Early Byzantine - Taginae 552 AD

[IanN]

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

[lionheartrjc]

Good suggestions.  I will look to incorporate into the 2021 edition of the army lists.

[ShrubMiK]

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.

[IanN]

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 

[badhabum]

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 .

[ShrubMiK]

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.

[badhabum]

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 ?

[ShrubMiK]

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.

[badhabum]

Nik do not read this please !

In that case you nearly need a new army list 

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

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[badhabum]

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 ?

[lionheartrjc]

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

[IanN]

Excellent -

[badhabum]

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 ...

[nikgaukroger]

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.