Slitherine

Hey all,

I am idly toying with picking up a Byzantine army, once I have finished my Mid-Republican Romans and made a bash at the 40k Orks. This is for two reasons: the local club that I am thinking of joining apparently switch to post-1066 armies halfway through the year, and I learn Ancient Greek at university and it would amuse me to write the army list in said language. I would like to know, which list, and from what book, would be most appropriate? What kind of army look-and-feel can I expect from them? I don't really know all that much about them, except that they are a horse army with rather more of the 'decline and fall' in this period than 'glory'. I tried looking at Madaxeman's, but due to the large number of lists I am not sure where to start. It is much easier with Romans. Western Romans, that is.

After the Nikephorian period, I would say probably Komnenan and Post Latin Conquest are the best Byzantine armies. Post Latin Conquest has the advantage you can use the knights in other armies. Byzantine troops themselves, like Romans, tend to a particular style that makes for few morphing possibilities.

Trebizond would look pretty, but pushes the limits of figure to troop ratios...

[BTW, better to post these types of questions in the Army Lists sub-forum. I'll move this later when you've seen it, so you don't wonder why it's disappeared.]

peterrjohnston wrote:After the Nikephorian period, I would say probably Komnenan and Post Latin Conquest are the best Byzantine armies. Post Latin Conquest has the advantage you can use the knights in other armies. Byzantine troops themselves, like Romans, tend to a particular style that makes for few morphing possibilities.

Trebizond would look pretty, but pushes the limits of figure to troop ratios...

[BTW, better to post these types of questions in the Army Lists sub-forum. I'll move this later when you've seen it, so you don't wonder why it's disappeared.]

Komnenans have similar morph potential, since most of its troops are mercenary groups from other armies -- e.g., Latinikon = Frankish Knights, Varangians = Rus/Vikings, Skythikon = Cumans/Pechnegs, Vardariots (sp?) = Turks, etc.

Peter summarized it pretty well.

In picking you need to decide how Knight centric you want your army. Lots of interesting history in this period. Plus the added benefit if you win too many matches with this army, you will be poisoned or otherwise murdered when you get home, if you haven't already had your home otherwise sacked by maurading Ottomans, Venetians, or Frankish crusaders.

Post Latin Conquest is by far the best competition Byzantine army list. Pre 1150 Komnenan Byzantine is outstanding due to the drilled knights and heavily armoured infantry.

philqw78 wrote:Post Latin Conquest is by far the best competition Byzantine army list. Pre 1150 Komnenan Byzantine is outstanding due to the drilled knights and heavily armoured infantry.

Agree on the Post Latin Conquest Byzantines being the best competion list. As it should be, since this was the period of the Byzantines greatest expansion and victories... oh wait, wasn't this the period of it's total decline to the final Ottoman conquest? Now how could that be? And of course, the Byzantines of the really good periods, the Justinianic, Maurikian and Nikephorian can't hold a candle to it tournament wise. Oh well just my standard grouse.

Although at 900 points a Maurikian list with MF Skoutatoi and Khazar ally could be pretty decent. BTW, after recently reading Kaegi's book on Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium in describing the Persian War, there's a case to made for the Khazar's being subordinate troops during the later campaigns, as a special period, similar to other lists.

Paul G

PaulByzan wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Post Latin Conquest is by far the best competition Byzantine army list. Pre 1150 Komnenan Byzantine is outstanding due to the drilled knights and heavily armoured infantry.

Agree on the Post Latin Conquest Byzantines being the best competion list. As it should be, since this was the period of the Byzantines greatest expansion and victories... oh wait, wasn't this the period of it's total decline to the final Ottoman conquest? Now how could that be?

Paul G

well it is not only armies ....there are economic reasons and political reasons

Entsuropi wrote:the local club that I am thinking of joining apparently switch to post-1066 armies halfway through the year

They what ? You mean they only play pre-1066 games from January till June, then only play post-1066 ? How bizarre.

PaulByzan wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Post Latin Conquest is by far the best competition Byzantine army list. Pre 1150 Komnenan Byzantine is outstanding due to the drilled knights and heavily armoured infantry.

Agree on the Post Latin Conquest Byzantines being the best competion list. As it should be, since this was the period of the Byzantines greatest expansion and victories... oh wait, wasn't this the period of it's total decline to the final Ottoman conquest?

I know that was a rhetorical question, but no. That's Late Byzantine. Post Latin Conquest Byzantines is the army that reconquered much of what was lost in the 4th crusade. OK, so this was not a period of the empire's greatest victories, but it was at least a period when they were on the advance.

Polkovnik wrote:

Entsuropi wrote:the local club that I am thinking of joining apparently switch to post-1066 armies halfway through the year

They what ? You mean they only play pre-1066 games from January till June, then only play post-1066 ? How bizarre.

