Early Byzantine Boukelarioi and a bit of other considerations

[badhabum]

Early Byzantine list
I think the early byzantine list should be revisited at least on 4 different points.

-    Roman infantry : If we are to believe Farrokh's work on the sassanian armed forces, the roman infantry was much more better than the sassanian one. I know not everybody is a fan of Farrokh's work, but you cannot just ignore it. As the list is written, it is equal to the sassanian one. No sweat we can always downgrade the sassanian quality to poor. Then we have another issue, was was the quality of the roman infantry. As written by some autors, the roman infantry was expected to flee the battlefield ...so was it really good ? Ok this part of the discussion is just academic and for the pleasure as you can always downgrade the quality of your TUGs to reflect your own point of view.

-   Barricades and obstacles : At Dara, the roman infantry was protected by a ditch. I would suggest that the characteristic « obstacle » be made available to early byzantine infantry and by the way, it seems that the sassanians also used ditches to protect their infantry 😊

-   Internal ally general : The cooperation between Belisarus and Narses + some of Narses's generals during the first italian campaign seems to have been problematical to put it mildly. So to reflect this, I would add the possibility to have some internal allied general .

-   The boukelarioi : I know there has been some discussions on how to classify those elite units. So I made some research and here is my point of view : The boukelarioi are basically mercenaries, a private army paid by a wealthy general. I suspect that for most generals , the actual classification seems OK but I think uncorrect when dealing with Belisarius own Boukelarioi. Belisarius seems to have attracted and paid as Boukelarioi Huns ( shoot and charge + melee expert ), sassanian leaders and their followers ( bow ), Goths nobles and their followers ( devastating chargers and melee expert ), Vandal leaders and their followers ( devastating chargers and melee expert ) . John Haldon in his work writes about 2 regiments of « archer-lancers » and on the net there is much written on Belisarius's experimental bandon . In the Maurikian list we have the evolution of the Byzantine cavalry towards « shoot and Charge » lancers . That came from somewhere . I think that there is a real possibility that by training and fighting toegether,Belisarius's boukelarioi managed to combine their native skills and managed such a combination as to fight as one unit that became latter the nucleus of the maurikian evolution. I would suggest the following : add to what exist the possibility to upgrade up to 2 units ( or 8 bases maximum ) of Boukelarioi by adding « melee expert » and « devastating charger » . After all, the Goths and Vandals that are part of those units do have those characteristics as mandatory one's. Perhaps we should downgrade the shoot and charge to « charge only » to reflect the new concept . That capacity should be allowed only if Belisarius is the CIC so Legendary or Talented . It seems to me that it is a good compromise between all opinions and also one that is pretty plausible as we will perhaps never know what really caused that evolution from bow cavalry to bow lancers.

Ok guys, do not kill me ...yes I am convinced by what I wrote  and it took me month to read books and search the net 

[AntiokosIII]

Goodish post, but let's kill him anyway. After tea and biscuits.

[lionheartrjc]

I certainly agree with most of the comments and will be looking to review this list with the next set of list changes (which I expect won't be many changes).

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

-    Roman infantry : If we are to believe Farrokh's work on the sassanian armed forces, the roman infantry was much more better than the sassanian one. I know not everybody is a fan of Farrokh's work, but you cannot just ignore it. As the list is written, it is equal to the sassanian one. No sweat we can always downgrade the sassanian quality to poor. Then we have another issue, was was the quality of the roman infantry. As written by some autors, the roman infantry was expected to flee the battlefield ...so was it really good ? Ok this part of the discussion is just academic and for the pleasure as you can always downgrade the quality of your TUGs to reflect your own point of view.

Farrokh is, IMO, rather like Syvanne, in that he rather glibbly pulls evidence from a wide date range and mashes it all up somewhat anachronistically. Not terrible, but a problematic author.

IMO where we have some direct contemporaneous evidence of the comparative performance of the Roman and Sasanid infantry the former is better than the latter. That evidence is for the C4th and the lists reflect that OK. Later, in the period covered by the Early Byzantine list we have no such evidence and so have to take a view based on what information we have    Farrokh somewhat traps himself by bigging up the Sasanid cavalry to such an extent that if they are ever beaten their opponents have to be almost the best of the best. Thus we get his saying, practically in neighbouring paragraphs, that the Early Byzantine infantry is a bit rubbish (Dara because they have to be hidden behind trenches) and then that they are rather good (Callinicum as they hold off the Persian cavalry).

Of course you can argue that as, in the lists, the Byzantine have darts and optional Shield Cover that the Paighan do not, that they are already better 

-   Barricades and obstacles : At Dara, the roman infantry was protected by a ditch. I would suggest that the characteristic « obstacle » be made available to early byzantine infantry and by the way, it seems that the sassanians also used ditches to protect their infantry 😊

Personally I'm not generally keen on this sort of thing which is single use to be generally available in lists - some are there and are OK, but list writing is an art not a science 

-   Internal ally general : The cooperation between Belisarus and Narses + some of Narses's generals during the first italian campaign seems to have been problematical to put it mildly. So to reflect this, I would add the possibility to have some internal allied general .

Sensible IMO.

