I have an interest in the Nikephorian Byzantines and am putting the finishing touches on them for use in DBM as well as Armati. I have read the debate between Dusty and Phil Barker over the Klibanophoroi (Double-based Kn(I) in DBMspeak) and must say I agree with Phil.
Dusty's states that if they were as ineffective against enemy generals historically as they are in these rules, the Byzantines would not have used them. Let us exarnine this comment.
In the long duration of the Byzantine Empire, the length of time the klibanophoroi were in existence was merely a blip. They were introduced by the Byzantines as a response to the threat posed by the Rus whose densely packed array of foot spearmen proved a difficult foe for the relatively lightly armored kavallarioi. The heavily armored klibanophoroi were able to break into the forest of Rus spears where the kavallarioi could not.
The klibanophoroi were also useful against the Arabs who, while Selding much more cavalry than the Rus, still maintained a large spear and bow armed contingent against which the klibanophoroi would have been effective.
In the period following the death of Basil II, it is difficult to find mention of the klibanophoroi, and after Manzikert they completely disappear, if they were even still in existence in 1071.
Why? Phil argues that the klibanophoroi were vulnerable to light horse archers, were ordered never to charge such, and required protection against them. If Phil's approach to klibanophoroi is correct then the removal of the Rus threat during the reign of Basil II, by the conversion to Eastern Rite Catholicism of Vladimir of Kiev (eventually St. Vladimir), and the replacement of the Arabs by the Seljuq Turks (an arrny centered around light horse archers) as the main Byzantine foe should have resulted in the disappearance of the klibanophoroi.
The historical record supports Phil's argument. Dusty argues that the fighting ability and heavy armor of the klibanophoroi would stand it in good stead against light horse archers and that DBM's representation of klibanophoroi makes them unacceptably weak against LH. If Dusty's argument were correct, then we should expect to see in the historical record that the klibanophoroi would have remained a key troop type in the period leading up to and following Manzikert; its effectiveness justifying its expense even in a resource strapped post-Manzikert empire. However, the historical record does not support Dusty's thesis.
Since we have no direct evidence of the fate of the klibanophoroi, we must draw our conclusions from the circumstantial evidence. Phil's argument is more consistent with what we know about the fate of the klibanophoroi than is Dusty's argument, and thus I must come down supporting Phil's classification of the klibanophori.
Just as a piece of advice to Dusty, I run the Nikephorians in two lists. The standard list would run all eight Varangians for 40 points; however, against an army of predominantly warbands or spears, the second list replaces the Varangians with all 4 elements of klibanophoroi for 40 points. If Dusty does not think the klibanophoroi are worth the cost, he should just watch how they cut through warbands or spears like a hot knife through butter.
I would also suggest to Dusty that he might want to give Armati a serious look. Armati makes cataphract cavalry the best cavalry in the game, and the klibanophoroi is the best cataphract cavalry because it has all of the same fighting characteristics as all other cataphracts but it alone is controllable and not subject to obligatory charges. In Armati, Dusty will find klibanophoroi the way he wants them to be.
Byzantine Infantry
I would also respond to Dusty's commentary on the changing classifications of Byzantine infantry. First, I would suggest that Dusty read the definition of Pk (I) more closely. The definition clearly includes in that category troops armed with long spear, not pikes, who held the spear two handed.
The difference between a Pk (I) and a Sp rests not in armament, but more in the way the spear was used and the depth of the formations used by the troops wielding the spears. It is this that probably led Phil to rate the Byzantine Thematic period Skoutatoi as Pk (I), it was not a claim that the Byzantines suddenly switched to true pikes. If deployed two deep with supporting psiloi, as suggested in the list, the rating of Pk(I) is no favor as they would be more effective against foot if rated as Sp. Given the continuing decline of Byzantine infantry into this period, I feel that the change in rating adds to the historical accuracy and feel of the Byzantines in this period.
The switch to Bw(X) with the Nikephorian list definitely changes the feel of the army. The steady base of missile armed foot around which the cavalry can maneuver provides the best "feel" of all. And again, the difference between Bw (X) and Sp (I) with supporting psiloi has less to do with the armaments than with an interpretation of how the weapons were used. And I do not think that there is sufficient evidence to contradict Phil's interpretation of the Byzantine Skoutatoi so I, for one, will not mess with the classification. On the other hand, as a practical matter this change of classifications make it difficult to use the same figure for different periods because of the radically different basing that occurs from the Thematic to the Nikephorian Byzantine lists.
