Slitherine

My copy of Decline and Fall is on its way, but I was wondering if anyone could give me the base totals for the Nikephorian Byzantine starter army. I dont need stats, cant make that info public, but a list of bases. 6 Cav, 4 HF, 10 LF, etc. Want to have the bases ready to go for a game as soon as I get the book.


Thanks!

3 generals
2 BGs of 4 cavalry, all lance bow sword
1 BG of 2 cataphracts (one lancer and one bow)
2 BGs of 4 cavalry bow
2 BGs of 8 mixed spearmen and archers (four of each)
1 BG of 6 bases of Rus spearmen
1 BG of 8 light foot archers

As a minor correction, the cavalry for this period should be mixed lancer and archer figures, not individuals double equipped. The troops being represented are described in the manuals (and in the Nikephorian list I believe) as being three ranks of lancers plus two of archers.

hammy wrote:3 generals
2 BGs of 4 cavalry, all lance bow sword
1 BG of 2 cataphracts (one lancer and one bow)
2 BGs of 4 cavalry bow
2 BGs of 8 mixed spearmen and archers (four of each)
1 BG of 6 bases of Rus spearmen
1 BG of 8 light foot archers

hammy wrote:3 generals
2 BGs of 4 cavalry, all lance bow sword
1 BG of 2 cataphracts (one lancer and one bow)
2 BGs of 4 cavalry bow
2 BGs of 8 mixed spearmen and archers (four of each)
1 BG of 6 bases of Rus spearmen
1 BG of 8 light foot archers

8 Cav
2 Cataphract
8 Cav
8 Light Foot

The 2 BG of 8 Mix Spear and the 1 BG of 6, what are those? Med Ft?

Thanks alot!

I should also clarify, while playing around with an army before actually buying it, we just cut bases out of plastic card and write the info on them. If we decide to stick with them, we buy the actual minis. Trying to get my bases cut and ready for a game friday night, so all I have to do is get my book (scheduled for delivery) and write down the info.

I am looking forward to seeing how the army was represented with the rules. Now, to settle on a supplier for the minis.

The 8 spear BGs will have 4 heavy foot spearmen and 4 medium foot bow. The 6 spear BG are all heavy foot.

This is an army i really want to like, but it looks tough to use. The lack of LH in the early period (when it won wars) is a huge handicap.

I am not so sure. Will need to review the whole army list to see if I can adjust it to my style, but remember, this is the army of Basil II, who brought the Byzantine Empire into the height of its golden age and reclaimed almost all of the lost territory. It beat the Bulgarians, the Arabs, and the Normans.

Want to see if the game list reflects that.

Omar wrote:I am not so sure. Will need to review the whole army list to see if I can adjust it to my style, but remember, this is the army of Basil II, who brought the Byzantine Empire into the height of its golden age and reclaimed almost all of the lost territory. It beat the Bulgarians, the Arabs, and the Normans.

Want to see if the game list reflects that.

It has some pretty interesting troops that are genuinely good, but not sure it will gel.

Omar wrote:
I am not so sure. Will need to review the whole army list to see if I can adjust it to my style, but remember, this is the army of Basil II, who brought the Byzantine Empire into the height of its golden age and reclaimed almost all of the lost territory.

Lost since when?

It was a lot smaller than in Justinians time, for example.

nikgaukroger wrote:Lost since when?

It was a lot smaller than in Justinians time, for example.

The Roman Empire, more or less. He did bring the Byzantine empire to the height of its territory as well.

Cant wait for tomorrow.. er... later today.

Omar wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Lost since when?

It was a lot smaller than in Justinians time, for example.

The Roman Empire, more or less. He did bring the Byzantine empire to the height of its territory as well.

Well the height of its territory since the Bulgar/Arab conquests yes, but it was much larger in Justinian's day. Notably Palestine and Egypt were not recovered. (Nor, of course, NW Africa or Spain)

As there are a number of historians who use Diocletian's reign as the start point for the Byzantine empire (Treadgold is one for example), it could be said that even Justianan was well down on territory

In many ways the 10th, early 11th cent Byzantine army was better equipped and more professional than that of the Justinianic period. They also had more and varied opponents to fight against, many of whom had adopted their tactics and fighting style, rather than a single monolithic Sassanid Empire, a prospect that some would view as more difficult, and triumphed over them all.

At any rate, I'm curious as to what the basis was for not allowing the early period Nikephorians some native or mercenary LH. There is at least a question as to whether the Outflankers should count as Protected LH rather than Cav under the rules. There is as much evidence in their use as skirmishers and harassers, as in battle line cavalry, a role more suited to their depiction as LH. This could have been addressed by allowing them the option of being deployed as Cav or LH, as is done in other lists. Also, there is no allowance for steppe mercenaries such as the Magyars, Pechenegs, etc. Leo the Deacon clearly indicates that steppe mercenaries were included in the army that re-conquered Crete in 960-961AD. A little flexibility here wouldn't really affect game balance and would allow the army to be a bit more effective in FoG terms.

Also, in the Post-1042AD list, given the importance of the Norman/Frankish contingent in the Manzikert era army isn't max 6 bases too few to properly represent this? Would have expected more on the order of 12-18 max.

