Varangians - HvArm, Sup or Arm, El?

[ethan]

I see two problems with the infantry atm.

I think the current grading encourages players to do what are probably ahistorical things, such as double ranking the spears.

I don't think the def spear front/bow rear rank is a terribly good formation from a "would I take this for the AP" point of view.

For me the simplest fix would be to just grade them the same as the Assyrians - Front rank Protected HF, Lt Spear, Sw, rear rank Bow or maybe Bw/Sw. They would get the same factors on impact with mounted, would be a slightly better overall troop type but hardly the a game winning super troop and there would be little incentive to do odd things with the troops as there is now. It would also mean the Nikephorian infantry weren't worse than the Thematic infantry which seems odd.

Part of the problem is that the Def spear front/Bow Rear just doesn't work well IMO as a troop type.

[philqw78]

II think the current grading encourages players to do what are probably ahistorical things, such as double ranking the spears.

Making the spears deeper is what they did historically. That is why you can take them in 8's, unlike the Crusader and other mixed formations that only come in sixes because they didn't go deeper.

[iversonjm]

II think the current grading encourages players to do what are probably ahistorical things, such as double ranking the spears.

Making the spears deeper is what they did historically. That is why you can take them in 8's, unlike the Crusader and other mixed formations that only come in sixes because they didn't go deeper.

Yes, but if you deploy them in historical formation 1/2 of the bases in the formation are virtually useless. Again the 2-wide defensive spear for the cost of a pike block problem.

[philqw78]

Yes, but if you deploy them in historical formation 1/2 of the bases in the formation are virtually useless. Again the 2-wide defensive spear for the cost of a pike block problem.

They historically had the choice. Go shallow for more bow fire, go deep for better HtH. Pick the best for the situation. Not that either is brilliant.

[batesmotel]

I see two problems with the infantry atm.

I think the current grading encourages players to do what are probably ahistorical things, such as double ranking the spears.

I don't think the def spear front/bow rear rank is a terribly good formation from a "would I take this for the AP" point of view.

For me the simplest fix would be to just grade them the same as the Assyrians - Front rank Protected HF, Lt Spear, Sw, rear rank Bow or maybe Bw/Sw. They would get the same factors on impact with mounted, would be a slightly better overall troop type but hardly the a game winning super troop and there would be little incentive to do odd things with the troops as there is now. It would also mean the Nikephorian infantry weren't worse than the Thematic infantry which seems odd.

Part of the problem is that the Def spear front/Bow Rear just doesn't work well IMO as a troop type.

The single rank of defensive spear negates lance factors at impact, including against knights, and swords in melee as long as the skutatoi are steady. The light spear, sword option really isn't much better than the single rank of defensive spear and would probably encourage the offensive combat use of the skutatoi which wasn't historically the case. It would also make the units more expensive for not much gain in utility. At 56 points for an average BG of 8, the skutatoi are a relatively cheap unit that can cover a fair amount of frontage for the Nikephorians.

Chris

[bahdahbum]

Arab historians record the use of the varangian, in mail, with lances and axes ( during basil's reign ). I do not have the right paragraph with me . Varangians were often sent with the armies here and there and always when the emperor was there .

Did they fight or not is irrelevant . Did Napoleon's Old Guard always fight when present on the battle field ..the answer is NO, yet they are present on the battlefield .

[iversonjm]

The single rank of defensive spear negates lance factors at impact, including against knights, and swords in melee as long as the skutatoi are steady. The light spear, sword option really isn't much better than the single rank of defensive spear and would probably encourage the offensive combat use of the skutatoi which wasn't historically the case. It would also make the units more expensive for not much gain in utility. At 56 points for an average BG of 8, the skutatoi are a relatively cheap unit that can cover a fair amount of frontage for the Nikephorians.

Chris

The LS allow the skuts to fight even at impact against other spears, foot LS, & HW and up against LS and bow armed cav. If fighting in single rank, sword is superior to spear b/c it allows even fighting v. HW and doesn't go away when disordered. Still not accurate representation though.

[PaulByzan]

Arab historians record the use of the varangian, in mail, with lances and axes ( during basil's reign ). I do not have the right paragraph with me . Varangians were often sent with the armies here and there and always when the emperor was there .

Did they fight or not is irrelevant . Did Napoleon's Old Guard always fight when present on the battle field ..the answer is NO, yet they are present on the battlefield .

Assume you're referring to Ibn Yahya? I have his translation here somewhere from PHd thesis but can't find it.

