how the game handles horsemen who used javelins - and - decently heavy equipment. Horse breed definitely made a huge difference, but that usually happened before army selection, so to speak. To even be heavy cavalry, you needed a bigger, stronger horse. Little steppe ponies are super fast and agile, but you're not carrying a lot of armor, so already you're light cavalry. Cataphracts supposedly required (or worked best with) the Nisean breed of horse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisean_horse. But these would all determine what cavalry the army can use. As it stands, the major distinctions are: fastest light horses make up 20 AP light cavalry, medium speed horses make up 16 AP cavalry, and big horses carrying tons of armor have only 12 AP. Which works well enough.

Fun random fact: elephants in the old/new Age of Empires games are usually depicted as slower than infantry, despite the fact that elephants have a much higher top speed. Granted, everyone's carrying armor or towers.........so who really knows.

3) In terms of manual vs. practicality on the field, almost certainly. Much like how you don't write a big book on chivalry unless most people are acting like total jerks. What that means for us........hard to say. As stated, we're all just making educated guesses on how to portray complicated military matters within a limited gaming format. It's all tradeoffs.

4) I considered suggesting switching lance to light spear, since there are some earlier steppe units that do that. The Strategikon does describe legit lance tactics (closing ranks to form a tight knot of charging horsemen) being used by these same soldiers, so I think that's one thing that can't be thrown away. If anything, I'd rather have better shooting, weaker impact poa, and keep the -1 to cohesion, but I also don't think that quite captures the spirit of the unit or at least their relationship to the better-shooting Persian cavalry.

[rbodleyscott]

Strategikon, Book 2, Subsection 10 "Lance Pennons"

- "We do not recommend having pennons on lances because.......(they are forking useless is what I would wager was Maurice's first draft of the passage).....and it interferes with the firing of the archers of the rear ranks. Moreover, in charging, in retreating, in WHEELING ABOUT, it is no slight inconvenience....."

Pretty weak, I fear, as evidence for evading. All troops have to retreat or wheel about at times, and they obviously wheel about when they break off under the rules.

The passages I quoted before tell us what the function of the archers in the mixed formations were. They were instructed to shoot from the rear ranks as part of the charge of the combined units, and not before.

There were also times when the archers were detached for skirmishing purposes and the army lists already cover that.

The name of my development company, Byzantine Games, should give a clue that I am not someone who is trying to do the Byzantines down. My genuine reading of the Strategikon is that the mixed lancer and archer units were not intended to engage in steppe-like evasion tactics. As far as I know there is no direct mention of them doing so in the Strategikon, your quote notwithstanding, and as I have previously quoted, there are direct instructions for them to be used primarily to support the charge of the lancers.

So unless some better evidence is presented, I will stick with my current interpretation, as manifested in the current rules.

[Athos1660]

They were instructed to shoot from the rear ranks as part of the charge of the combined units, and not before.

Good old tactic !

In that case, why do they have 50% bows allowing them to shoot immobile at a distance, and not just a small Impact PoA boost (if possible : +15, +20, +30... ?) a bit like the Auxilia Palatina and their darts they used only during (enemy) charges and who have no shooting capabilities ?

[Geffalrus]

They were instructed to shoot from the rear ranks as part of the charge of the combined units, and not before.

Good old tactic !

In that case, why do they have 50% bows allowing them to shoot immobile at a distance, and not just a small Impact PoA boost (if possible : +15, +20, +30... ?) a bit like the Auxilia Palatina and their darts they used only during (enemy) charges and who have no shooting capabilities ?

This is actually a really good suggestion. If the idea is that the bows were only used during the charge (and to be clear, I don't agree with that interpretation, but if that's the logic one is using, then so be it) then it makes no sense for them to have a separate shooting capability. Instead, make them kind of like Darts or Legionary Pila in that they provide a POA bonus on impact. After all, the ranged ability works when the lancers spend a turn or two just sitting and shooting, something very different from a charge. In fact, I'd argue that a +50 POA bonus against infantry would make a certain amount of sense (maybe cavalry too). The arrows make the infantry loosen formation, which makes them vulnerable to the lancer charge. In this way, they could kind of pave the way for the HMA knights. In game terms, you'd be spending points on giving them a higher than usual impact POA at the expense of morale (which helps pass cohesion checks and melee fights in addition to impact). Kind of like how pikes have all their points in POA values not morale.

That is if your interpretation is that the bows were used during the charge.