Taginae introduced new tactics for the Early Byzantine army - massed foot archers and dismounted foederate cavalry (Heruls and Lombards). These are not available within the existing list.
The army used high numbers of foot archers, (8,000) but very low number of kavallerioi (less than 1,500). This is in marked contrast to all previous battles, in which kavallerioi where the most numerous troop type. I offer the suggestion that a significant number of the foot archers were dismounted kavallerioi - an option not in the current list. Also there where 9,000 dismounted Lombard and Herul cavalry - also not achievable in current list (no option to dismount). This tactic was repeated at later battles in Italy.
Maybe a case for modification to the Early Byzantine list for 552 and later, to
- Kavallerioi, limit to 4-6 only (ie single unit)
- Foot archers : 8 -16
- Foederate cavalry - replace with Foederate infantry (dismounted cavalry) : (Tribal Flex/Close, Avg, prot, Dev Charge)
- Langobard/Lombard ally : option to replace with internal list : Lombards Foot (as above) : 6 - 18
Good suggestions. I will look to incorporate into the 2021 edition of the army lists.
IIRC, the point of dismounting the cavalry was to provide resilient infantry centre to withstand the Gothic cavalry charge; in which case should be close not flexible, and not an obvious fit for DevastatingCharger when on foot.
Flex can be in Close Order. I used the definition for Lombard/Herul foot in their lists. Personally, I would agree with you that Close Order, Short Spear would seem a more appropriate choice - but am weary of asking Richard for too many changes :D :(
If resilient to cavalry charges you need "shieldwall" ...which in the game would be understandable . Otherwise you dismount short spear / devastating charger + melee expert cavalry to counter devastating + melee expert cavalry... In the game, being mounted is better unless they get to have "shieldwall" in which case they become more resilient vs ostrogogthic cavalry .
Or Long Spear?
That would be much more logical.
The cavalry (I think) were using longer weapons than earlier Germanic cavalry.
And the suggestion has been made that experience with dismounted cavalry led subsequently to increasing the length of spear used by the Skoutatoi.
I would be prudent on that one . If you allow long spears at that time I will jump with joy ! We know they evolved towards long spears but the key is WHEN ?
Fair point!
I'm not suggesting that Skoutatoi in the Early Byzant list should be Long Spear, only that it might be appropriate to allow some long spear armed infantry in limited circumstances. The dismounted cavalry, for a limited period, only in Italy; and with a reduction in other options - e.g. that a Lombard (sorry, Langobard!) ally needs to be taken, and the dismounted cavalry subtract from their noble cavalry.
Note: it is only 23 years after Taginae that the Maurikian list starts, and at that point Skoutatoi are considered to be Long spear.
Nik do not read this please !
In that case you nearly need a new army list 8)
Nik you may read now
I would not give long spears to dismounted langobards as it opens pandoras box for other germanic armies.
Now I will freely admit I would like early byzantine with long soears. From memory in the tacktika skutatoï are mentioned as having a long spear on the 3-5 front ranks, the rest being javelin . But how were the long spears used . Honestly I do not know . We might argue that the infantry facing mainly mounted opponents did recreate a phalanx ..but it is pretty difficult to say when it started !
My opinion is that we should have both possibilities but it is only an opinion ! Unless someone comes with new material ...and remember, Roman infantry had a hard time stopping sassanid cavalry, gothic cavalry ...I know what I whish but ...a whish is a whish
Quote from: badhabum on August 04, 2020, 07:53:39 PM
Now I will freely admit I would like early byzantine with long soears. From memory in the tacktika skutatoï are mentioned as having a long spear on the 3-5 front ranks, the rest being javelin . But how were the long spears used . Honestly I do not know . We might argue that the infantry facing mainly mounted opponents did recreate a phalanx ..but it is pretty difficult to say when it started !
The Taktika was written about 900 CE so is not anywhere near a contemporary source. If you meant the Strategikon which is closer chronologically, then the infantry tactics are very close to what we think of as the way Roman infantry worked - I raised it in a previous post on Maurikian Byzantine infantry and how they should be classified.
As I wrote it was from "memory" . One thing is sure, the infantry evolved and went over to long spears ..but when is another problem .
So from maurikian I would say Long spears and if people want to possibility of short sprear ..
But I still wonder about the early byzantine shieldwall described by Procopius , shield interlocked ...shieldwall or not ?
I am proposing to allow the following options from 551 CE for the Early Byzantine army in the 2021 lists:
Dismount Kavallarioi as archers Infantry, Formed Loose, Average, Protected, Experienced Bow, Combat Shy. Any 6,8
Dismount foederate cavalry and allied Lombard cavalry: Infantry, Tribal Close, Average, Protected, Short Spear, Shieldwall, 12* to 24 6,8.
* minimum applies only if any troops are dismounted.
Richard
Excellent -
Combat shy mandatory ???
