Maurikian Byzantine

[AntiokosIII]

I'm thinking of pre-ordering some of the new FiB Thematic Byzantine line to use as Mauritians, figuring that by the time I get done painting them nobody will be able to tell the difference. Most of the troops are fairly straightforward, but what should the Phoideratoi look like? The name sounds like barbarians hired into Byzantine service, but since they are rated drilled, they are plainly permanent units, and perhaps have more a Byzantine look about them.Can I get away with using the same figures for the Phoideratoi as for the 'elite' cavalry, with different color schemes to show the difference? Or did these troops retain their native dress and equipment?
I've looked into my meager supply of sources on the Byzantine army without finding an answer.

[nikgaukroger]

If you're looking at the Maurikian then the Strategikon can be useful for the background on the organmisation - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Maurices-Strategikon-Handbook-Byzantine-Military/dp/0812217721/

The foideratoi are described (something like) as units that were once made up of foreigners but are now part of the regular army and also include Romans. Basically they are part of the regular army.

BTW if you are using FiB figures I'd suggest using the "Late Byzantine Nikephorian - Kavallarioi EHC" for the cavalry with horse armour instead of the ones in the Thematic range. The latter have kite shaped shields which is not correct - and isn't for most of the Thematic period either ... They appear to have got some of the Thematic and Nikeforians mixed up 

[AntiokosIII]

Thanks,Nik. I have ordered a copy of the Strategikon.

[badhabum]

I know about the kite shields but must admitt I use my Nikephorians as Maurikians ...just because I already have so many armies painted I never used ( Normans, Later carthaginians, timurids, assyrians, gallic, early germanic , khazar ...) not enough games in Belgium and France I fear ..

[badhabum]

How silly ...so many books to read and I managed to order the strategikon ....I should hate you

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Excellent ... everyone should have a copy!

[AntiokosIII]

If you're looking at the Maurikian then the Strategikon can be useful for the background on the organmisation - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Maurices-Strategikon-Handbook-Byzantine-Military/dp/0812217721/

The foideratoi are described (something like) as units that were once made up of foreigners but are now part of the regular army and also include Romans. Basically they are part of the regular army.

BTW if you are using FiB figures I'd suggest using the "Late Byzantine Nikephorian - Kavallarioi EHC" for the cavalry with horse armour instead of the ones in the Thematic range. The latter have kite shaped shields which is not correct - and isn't for most of the Thematic period either ... They appear to have got some of the Thematic and Nikeforians mixed up 

OK, I got my copy of the Strategikon (Kudos to Amazon for quick delivery) and I am convinced Nik is right. I have 2 more questions that the book doesn't really address.
First, which units are covered by what the MeG list refers to 'Elite cavalry'. That is, the one unit of superiors? The Strategikon seems to me to imply that these would be the Optimates, which Maurikian says to put in the back line as a reserve, but I really don't know enough to have any opinion about the Optimates being separately listed as average- I assume the list writers know a lot more than I do, so which unit get called Superior?
Second, Nik mentioned that round shielded cav from the FiB Nikephorian line better represent the  Elites and Phoideratoi than the kite shielded Thematic line. Is the same true of the FiB Nikephorians vs their Thematics? In other words, if I understand this right, I should buy Nikephorian lancers and pair them with the Thematic bowmen and Thematic infantry of this line, and get a more or less correct looking army for Maurikian and Thematic armies.
I must say again, Nik, you are a tremendous resource to our community and I am very grateful for your unstinting help. Next time I am in England for a tourney (I cling to the thought of summer 2021 for Skulls) I am buying your beers for at least one evening as the least I could do.

[ShrubMiK]

Boukellarioi?

[nikgaukroger]

Agree - the "Elite cavalry" will be the boukellarioi - the Optimates have their own line in the list.

The round shield cavalry are better for the line cavalry as well IMO - the main downside with them is that they appear to be mainly in scale armour and/or klibanon and not mail, but IMO the shield shape is more important. YMMV.

For my Byzantines I have a front rank on the half armoured horses and a second rank of archers on unarmoured horses as the Strategikon does not envisage armoured horses for the whole unit - I cannot recall off the top of my head if the Strategikon has shields for the archer types.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

The biscuit eaters as I now know thanks to Age of Attilla!

S

[ShrubMiK]

I think I first came across biscuit eaters being mentioned in that definitive, penetrating work of totally accurate history, "Count Belisarius"

Re. the archers and shields:
My understanding (FWIW: this might be mis-remembered, or out of date!...it's a good long time since I really read anything detailed on this era) is that at this stage the cavalry were mostly all ranks with lance bow and shield, but the different ranks specialised as either lancers or archers - hence the differing classification in the lists. Some time later the lancers lose the bow and gain a bigger shield (ultimately going to the kite); archers lose the lance and (officially at least) shouldn't have a shield.

[AntiokosIII]

The Strategikon says these units form up 7-8 deep.The first 2 and last rank are lancers,and the middle 4 are archers. The archers do not have shields.

Maurikios  also says the troops should have lance pennons (because they look good) but should get rid of them when a mile or so from the enemy. I believe I shall include the pennons anyway (because they look good).

[ShrubMiK]

Well how about this for some synchronicity...

I idly picked out an old copy of Slingshot (Issue 279, Nov 2011) from my shelves this evening, and started flicking through it.

Fist article - East Roman Cavalry Warfare and Tactics, c410-461 (Part 1), by Dr. Ilkka Syvanne.

So I thought I would see if he had anything to say on this topic. Partly based on the Strategikon, of course.

His take: Cavalrymen of this era were equipped with bow and lance and were supposed to be well rounded enough to use either, if required. The mid ranks were "not to use shield", which he interprets as having a shield but stowed on the horse rather than in the hands or attached to the arm - presumably so as not to interfere with bow use.

So, assuming he is correct, it's not quite what I thought - my Byzantine archer figures have small shield strapped to arm.

His interpretation still doesn't seem entirely intuitive to me though - are they also supposed to be stowing a kontarion on the horse justin case they might need it? I wonder if kontarion and shield might instead be left in the camp/with the baggage if their job today is to be an archer.

He does say something else interesting, about bow use constraining the choice of helmet because certain types of helmet are not compatible with certain types of bow shot. Not something I've seen mentioned before. Maybe this is another area our figures will turn out to be incorrectly modelled if we look closely enough Unfortunately he doesn't elaborate.

Personally I agree with the approach of: if in doubt, err on the side of making the troops look good!

[nikgaukroger]

Well how about this for some synchronicity...

I idly picked out an old copy of Slingshot (Issue 279, Nov 2011) from my shelves this evening, and started flicking through it.

Fist article - East Roman Cavalry Warfare and Tactics, c410-461 (Part 1), by Dr. Ilkka Syvanne.

Which is also available here - https://www.academia.edu/36185385/Syvanne_Ilkka_East_Roman_Cavalry_Warfare_410_641