I believe that the thinking is to ensure that everyone gets to use both Ancient and Medieval armies, and to help keep things a touch in-period. Seems somewhat reasonable to me.

I get the impression that Post Latin Conquest are favoured. That at least makes things simple. A very quick look seems to recommend these guysfor models.

Post Latin conquest adn to a lesser degree kommenan are fake byzantine armies, relying more on foreign knights and light horse.

For a true Byzantine list look at Thematic or nikephorian as they have the "Proper" byzantine feel:
- menavlatoi
- decent mix of lancer/bow drilled and some supoprting foot.

Just beware that if yo arent makign use of thier drilled status you are paying points you dont need and are handing an instand benefit to similar by undrilled opponents.

Entsuropi wrote: I get the impression that Post Latin Conquest are favoured. That at least makes things simple. A very quick look seems to recommend these guysfor models.

I am a fan of Outpost. The only downside is their spears and javelins bend very easily. And you may want to cosnider re-spearing some.

expendablecinc wrote:Post Latin conquest adn to a lesser degree kommenan are fake byzantine armies, relying more on foreign knights and light horse.

For a true Byzantine list look at Thematic or nikephorian as they have the "Proper" byzantine feel:

The OP did say they had to be post-1066AD, so unless he likes reliving Manzikert, Nikephorian is out - also I think the pre-1042AD Nikephorian is the better army.

Of the earlier Byzantines armies, apart from Nikephorian, Early Byzantine is decent but nothing special, Maurakian just odd, and Thematics is a bit of a dog. It has too many compulsory average lancers, not good in a period when everyone else seems to be superior. Pity, it's always been one of my favourite armies since WRG 5th/6th edition.

peterrjohnston wrote:

expendablecinc wrote:Post Latin conquest adn to a lesser degree kommenan are fake byzantine armies, relying more on foreign knights and light horse.

For a true Byzantine list look at Thematic or nikephorian as they have the "Proper" byzantine feel:

The OP did say they had to be post-1066AD, so unless he likes reliving Manzikert, Nikephorian is out - also I think the pre-1042AD Nikephorian is the better army.

Of the earlier Byzantines armies, apart from Nikephorian, Early Byzantine is decent but nothing special, Maurakian just odd, and Thematics is a bit of a dog. It has too many compulsory average lancers, not good in a period when everyone else seems to be superior. Pity, it's always been one of my favourite armies since WRG 5th/6th edition.

While I also prefer the pre-1042 Nikephorians to the post, I think the post 1042 list is decent and there aren't any special restrictions for post-1066 that I recall so nothing that would force reliving Manzikert. In particular the list doesn't require any unreliable allies/subordinates that Romanus IV had to contend with for the Manzikert campaign. The presence of some LH plus Normans and the Varangian Guard is reasonable compensation for the required average, armoured drilled lancers that replace most of the required superior, lance, bow* ones from the earlier period.

Chris

batesmotel wrote: In particular the list doesn't require any unreliable allies/subordinates that Romanus IV had to contend with for the Manzikert campaign. Chris

Play in doubles then you will know the true meaning of Unreliable.

batesmotel wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:

expendablecinc wrote:Post Latin conquest adn to a lesser degree kommenan are fake byzantine armies, relying more on foreign knights and light horse.

For a true Byzantine list look at Thematic or nikephorian as they have the "Proper" byzantine feel:

The OP did say they had to be post-1066AD, so unless he likes reliving Manzikert, Nikephorian is out - also I think the pre-1042AD Nikephorian is the better army.

Of the earlier Byzantines armies, apart from Nikephorian, Early Byzantine is decent but nothing special, Maurakian just odd, and Thematics is a bit of a dog. It has too many compulsory average lancers, not good in a period when everyone else seems to be superior. Pity, it's always been one of my favourite armies since WRG 5th/6th edition.

While I also prefer the pre-1042 Nikephorians to the post, I think the post 1042 list is decent and there aren't any special restrictions for post-1066 that I recall so nothing that would force reliving Manzikert. In particular the list doesn't require any unreliable allies/subordinates that Romanus IV had to contend with for the Manzikert campaign. The presence of some LH plus Normans and the Varangian Guard is reasonable compensation for the required average, armoured drilled lancers that replace most of the required superior, lance, bow* ones from the earlier period.

Chris

As mentioned above, having to take average, armored lancers when everyone else has superior is what kills the later Nikeporians, just as no integral LH kills the early Nikephorians, at least from a tournament standpoint. I've been taking the Bedouin allies for LH and they're OK but not having missile weapons makes them very sketchy.

Paul G.

PaulByzan wrote:

batesmotel wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote: The OP did say they had to be post-1066AD, so unless he likes reliving Manzikert, Nikephorian is out - also I think the pre-1042AD Nikephorian is the better army.