-   The boukelarioi : I know there has been some discussions on how to classify those elite units. So I made some research and here is my point of view : The boukelarioi are basically mercenaries, a private army paid by a wealthy general. I suspect that for most generals , the actual classification seems OK but I think uncorrect when dealing with Belisarius own Boukelarioi. Belisarius seems to have attracted and paid as Boukelarioi Huns ( shoot and charge + melee expert ), sassanian leaders and their followers ( bow ), Goths nobles and their followers ( devastating chargers and melee expert ), Vandal leaders and their followers ( devastating chargers and melee expert ) . John Haldon in his work writes about 2 regiments of « archer-lancers » and on the net there is much written on Belisarius's experimental bandon . In the Maurikian list we have the evolution of the Byzantine cavalry towards « shoot and Charge » lancers . That came from somewhere . I think that there is a real possibility that by training and fighting toegether,Belisarius's boukelarioi managed to combine their native skills and managed such a combination as to fight as one unit that became latter the nucleus of the maurikian evolution. I would suggest the following : add to what exist the possibility to upgrade up to 2 units ( or 8 bases maximum ) of Boukelarioi by adding « melee expert » and « devastating charger » . After all, the Goths and Vandals that are part of those units do have those characteristics as mandatory one's. Perhaps we should downgrade the shoot and charge to « charge only » to reflect the new concept . That capacity should be allowed only if Belisarius is the CIC so Legendary or Talented . It seems to me that it is a good compromise between all opinions and also one that is pretty plausible as we will perhaps never know what really caused that evolution from bow cavalry to bow lancers.

FWIW this is pretty much the sort of things that were discussed at the last list revision which produced the current list. IMO you need to relate the impact of such suggestions with the information on actual performance that is available - there is enough to form a judgement I think from the battles against the Vandals, Goths, Persians, etc. FWIW IMO the current classifications get the interactions about right for the Persians - maybe not for the Vandals but that may be because they have too much Melee Expert (an issue I have across lists generally).

[badhabum]

FWIW this is pretty much the sort of things that were discussed at the last list revision which produced the current list. IMO you need to relate the impact of such suggestions with the information on actual performance that is available - there is enough to form a judgement I think from the battles against the Vandals, Goths, Persians, etc. FWIW IMO the current classifications get the interactions about right for the Persians - maybe not for the Vandals but that may be because they have too much Melee Expert (an issue I have across lists generally).

In fact it isanother point I was about to raise but after the tournament we have next week.

Interaction between early byzantines and persians feels good. But once you compare with :
Early Ostrogoth 36 mounted melee expert up to 18 sup, melee expert DC
Heruli up to 36 melee expert  and 18 sup DC melee expert
Gepid idem
Hunnic up to 18 sup melee expert + short spear and of course bows + shoot and charge
and so many others Goth, vandals and so on ...that may all be melee expert and have 18+ superior melee expert ...
You just hope not to roll 1 or 2 when SK or running away ...or hope for the best on white dice

And that is valid for Byzantines and Persians .

IMO the persians are slightly better off with good cataphracts and some nellies ...but none having skilled shooters unless you take some ally, you still need to pray the white god of the white die or the black one of the black die 

As for having up to 8 bases of bukelarioi as devastating chargers + melee expert, it is, I think manageable. I would even propose that up to 50% of the bukelarioi may be upgraded which means that to have 8 bases of DC, you need all 16 bases of elite which is still a lot and so limits the army.

[nikgaukroger]

FWIW this is pretty much the sort of things that were discussed at the last list revision which produced the current list. IMO you need to relate the impact of such suggestions with the information on actual performance that is available - there is enough to form a judgement I think from the battles against the Vandals, Goths, Persians, etc. FWIW IMO the current classifications get the interactions about right for the Persians - maybe not for the Vandals but that may be because they have too much Melee Expert (an issue I have across lists generally).

In fact it is another point I was about to raise but after the tournament we have next week.

Interaction between early Byzantines and Persians feels good.

Which, I would suggest, changing the boukellarioi as you have suggested could break. Balance issues are elsewhere.

But once you compare with :
Early Ostrogoth 36 mounted melee expert up to 18 sup, melee expert DC
Heruli up to 36 melee expert  and 18 sup DC melee expert
Gepid idem
Hunnic up to 18 sup melee expert + short spear and of course bows + shoot and charge
and so many others Goth, vandals and so on ...that may all be melee expert and have 18+ superior melee expert ...

Indeed. IMO it is these lists that need a look at and not the Byzantines in terms of getting the interactions right.

[badhabum]

Which, I would suggest, changing the boukellarioi as you have suggested could break. Balance issues are elsewhere.

If having mas 8 bases of elite boukelarioi breaks the balance ...then there is another problem as those 8 superior bases will face sometimes 12 to 18 sup melee expert bases 

The persians do have some nice cataphracts and nellies to help them ...so even with boukelarioi upgraded ( 8 base not all 16 ), it still should be interesting .

I think that even some of the Asvaran coyld get melee expert , something like 6 or 8 bases to represent veterans and IMO, the balance between Byzantines, Persians and all those other lists is then much better . Easier to do it for 2 lists .

[nikgaukroger]

First inclination should be to downgrade the ones causing the imbalance and not to upgrade those suffering it. It is easier to control the unintended consequences and avoids GW-esque escalations.

[badhabum]

Ok but you still have to take into account the possibility of the Boukelarioi as devastating chargers , melee expert  as they are the best available if we are to believe ancient sources ...

You may downgrade the goth, visigoths, vandals, even carolingians and so on ....if you downgrade you have to take into account many lists that are in a similar period ( dark ages )..

I understand what you mean, but my way would be to change a little bit 2 lists if only because it will meet less resistance to changement 

I propose that you guys discuss it between gods of the lists and come back to us latter .

[Jilu]

First inclination should be to downgrade the ones causing the imbalance and not to upgrade those suffering it. It is easier to control the unintended consequences and avoids GW-esque escalations.

if you downgrade you will slow the game as the dices might be of lower color

[badhabum]

As there is a dark ages tournament coming in october in Paris, one question : should there be any changes in the early byzantine list, when would that be ?

[nikgaukroger]

List review, other than errata, takes place at the end of the year with revised lists being issued about 1st January. I believe RJC is still working to that timetable so only errata could affect your October comp.

[lionheartrjc]

No list changes will be published until the end of the year.

Richard