Finally, I cannot believe that Dusty would express surprise and a lack of comprehension over the rating of Komnenan Byzantine Kavallarioi as Cv (0) and (I) instead of (S) and (0). The aftermath of Manzikert, with the loss of the Anatolian themes, destroyed the ability of the Emperor to raise decent native Byzantine troops. From that point the Byzantines relied on mercenaries to supply the true electives in their armies.
To rate the Kavallarioi as Kn (F) in the post-1150 period is probably too kind. To rate them as Cv(O) and (I) in the pre-1150 period is close to right. I, like Dusty, have a fondness for the Byzantines. However I do not let my fondness color my evaluation of their effectiveness. It might be nice if klibanophoroi were the absolute super troops that Dusty desires, but they are not, and were not.
As was the case historically, I think that Dusty will find that if he uses his klibanophoroi in a historical manner he will find that the troops do have their usage. When facing a predominately foot army the klibanophoroi will be wonh their weight in gold. But against a light horse army, bringing the klibanophoroi is akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight: they will be way out of their element.
DBM Knights vs. LH
Finally, I would respond to some of the points raised in Dusty's endless complaints about the Kn vs. LH matchup. Before considering grade modifications, the chances of the Kn killing the LH is about the same as for the LH to kill the Kn. The +2 of the LH versus the +4 of the Kn results in roughly the same chances for killing each other.
A superior rating for either significantly decreases their chance of being killed without increasing their chances of killing the enemy. An inferior rating makes death very, very likely. Now the psychology involved in the notion that the Kn must double the LH to kill it while the LH need only win to do in one's Kn may lead one to conclude that the Kn is too weak against the LH. The mathematics belie that psychological fear. But if you expect to face a multitude of LH, leave the Kn (I) at home. However, the Kn (0) and (S), if well supported, should do just fine.
In issue 52, Dusty made numerous references to the first Crusade. I would dispute Dusty's claim that the Muslim horse facing the Crusaders would be rated as LH (0). Given the way the majority of them fought, Cv (0) is more accurate; an opinion justified by the army lists (Kerboga's army would be drawn from the Syrian list and not from the Seljuq Turk list).
Seen in that light, the battle outside Antioch would be a much more closely run battle than Dusty implies in his commentary. As an aside to Dusty's comment on that battle being one of Crusader technology over Muslim morale; as I set forth below, Crusader morale, boosted by the Sacred Lance, was much higher than the Muslims', which was sapped by divisions within the army since some of Kerboga's subordinates were opposed to and seeking to undermine him. The battle, thus, was one of a superior weapon system (the knight) combined with superior morale (religious fervor over the finding of the Sacred Lance) triumphing over sheer numbers.
Phil Barker's Letter in Issue 49
Now that I have said nice things about Phil, I must now take him to task. In commenting on Jeff Botton's suggestions for DBM, especially about Jeff s suggestions regarding sacred standards, Phil blithely dismisses such an idea: "as for sacred standards, what good did Our Lady of Blachemae do?"
For shame Phil. Let us set aside for a moment that you must be forgetting the rules you placed in WRG 7th covering the morale improvements engendered by sacred standards. Unless I have misread history, Manzikert, which is obviously what Phil is referring to, was not lost for a lack of morale or courage on the part of the Byzantines, but due to the treachery of Adronikos Dukas who failed to support the front line of troops and withdrew from the battlefield leaving the rest of the army with no support or reserves.
In opposition to Manzikert I would submit the battle outside Antioch during the first Crusade where the Crusaders were fired into a frenzy of religious fervor by the finding of the Sacred Lance (whether or not the Lance was real or bogus is irrelevant, the Crusaders believed it was real and that is really what sacred standards are all about anyway). One also cannot dismiss the effect that the eagles had on the Romans. The soldiers of a legion would die to a man to protect a statute on a stick and their morale would collapse if their eagle was captured. The mere fact that the morale effects engendered by a sacred standard failed to produce victory in one instance does not invalidate the concept of the morale effects of sacred standards.
Having said all this, I am not sure that the concept of a sacred standard fits within the framework of DBM. However, I was sufficiently upset by Phil's flip remark about what was obviously a real phenomena to make this commentary.
Related
Back to Saga #55 Table of Contents
Back to Saga List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1996 by Terry Gore
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com