spear protection

[badhabum]

What I would like to know is why are those skutatoï not LS anymore ? what are the facts ?

I have checked and IMO they should be LS but I would first like to know why they lost it as  IMO if they want to make such a change in the rules , we should at least know why .

LS had the added benefit of canceling mounted melee expert which spear protection does not so you need now 2 ranks of shieldwall to do it which was not mandatory before to cancel melee expert ..

The former skutatoï was 111 points, the new version 113 for a loss of effectivness

So I would like to have some explanation as I challenge that modification of the rules 

[lionheartrjc]

Jacques,

The aim was to stop the skutatoi from being deployed with the long spear in 2 ranks and being used offensively.  There is no evidence for this in any historical source.  As a result we didn't want them to remain as long spear.  As we have repeatedly said, the fact they had a long spear historically is of little relevance to how we classify troops - it is getting the right effect that we are after.  Four deep units of skutatoi wasn't the right effect.

The reason they are 2 pts more is that they are paying for Shield Cover & Shoot.  This was a substantial benefit which they weren't paying for in 2021.  The front rank is also now flexible, meaning they can also operate in terrain which they couldn't previously as close foot.  I would not equate this to a loss of effectiveness.

Overall this gives a much better feel for the Byzantine skutatoi.  The option to make them Shieldwall (representing Menaulatoi) is a marginal benefit against Mounted Melee Expert in Melee combat.  I would welcome historically justified suggestions as to any better way of representing this.  If you want offensive skutatoi, don't regrade them and have your long spear option.

By the way, you do not have a right to challenge any modification in the rules! You can express an opinion.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

The option to make them Shieldwall (representing Menaulatoi) is a marginal benefit against Mounted Melee Expert in Melee combat.

It also cancels any Shatter or Shove effects of course.

[badhabum]

The option to make them Shieldwall (representing Menaulatoi) is a marginal benefit against Mounted Melee Expert in Melee combat.

It also cancels any Shatter or Shove effects of course.

Shield wall was already a possibility, now you limit it if we use separatly deployed menvlatoi ..more and more limits .

[nikgaukroger]

The option to make them Shieldwall (representing Menaulatoi) is a marginal benefit against Mounted Melee Expert in Melee combat.

It also cancels any Shatter or Shove effects of course.

Shield wall was already a possibility, now you limit it if we use separatly deployed menvlatoi ..more and more limits .

This was the case in the 2021 and 2020 lists, it is not a new change.

[badhabum]

The option to make them Shieldwall (representing Menaulatoi) is a marginal benefit against Mounted Melee Expert in Melee combat.

It also cancels any Shatter or Shove effects of course.

Shield wall was already a possibility, now you limit it if we use separatly deployed menvlatoi ..more and more limits .

This was the case in the 2021 and 2020 lists, it is not a new change.

Well it was missed as it is just one line . Too many details and you always loose some .

[badhabum]

The aim was to stop the skutatoi from being deployed with the long spear in 2 ranks and being used offensively.  There is no evidence for this in any historical source.  As a result we didn't want them to remain as long spear.  As we have repeatedly said, the fact they had a long spear historically is of little relevance to how we classify troops - it is getting the right effect that we are after.  Four deep units of skutatoi wasn't the right effect.

Hy so I will answer :

First do you have any proof that the skutatoi never advanced towards the enemy ? never charged the enemy ? I do not think so . The problem being is that warfare in the Xth century is essentially mounted vs mounted and INF . So yes the formation was basically defensive because there was a lack of infantry to fight against but plenty of mounted to defend against . Warfare vs enemy    infantry did mostly occur in sieges and the enemy infantry not being that good vs cavalry, the cavalry was the offensive weapon by choice even if some infantry battles did happen. An dit is difficult to say who assaulted the other first so could the byzantine formation be offensive, yes why not ?

Did for exemples phalanxes charge elephants ? charge enemy cavalry ? Not thet I know of but in MEG they may !

Did defensive formation mixed spear/bow or polearm/bow charge the enemy ..I do not know but you do not limit them as you do for the byzantine army.

Now back to depth :

In MEG , phalanxes deploy 4 deep because they are 16 ranks deep .

A byzantine nikephorian basic formation is 7 rank deep , 2 LS,3 BW, 2 LS , each rank 100 men long + 100 menvlatoi in reserve + 200 other amongst them  peltastoi equiped nearly as skutatoi .

Checking the Praecepta Militaria, it is indeed stated that the "modern" deployment is 7 rank deep . In case of attack by cavalry, the menvlatoi + one of the rear ranks of LS + the some 200 peltsatoi must reinforce the first LS ranks and so create a 4 strongh rank deep of LS . So we should have a full MEG rank of LS . A bit further in the text it is ambiguously stated that the formation of the infantry should be tripled in depth or 21 ranks deep . So a deep formation is  not unheard of.

next we go to Nikephoros Ouranos and his praecepta, still written in the large Nikephorian period and that refreshes the Praecepta.There it is stated that in case of enemy cataphracts comint ( or should it be cavalry ) , a file of 7 must be doubled to 14 . In cas of enemy infantry coming a specific outflanking manoeuver is described that is impossible to represent in the game . But so contracting and having a lot of LS to the front is not unheard off and even comon .