Paul Georgian

PaulByzan wrote:
In many ways the 10th, early 11th cent Byzantine army was better equipped and more professional than that of the Justinianic period. They also had more and varied opponents to fight against, many of whom had adopted their tactics and fighting style, rather than a single monolithic Sassanid Empire, a prospect that some would view as more difficult, and triumphed over them all.

Justinian's armies had more than just Sasanids as opponents - Vandals, Moors, Goths and Franks (well, mainly Alemanni IIRC) all spring to mind.

At any rate, I'm curious as to what the basis was for not allowing the early period Nikephorians some native or mercenary LH. There is at least a question as to whether the Outflankers should count as Protected LH rather than Cav under the rules. There is as much evidence in their use as skirmishers and harassers, as in battle line cavalry, a role more suited to their depiction as LH. This could have been addressed by allowing them the option of being deployed as Cav or LH, as is done in other lists. Also, there is no allowance for steppe mercenaries such as the Magyars, Pechenegs, etc. Leo the Deacon clearly indicates that steppe mercenaries were included in the army that re-conquered Crete in 960-961AD. A little flexibility here wouldn't really affect game balance and would allow the army to be a bit more effective in FoG terms.

Also, in the Post-1042AD list, given the importance of the Norman/Frankish contingent in the Manzikert era army isn't max 6 bases too few to properly represent this? Would have expected more on the order of 12-18 max.

Off hand I can only recall that de Balliol had 500 with him in the Manzikert campaign for which 6 bases is generous. Which numbers were you thinking of that would justify 12 or 18?

Especially against historical opponents six stands of Normans might be quite poweful. That is the same frontage as a dozen stands of cavalry lancers.

I toyed around with the list a bit more last night and think one approach (especially in period) is to take 24 stands of Bw*/lancers, 8 outflankers, IC+2xTC. Then take the rest of the army as 2 BGs of Poor Spear/Bow and a few BGs of LI that are a mix of Poor and Average.

This gets ou a +4 initiative so you can pick terrain and try out outdeploy (deploy the heavy cav last of course), you are moving second so the lack of LH isn't such a big deal and you can really mass the good Byzantine cavalry. If you can outdeploy and rush an Arab type army with 24 stands of Lancer/Bw* Ghilmans could really find themselves with a tough problem.

I also find it rather curious that the early Nikephorian list has no LH. Considering the scientific approach they took to warfare, and the importance they placed on scouting it is hard to beleive they didn't maintain at least a small body of native or mercenary light cavalry.

On slimmer evidence the Early Sassanids are given 90 stands of LH, based on the supposition that they were similiar to the Later Parthians. An equally valid case could be made that the Parthians in the years after Carrhae began to place more emphasis on shock tactics. That the Parthians of 200AD did not practice the same nomadic lifestyle they had in 200BC, and that the number of horse archers available began to fall as time went on.

I point this out as someone who does have a Sassanid army, but does not have a Byzantine one.

I guess it sometimes does pay to be the good guys

Delbruck wrote:I also find it rather curious that the early Nikephorian list has no LH. Considering the scientific approach they took to warfare, and the importance they placed on scouting it is hard to beleive they didn't maintain at least a small body of native or mercenary light cavalry.

Scounting happens before what a FoG battle represents so the use or not of scouts, possibly in very light equipment, is not really relevant to whether a list has LH or not.

On slimmer evidence the Early Sassanids are given 90 stands of LH, based on the supposition that they were similiar to the Later Parthians. An equally valid case could be made that the Parthians in the years after Carrhae began to place more emphasis on shock tactics. That the Parthians of 200AD did not practice the same nomadic lifestyle they had in 200BC, and that the number of horse archers available began fall as time went on.

Karrhae would use the absolute minimum of catafracts in the list so if you believe the Parthians used more after that then the list allows you to take many more to represent that

ethan wrote:Especially against historical opponents six stands of Normans might be quite poweful. That is the same frontage as a dozen stands of cavalry lancers.

I toyed around with the list a bit more last night and think one approach (especially in period) is to take 24 stands of Bw*/lancers, 8 outflankers, IC+2xTC. Then take the rest of the army as 2 BGs of Poor Spear/Bow and a few BGs of LI that are a mix of Poor and Average.

This gets ou a +4 initiative so you can pick terrain and try out outdeploy (deploy the heavy cav last of course), you are moving second so the lack of LH isn't such a big deal and you can really mass the good Byzantine cavalry. If you can outdeploy and rush an Arab type army with 24 stands of Lancer/Bw* Ghilmans could really find themselves with a tough problem.

Agreed. Curiousity: would you run the Bw*/Lancers as 6x4 bases BG or 4x6 base BGs?

Marc

ethan wrote:This is an army i really want to like, but it looks tough to use. The lack of LH in the early period (when it won wars) is a huge handicap.

I was struck by how few LH there are in any of the lists in Decline and Fall (with a couple of exceptions).

I'm guessing that the Byzantine LH that were in the DBM lists (scouts, flankers, linkers, etc.) are "detatched koursores" in the FoG lists.

If you want plenty of LH, there is always the Later Moorish ally. (I don't remember if Nikephorian Byz has them.)