Paul G

[PaulByzan]

As for infantry v. infantry battles, my understanding is that they took place both in the civil war with Basil and in campaigns against the Rus. Again I will defer to others on specifics.

Basil had the Varangians with him at the civil war battles of Scutari and Abydos (both in 989) - but was there any other infantry there- let alone any getting into hand to hand combat? The battle against the Rus that I found was Silistria (972) in which the Byzantines fought by making 12 successive cavalry charges on the Rus infantry! So that answers a question on another thread - cavalry repeatedly breaking off and charging again into foot is historical!

I think we are possibly missing the top down point here. Byzantine warfare relied on mounted troops as the decisive arm with the foot in a much more minor supporting role on the battlefield. I think the current classifications encourage the player to use his troops this way - and for me that is an improvement on previous rule sets and I feel care should be taken not to upset it.

Doubtful that Basil trusted any of the Western Theme infantry to go up against Skleros at that time. The battle against the Rus was under John Tzimiskes, Basil's predecessor and the only foot the Byzantines would have used were probably the Skuts and from Leo the Deacon's description of the action they aquitted themselves pretty well in supporting the cavalry close up. After crushing the rebellion Basil's Varangians were used to great effect against the Georgians in the early 1000s and again in 1022 AD. So Basil clearly maintained a steady supply of crack Varangian troops from his early days to the end of his reign. How Basil's Varangians can only be rated as average, protected instead of having the option for superior, armored is difficult to understand, given their recorded performance on the battlefield.

Paul G.

[Maniakes]

The battle against the Rus was under John Tzimiskes, Basil's predecessor and the only foot the Byzantines would have used were probably the Skuts and from Leo the Deacon's description of the action they aquitted themselves pretty well in supporting the cavalry close up. After crushing the rebellion Basil's Varangians were used to great effect against the Georgians in the early 1000s and again in 1022 AD. So Basil clearly maintained a steady supply of crack Varangian troops from his early days to the end of his reign. How Basil's Varangians can only be rated as average, protected instead of having the option for superior, armored is difficult to understand, given their recorded performance on the battlefield.

Paul G.

I'm probably not explaining my assumptions very well here. I was talking about whether the skutatoi should have armour or not (which was one of the discussion points). If they did then I think that on the wargames table the best way to break into a line of Rus protected spear would be to walk up to them with the skutatoi four deep. Eventually the Rus fail a test and charge - they are slightly down at impact because of the third rank bow and a POA down in melee because of the armour and will probably break. A much better prospect on the table than cavalry charges - but I would suggest unhistorical. In the battle (according to Ian Heath) the infantry were used to shoot up and disrupt the Rus (though he doesn't say that these infantry were skutatatoi rather than light foot) then the cavalry made multiple charges. All I'm suggesting is that this is the sort of approach a wargames Byzantine general would take under the current list and that they would take a different, less historical, approach with armoured skutatoi.

Also if the skutatoi alone were up-armoured they would be more heavily armoured than the Varangians - which seems a little odd. I am convinced by your argument that the Varangians should be armoured in this period. How do you feel about the Heavily Armoured Varangians (post 1042) though? That gives them the same armour class as Wars of the Roses men at arms in full plate. Do you think that is excessive?

[Maniakes]

all Byzantine foot up through the Nikephorians should be able to employ the MF light spear option that the Maurikian Skuts have. Thematics and Nikephoreans had to have infantry to chase Slavs and Bulgar foot up hills and in woods too.

This seems to me the biggest change needed to the Byzantine list - from what I remember the later treatises put a lot of emphasis on having enough foot able to work in the hills and woods if you were going anywhere in the Balkans (and specified who should be detached for these duties). In FoG terms that means MF.

Perhaps there should be separate Balkan and Eastern front Nikephorean options - as well as, or instead of, a date based 1042 divide!

[bahdahbum]

The only thing that is really lacking is the will to change some army lists . Our dear conceptors do not seem to be very willing and I hate it .

There is a fear of what would happen , but it could be controlled .

As there is no will, the discussion is pointless

[ethan]

The only thing that is really lacking is the will to change some army lists . Our dear conceptors do not seem to be very willing and I hate it.

I think that may be going a bit far. I think it is reasonable to value stability of rules, army lists, etc. That said it is not unreasonable to expect that there will be new research that will advance our knowledge of history and that as players actually play the game thinking about what works, doesn't work, etc in the rules will progress as well.

