Slitherine

I'm reading a book on Heraclius (Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium by Walter Kaegi).

One interesting point I noticed was that the author claims that the Persians did not like fighting (the Byzantines) on an open field. Apparently the Strategikon of Maurikios also notes that the Persiand preferred rough terrain rather than to draw up on open and level ground. Against Heraclius in a battle in 622 they attempted an ambush.

My (wargaming) assumption would have been that the Sasanids would go for open terrain. It implies that they had good access to rough terrain troops and light horse (which can operate effectively in uneven terrain in FoG). Or possibly the Persian cavalry were comfortable in rough. I'd "guess" the former explination.

Views?

The Strategikon implies that it will be the (heavy) cavalry who will fight in the broken terrain as it doesn't mention any other troops.

neilhammond wrote:I'm reading a book on Heraclius (Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium by Walter Kaegi).

One interesting point I noticed was that the author claims that the Persians did not like fighting (the Byzantines) on an open field. Apparently the Strategikon of Maurikios also notes that the Persiand preferred rough terrain rather than to draw up on open and level ground. Against Heraclius in a battle in 622 they attempted an ambush.

We were aware of this information from the Strategikon when writing the rules.

Sassanid heavy cavalry would be well advised to fight Byzantine cavalry in rough terrain, because it negates the Byzantine lancers POA in the impact phase.

rbodleyscott wrote:We were aware of this information from the Strategikon when writing the rules.

Sassanid heavy cavalry would be well advised to fight Byzantine cavalry in rough terrain, because it negates the Byzantine lancers POA in the impact phase.

Yes, I assumed that you'd factor in the Strategikon

It was more a comment that I was taken by surprise as it wasn't something I'd seen discussed before. Most other rules sets would encourage the Persians to go for open terrain. Hmm, this gives me an extra option for my Russian Cv vs knight armies

The significant reduction of effectiveness of the Byzantine cavalry in rough terrain (relative to the Sasanid cavalry) was clearly long established in Byzantine military circles. Luckily the rules cater for this

Neil

It also makes sense considering asavaran as an armoured skillful mounted bowman. As far as I know, cataphracts were less used as time passed, and the asavaran type rider, actually cavalry with swordman/bow POA, became more and more important. An enemy rider stuck on rough terrain might become a very good target.

I read the Sassanid preference for rough terrain in the Strategicon with interest also - my conclusion was that Persian heavy cav were more reliant on bows than their Byzantine counterparts.

That's exactly my view. I felt it was very consistent with FOG mechanisms as the Byzantinew would be advantaged with a lance charge whereas the sassanids would prefer to keep their distance or aty least get into a general sword melee without such a crunch. It is something that FOG's split of Cv(S) into very different characters of troops allows. In the open the + in the charge is worth more the more dice you have - so best on half dice in SEV DIR terrain.

Hence for my part very comfortable with those insights fromt he Stregikon that seem to reinforce the realism of the mechnisms unless I am missing something.

Si

shall wrote:That's exactly my view. I felt it was very consistent with FOG mechanisms as the Byzantinew would be advantaged with a lance charge whereas the sassanids would prefer to keep their distance or aty least get into a general sword melee without such a crunch. It is something that FOG's split of Cv(S) into very different characters of troops allows. In the open the + in the charge is worth more the more dice you have - so best on half dice in SEV DIR terrain.

Hence for my part very comfortable with those insights fromt he Stregikon that seem to reinforce the realism of the mechnisms unless I am missing something.

Si

Of course any "bad" terrain will completely negate the lancers POA independently of the effects of reducing number of dice.

It turns the combat into an equal fight, with the advantage thus accruing to the Sassanids because of the potential effect of shooting prior to combat. There is also the possibility of gaining extra rounds of shooting in terrain that reduces the enemy move below 4 MUs.

Indeed I should have made that explicit too Richard.

Si