Of the earlier Byzantines armies, apart from Nikephorian, Early Byzantine is decent but nothing special, Maurakian just odd, and Thematics is a bit of a dog. It has too many compulsory average lancers, not good in a period when everyone else seems to be superior. Pity, it's always been one of my favourite armies since WRG 5th/6th edition.

While I also prefer the pre-1042 Nikephorians to the post, I think the post 1042 list is decent and there aren't any special restrictions for post-1066 that I recall so nothing that would force reliving Manzikert. In particular the list doesn't require any unreliable allies/subordinates that Romanus IV had to contend with for the Manzikert campaign. The presence of some LH plus Normans and the Varangian Guard is reasonable compensation for the required average, armoured drilled lancers that replace most of the required superior, lance, bow* ones from the earlier period.

Chris

As mentioned above, having to take average, armored lancers when everyone else has superior is what kills the later Nikeporians, just as no integral LH kills the early Nikephorians, at least from a tournament standpoint. I've been taking the Bedouin allies for LH and they're OK but not having missile weapons makes them very sketchy.

Paul G.

If you go with the post-1042 Nikephorians, you need to use something other than the average lancers as your main offensive punch. You can get a number of other troops to use including the Normans and/or the cataphracts Klibanophoroi/Kataphraktoi and/or allied Georgian lancers. Alternatively the Varangian guard can server this function against opposing heavy foot armies. The average lancers are fine for supporting better offensive troops or on their own against weaker opposition.

Chris

Agree that the average lancers cannot be main striking power. My point is that average lancers are not capable enough in the other roles you mention, that justifies their expense. They can't support better troops because of the morale difference and their are no weaker troops (well maybe poor lancers, if there are any). They are easy targets against similar lancer or bow superior cavalry or even shooty LH. If other armies of their period or other periods were forced to take average cavalry as well, that would perhaps be acceptable. For example do we really believe that every Gothic cavalry or Sassanid clibanari was superior status in reality? Of course not, but they are allowed to be so on their lists. Average Byzantine lancers are too fragile to stand in the battle line. For a 4 stand BG 2 losses and they're gone. A six stand unit is tougher but really expensive.

Paul G.

batesmotel wrote:

PaulByzan wrote:

batesmotel wrote: While I also prefer the pre-1042 Nikephorians to the post, I think the post 1042 list is decent and there aren't any special restrictions for post-1066 that I recall so nothing that would force reliving Manzikert. In particular the list doesn't require any unreliable allies/subordinates that Romanus IV had to contend with for the Manzikert campaign. The presence of some LH plus Normans and the Varangian Guard is reasonable compensation for the required average, armoured drilled lancers that replace most of the required superior, lance, bow* ones from the earlier period.

Chris

As mentioned above, having to take average, armored lancers when everyone else has superior is what kills the later Nikeporians, just as no integral LH kills the early Nikephorians, at least from a tournament standpoint. I've been taking the Bedouin allies for LH and they're OK but not having missile weapons makes them very sketchy.

Paul G.

If you go with the post-1042 Nikephorians, you need to use something other than the average lancers as your main offensive punch. You can get a number of other troops to use including the Normans and/or the cataphracts Klibanophoroi/Kataphraktoi and/or allied Georgian lancers. Alternatively the Varangian guard can server this function against opposing heavy foot armies. The average lancers are fine for supporting better offensive troops or on their own against weaker opposition.

Chris

PaulByzan wrote:
As mentioned above, having to take average, armored lancers when everyone else has superior is what kills the later Nikeporians, just as no integral LH kills the early Nikephorians, at least from a tournament standpoint. I've been taking the Bedouin allies for LH and they're OK but not having missile weapons makes them very sketchy.

Paul G.

Yes, treat the late Byzantine cavalry as the vestigial unit - a pale shadow of its former self (tagmatic full time proffesionals).

In drilled, average guise they are only really good for a game of Flank-a-rama - a very unmanly pursuit and a bit of a waste of three hours IMO.

PaulByzan wrote:Agree that the average lancers cannot be main striking power. My point is that average lancers are not capable enough in the other roles you mention, that justifies their expense. They can't support better troops because of the morale difference and their are no weaker troops (well maybe poor lancers, if there are any). They are easy targets against similar lancer or bow superior cavalry or even shooty LH. If other armies of their period or other periods were forced to take average cavalry as well, that would perhaps be acceptable. For example do we really believe that every Gothic cavalry or Sassanid clibanari was superior status in reality? Of course not, but they are allowed to be so on their lists. Average Byzantine lancers are too fragile to stand in the battle line. For a 4 stand BG 2 losses and they're gone. A six stand unit is tougher but really expensive.

Paul G.

I've always been curious about the African Vandal 100% Superior Cavalry. I wouldn't have thought their historical performance would justify that. But in any event my Byzantines have been a bit underwhelming so far. Average lancers really don't cut the mustard.

Walter