McGeer in his book "Sewing the Dragon's teeth", pg 275 describes pretty well the increasing of the infantry depth and yes it is a box with the bowmen in the center but with 5 ranks of menvlatoi and LS to the front, 4 to the back . It has depth and enough LS to be considered full LS 2 ranks ( in real live any hoplite behind the 4th rank would just push) . So it is entirely possible to have 2 rank LS to represent that reinforcment and better efficiency vs mounted and infantry and the closing of ranks. And if a player uses them offensivly that is his choice as a player !

But so as infantry battles were not the mark of the day ..they did not devellop an 8 deep hoplite formation and we will never know if , on the spot , they did  do it .

But limitating them by reducing their efficiency articicially by taking the LS from them and making them worse vs all because we have no records they did attack is a dangerous open door ! We know they did deploy in depth to resist charges and they used peltastoï to fight enemy mounted and infantry  but the new system cancels it . it makes them weaker and it is a very bad move .

Did hoplites charge mounted and Nellies ? never heard of it but allowed in MEG

Did hoplites deploy more than 8 rank deep or more than 2 MEG rank deep ( in MEG they may, in reality it was the exception and even an inovation )

To me, you should reinstate the old list that is much better or if you want to be consistent all mixed list should be adapted with a spear cover style characteristic unless only spear !

[badhabum]

an d by the way, I thinck there is enough information about the skutatoi in so many books to know that they had and used LS as LS ...

[lionheartrjc]

First do you have any proof that the skutatoi never advanced towards the enemy ? never charged the enemy ? I do not think so . 

This is completely irrelevant - regraded Skutatoi can still advance. 

The problem being is that warfare in the Xth century is essentially mounted vs mounted and INF . So yes the formation was basically defensive because there was a lack of infantry to fight against but plenty of mounted to defend against .

So there is no reason to give them Long Spear factors.   Troops could potentially do a lot of things that they never did historically, this doesn't mean we always give them options to do these.  We only ever focus on what we believe actually happened - but games can lead to plenty of situations that never happened historically.

In MEG , phalanxes deploy 4 deep because they are 16 ranks deep .

Not true.  Pike could deploy in 8 or 32 ranks deep.  4 ranks of figures is the game mechanism for Maximus, in Magna or Pacto it is 3 ranks.

Checking the Praecepta Militaria, it is indeed stated that the "modern" deployment is 7 rank deep . In case of attack by cavalry, the menvlatoi + one of the rear ranks of LS + the some 200 peltsatoi must reinforce the first LS ranks and so create a 4 strongh rank deep of LS . So we should have a full MEG rank of LS . A bit further in the text it is ambiguously stated that the formation of the infantry should be tripled in depth or 21 ranks deep . So a deep formation is  not unheard of.

Even if this is true, it doesn't justify Long Spear factors.  Deployment in depth is almost invariably a defensive measure.  (I will argue Leuctra where hoplites were supposedly 50 ranks deep is a misinterpretation - this was a column which turned to flank and then charged).

next we go to Nikephoros Ouranos and his praecepta, still written in the large Nikephorian period and that refreshes the Praecepta.There it is stated that in case of enemy cataphracts comint ( or should it be cavalry ) , a file of 7 must be doubled to 14 . In cas of enemy infantry coming a specific outflanking manoeuver is described that is impossible to represent in the game . But so contracting and having a lot of LS to the front is not unheard off and even comon .

Again, the depth is a defensive response, not to be offensive.

McGeer in his book "Sewing the Dragon's teeth", pg 275 describes pretty well the increasing of the infantry depth and yes it is a box with the bowmen in the center but with 5 ranks of menvlatoi and LS to the front, 4 to the back . It has depth and enough LS to be considered full LS 2 ranks ( in real live any hoplite behind the 4th rank would just push) . So it is entirely possible to have 2 rank LS to represent that reinforcment and better efficiency vs mounted and infantry and the closing of ranks. And if a player uses them offensivly that is his choice as a player !

By your own logic 4 ranks is a single file of Long Spear - which gets no factor.

But so as infantry battles were not the mark of the day ..they did not devellop an 8 deep hoplite formation and we will never know if , on the spot , they did  do it .

Again - a Byzantine spearmen would not have fought as a hoplite because they didn't need to.

But limitating them by reducing their efficiency articicially by taking the LS from them and making them worse vs all because we have no records they did attack is a dangerous open door ! We know they did deploy in depth to resist charges and they used peltastoï to fight enemy mounted and infantry  but the new system cancels it . it makes them weaker and it is a very bad move .

What you seem unable to grasp is that Skutatoi with spear protection have all the effects of Long Spear in one rank, and the characteristic by itself is cheaper than Long Spear.

By the way, you can still deploy 8 regraded skutatoi 4 deep in 2 ranks.  This is still an improved defensive formation as if the front rank is killed, the second rank will still count as spear protection.

We firmly believe that the change better represents the history as we have interpreted it and as you are already well aware, is not going to change.  You have expressed your view.  I don't propose to allow any further debate on this particular topic as it will not benefit anyone.

Richard Jeffrey-Cook

[badhabum]

I do not fell someone listened but so it is .