I am not sure what the right time scale for change is, every couple of months is too much, once every 10 years is too little. I suspect the sensible choice revolves at least to some extent around the need to reprint rules and army lists in any case. How that is handled as far as internet vs. print releases is a business decision.

[bahdahbum]

I never wrote that the rules were bad, should be changed and so on . I just wrote and maintain that the army list should be restudied as in some cases it is clear that some list were better "studied" than others . The rules are good, sound even if sometimes one might wonder as how to resolve certain situations .

Osprey seems a bit unhappy with FOG ( from what an osprey official said in Belgium ) .

Lists could be rediscussed, the conceptors can then say yes or no , a downloadable list can be provided but there seem to be no will to do it "now" . Too soon it seems ...so , odds are it never will be really discussed .

Look at how the conceptor of Impetus is open to discussion . Too bad his rules are not as good as FOG ( by far )

[ShrubMiK]

OTOH, how many people need to agree that a list should be changed before it should be changed? Just because 2 people think it is incorrect does not make it so.

[Ghaznavid]

Osprey seems a bit unhappy with FOG ( from what an osprey official said in Belgium ) .

Just curious, in what way?

Look at how the conceptor of Impetus is open to discussion . Too bad his rules are not as good as FOG ( by far )

A bit unfair of a comparison, given how much smaller the number of players is. Both Richard and Terry are currently busy with other projects (especially Richard I know to be VERY busy right now, give him another week or two and he might have time to look a the forum again) and Simon ... no idea, last thing I heard from him are marriage and health problems.
At any rate even if not busy with other projects the Authors would find it difficult to read and respond to everything that might deserve their attention (especially as every response nowadays seems to draw out some that disagree with everyone on a principle). I would prefer if they were still as active on this board as they were in 2008, but their withdrawal is probably partly due to the sheer volume of posts here nowadays (to be honest I often wonder where some of the more prolific posters get their time from, given their posting times it seems their jobs are very boring and not very demanding)

[bahdahbum]

First to shrub MIK : have you ever heard of the silent majority . And there are more than 2 people interested in the byzantine army, suggesting some changes but many also say : it is no use to discuss with slitherine . They never listen .

One thing is thrue : A part from karsten, they react very rarely to explain themselves . There lies a problem . Once I asked why a certain unit was rated as it was . The answer I received was rather special : I do not remember why we decided it ....

So perhaps the problem is more : communication .

There are explanations but as we do not receive them, we do not understand. So there is a kind of frustration . Richard might be very busy for now , but the problem is recurent . He answered in another post

I will continue to play as I like the game, but lost the respect I had for some people , even if they did a great job with the rules and I respect that.

I do no want to change all the lists every 2 month . What I say is that some list may need reworking and it should be discussed . After discussion and with some explanation, a new list can be made downloadable . It is a controlled change , not the pandora box .

[Ghaznavid]

I do no want to change all the lists every 2 month . What I say is that some list may need reworking and it should be discussed . After discussion and with some explanation, a new list can be made downloadable . It is a controlled change , not the pandora box .

You think so? Lets see... just from the top of my head, some "minor" changes I consider needed and justified:
- Illkhanids should have Steppe.
- (Later) Crusader Knights should be able to interpenetrate their foot.
- Lombards should be able to dismount.
- German knights up to and including the 14th Century should always be able to dismount (and do so as Superior). After 1400 one has to be slightly more selective.

Actually all knights should always be able to dismount (as it is well known they trained for fighting on foot as well as mounted) or Ghulam types should only be able to dismount if they actually did in a battle covered by the list in question (instead of being permitted to do so based on some manuals). As is the lists use different standards for permitting dismounting... very baaad (for a change I blame Nik though, not Hammy).

And that's not even touching major fumbles like the Early German list.

Sorry, but I feel it is opening the Pandoras Box.

[bahdahbum]

No, you open a discussion . people may react and after a sid time , the conceptors have to choose . They decide and explain their decision ( not just : not enough elements but something more constructive ) . then the list is amended or not, and we might say : nomore discussion about that list for the next 2 years .

[ethan]

No, you open a discussion . people may react and after a sid time , the conceptors have to choose . They decide and explain their decision ( not just : not enough elements but something more constructive ) . then the list is amended or not, and we might say : nomore discussion about that list for the next 2 years .

I think they want pretty active discussion, it just may not lead to change very fast. I feel pretty solidly that the authors are willing to incorporate new/overlooked/badly interpreted historical evidence in a revised army list, they just aren't willing to do it quickly.