Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Early Byzantine - Taginae 552 AD  (Read 490 times)

badhabum

  • Tribunus
  • *
  • Posts: 739
    • View Profile
Re: Early Byzantine - Taginae 552 AD
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2020, 10:04:13 AM »
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)

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Magister
  • *
  • Posts: 1921
    • View Profile
Re: Early Byzantine - Taginae 552 AD
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2020, 10:23:15 AM »
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
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

badhabum

  • Tribunus
  • *
  • Posts: 739
    • View Profile
Re: Early Byzantine - Taginae 552 AD
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2020, 11:18:13 AM »
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 ...

Jilu

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: Early Byzantine - Taginae 552 AD
« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2020, 02:28:12 AM »
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...
Liberate me ex infernis

badhabum

  • Tribunus
  • *
  • Posts: 739
    • View Profile
Re: Early Byzantine - Taginae 552 AD
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2020, 01:57:06 PM »
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 .

ShrubMiK

  • Auxilia
  • *
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Early Byzantine - Taginae 552 AD
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2020, 02:12:57 PM »
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 :) 

badhabum

  • Tribunus
  • *
  • Posts: 739
    • View Profile
Re: Early Byzantine - Taginae 552 AD
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2020, 04:27:40 PM »
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)

badhabum

  • Tribunus
  • *
  • Posts: 739
    • View Profile
Re: Early Byzantine - Taginae 552 AD
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2020, 07:20:17 PM »
Hephthalite might be the "huns" of those days or at least called so by Procopius and other sources from that time .

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Tribunus
  • *
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
Re: Early Byzantine - Taginae 552 AD
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2020, 07:22:50 AM »
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