I cannot help feeling that early byzantines are a toothless tiger ...They have Huns but none of those may be skilled . They have many bow cavalry and none may use cantabrian or something like that so only experienced bow . Nearly no one is melee expert ..one wonder how they met the vandals because killing them slowly with white dice is ...slow ...same goes when they meet langobards ...and even facing the sassanid is very difficult ...I do not say they need a complete overhaul but it misses something as all I read points to one fact : their shooting was better than that of the enemy ... so one or 2 units skilled would seem nice and help a lot ! IMO and oh yes ...I love that army ...
Quote from: badhabum on September 01, 2020, 08:22:38 PM
all I read points to one fact : their shooting was better than that of the enemy ...
I would strongly suggest that the evidence really doesn't support this. The battles against the Sasanids shows a parity IMO - if there is a difference it is rapid Persian archery against slower but more penetrative Roman archery (if we follow Prokopios) with the differences cancelling each other out; IIRC an example would be Callinicum where a prolonged archery duel produced no advantage to either side.
Might be but with white dice shooting and no possibility to have some skilled and very few melee expert ...in a traditionnal mEG game the vandals will crush the byzantines while historically they were crushed by the shooting mainly from the huns who, contrary to the Hunnic list may never be upgraded skilled 8)
IMO it is perfectly possible to beat a Vandal army with Early Byzantines. Whilst not using Byzantines I have done so with a shooty cavalry army that didn't have skilled shooters (all mounted Han). Like with any shooty cavalry army in MeG it is not easy if you are not practiced with the said army - its how MeG is designed to work.
If you think the Huns in the army should have some skilled shooters make a case for it - Prokopios no doubt has the battle accounts that would provide the evidence so can easily be quoted :D
I know how to use such an army . But white dice and 3 hours game ...no way you break an opponent who has some 9-11 TUGs unless you are very lucky or your opponent is very helpfull ...
By the way, as I was in contact with Syvanna Ilkka because I could not get a copy of his book, he told me about our good friends the early byzantine that most of the armies used what their leadr told them to use.
My conviction is that if an army is lead by Belisarius, the Bucellarii ( boukellaroî )should be of the DC type + short spear to represent the 2 lancer/bow unit and their use which seems to be shock tactics .( Procopius ). But such an army should not have the dismounted cavalry or foederati as Belisarius emphasis was mounted units .
Narses on the other hand used much more infantry and dismounted units . A very different approach and so such an army should be able to dismount but not have shock cavalry such as sup DC ...but keep the more traditional type of units .
Of course it is only my conviction ...
well i got the feeling that the byzantine often are underrated.
Yes they lost in some sassanid battles...but they did win too.
And i wonder how Belisarius managed...
For the battle between Huns and Vandals in africa, if we are to believe procopius, some 4-600 huns defeated some 2000 vandals ..rather quickly ..the story says the huns just charged and the vandals broke ...now in MEG terms the charge is suicide so I would gues rather good shooting .
So back to : why may the huns have some skilled shooters and why when they serve Byzantium, none may be skilled ?
In my opinion, the army is better with the schock Bucelarri option but still lack something to make it a challenge army .
We could use the sabir ally but it is not the same thing !
That army lacks something to be used full cavalry as Belisarius did .
But who exactly are these "Huns" you are talking about?
The battle of Ad Decimum was fought 80 years after the end date of the Hunnic list, so you can't really use that as a definitive comparison!
Procopius describes them as Massagetic IIRC, which doesn't help much other than suggesting a general area they come from. It is possible to think they have some relationship with the Sabir list (although why would they not just have been referred to as Sabirs?), or the Early Bulgar list (although that doesn't begin until 26 years later).
You might extend the argument to why the Bulgars don't get skilled shooters either :)
As the guy who wrote the list . It is Hunnic that procopius calls masagetae .... ;D
For the Bulgars I'll let you make your case as Rhey did not destroy the vandal kingdom 8)
Hephthalite might be the "huns" of those days or at least called so by Procopius and other sources from that time .
By the 6th century the term "Hun" was a general term used to describe a steppe horse archer - in the same way that the term "Scythian" was used in the 4th century to describe the Huns.
It is also worth remembering that the original Huns were probably a mix of tribes gathered into an army with a small ruling class that may have originated with the Xiongnu. After the collapse of the Hunnic Empire the remnant Huns were absorbed into other tribal groupings.
Richard
Hy,
Before you go back to considering what to change here is my opinion , very private ...
So back to : why may the huns have some skilled shooters and why when they serve Byzantium, none may be skilled . Even hephtalite may have skilled ones and if we look at what they did to the vandals, a possible upgrade of 4 bases may be right !
Belisarius did not trust the infantry and introduced shock tactics, so no dismounted foederate cavalry for him but the choice of bucelarii type ( not an upgrade ) either shoot and charge or dev chargers . Up to the 16 bases .
Other BYZ générals (Narses&co ) mounted foederate may dismount ..
Just my feeling from all the reading
So for a up ...any chances for a small upgrade of those huns that are not huns but could be skilled ?
I thinck it is what is missing in that army ..just one unit of skilled shooters to help the odds ..