I have never been really convinced by the Long Spear classification of these thinking they may be more like the preceding lists. So I have extracted four relevant bits from Dennis' translation of the Strategikon for consideration:
Quote
It is wise, I believe, in the first fighting, in that period when we are getting used to the enemy, to form the foot soldiers in files of eight heavily armed men and two lightly armed ...
But when our troops get roused up to take the offensive against the enemy, then a depth of four heavily armed foot soldiers and one lightly armed is enough
If the enemy advances to within bowshot and attempts to charge and break up our phalanx, a very dangerous move for them, the infantry should close ranks in the regular way. The first, second, and third man in each file form a foulkon, interlocking their shields, fix their spears firmly in the ground, holding them inclined forward and straight outside their shields, so that anyone who dares to come too close will quickly experience them. They also lean their shoulders and put their weight against the shields to resist any pressure from the enemy. The third man who is standing nearly upright, and the fourth man hold their spears like javelins, so when the foe gets close they can use them either for thrusting or for throwing and then draw their swords. The light armed infantry and the cavalry use the bow.
The heavy infantry, who are drawn up in the front line, advance still closer to the enemy. If the men have darts or missile weapons, they throw them, resting their lances on the ground. If without such weapons, they advance more closely, then hurl their lances like javelins, take out their swords and fight, each man remaining in his proper position and not pursuing the enemy if they turn to retreat. The men to the rear keep their heads covered with their shields and with their lances support those in the front.
What do people think?
Timely - am revisiting Maurikian Byzantines. I concur with Nik's points, and have been unable to find suitable pictorial representation of long spear armed Skutatoi, and this is the only period when they are classified as such; preceeding and later periods all arm them with short spears. List change ??
From Maurice onward all list have skutatoi with long spear.
I don't have a problem with reclassifying them.
I guess the question is mostly what best represents their performance in combat. For MeG the main point about long spear is it's strength against mounted. Are there any battle accounts of how these troops did against mounted? Was it Narses in Italy who dismounted everyone to resist mounted attack (...and is that even relevant?)
Not sure we have any accounts that tell us how the spearmen of the Maurikian period did in combat :(
Battlefield performance and tactics are how we classify troops, not the actual weapons. Cavalry with actual lances get classified as 'long spear' for lack of aggression. Troops with bow don't get to shoot because they were primarily troops that fought in melee. It seems to me that since the formation is described in the Strategicon as a close formation to stop cavalry, the Long Spear classification meets the case pretty well even is the spears were not that long and even if they could be thrown.
Or, in the alternative, give the Skutatoi short spear/shield wall based on equipment and give my beloved Sassanids the Lance ability because they had lances.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on May 06, 2020, 06:51:56 PM
It seems to me that since the formation is described in the Strategicon as a close formation to stop cavalry,
I don't believe the passages in the Strategikon mention that the formations are specifically to stop cavalry - they appear to apply to all enemy.
Also, FWIW, I note that the description of the Sasanids in the Strategikon has no mention of their use of any sort of spear - they are wholly mounted archers.
Nic,you are surely being just a shade disingenuous.I am confident that you are aware of all the sources (Iranian literary sources, reliefs, inscriptions, etc) that show that Sassanid cavalry habitually carried lances. Nor have I suggested that they should count as lancers; I am satisfied that they are correctly considered by the game as armored horse archers who will charge home if they see and advantage (so, Short Spear bow).
Anyway, that's not the point. The Strategikon does not mention that skies are often blue, either. Close order spears (of whatever type) backed by missile troops is plainly an anti-mounted formation, whether it's Byzantine, Chinese, or Indian. I see no reason to change the list.
I think the evidence about what Sasanid cavalry were armed with is not as clear cut as you suggest, however, to stick to my original topic (for once) I am quite unsure that the evidence we have for the infantry supports Long Spear - I would certainly suggest that the Strategikon passages don't and I don't think there is any literary evidence that supports it.
I think that its very simple how the issue of long spears came about.
Back in the 70`s Hinchcliffe and Lamming specifically made a figure for the period that came with a loose spear - a long spear! Now the ignorants (which included me) who bought these lovely figures therefore assumed that they were so armed rather than trimming them down. This also happened with the lovely Hinchcliffe late roman legionary figure.
This trend was then copied by Mikes models, Minifigs etc.
Now of course they may have been right all along, but this is where the problem started.
Lance.
Rather than a fixed list change from one troop type to another, why not provide an option for skutatoi to be either all Long Spear (integral shooter.Shield Cover) or all Short Spear (Darts/Shield Cover).
Quote from: IanN on May 08, 2020, 09:13:36 AM
Rather than a fixed list change from one troop type to another, why not provide an option for skutatoi to be either all Long Spear (integral shooter.Shield Cover) or all Short Spear (Darts/Shield Cover).
If any change is made it is likely to be along these lines.
Richard
With the talk of interlocking shields etc is there perhaps an argument for Shieldwall which would also give them some resilience against Mounted (not as much as Long Spear obviously). Just a thought
For the byzantines, circa 900 CE it seems that there were 2 type of spears, one around 2,5 m long ( or 8 ft ) another a kind of pike around 4 - 5 meters . The hoplites had some 7-8 ft spears . So Long spear seem a good option .as it is consistent in the rules. Now did the equipment and the tactics evelve for the infantry as it did for the cavalry around 600 CE ? difficult to say and I would say : we must keep our mind open !