In response to a plea from the governors of some of the Eastern Themes, the Emperor dispatched a portion of the Imperial army to help deal with an aggressive new threat on the border in the form of the wild tribes of Turks known as Seljuk. The Strategos Bryennius led the Byzantines, with generals named Comnenus (a recently promoted soldier risen from peasant roots) and Dukas (from the powerful noble house of Dukas). Imperial scouts detected the fast moving Seljuk host and the Imperials have intercepted them before they could break into open territory and wreak havoc on the peaceful Anatolian countryside. A battle appears imminent….

A Medieval Warfare battle between Nikephorian Byzantines and Seljuk Turks was fought recently at NOVAGCON 98. The battle was set up as a representative 600-point match between the two armies. The Seljuks approached from the east facing a balanced Byzantine force that anchored its left, northern, flank on a small village and copse of woods. Units of Byzantine and mercenary light horse guarded the other flank. The center consisted of long steady lines of spearmen, mostly backed by archers. Thematic and Tagmatic cavalry connected the wings with the infantry center and, along with a small unit of Varangian guards, provided a reserve. The army totaled 16 units commanded by its 3 generals.

Facing the Byzantines the Seljuks approached with 4 generals and 19 units. Approaching the anchored flank was a command under Bursuq including 2 units of Turcoman horse archers, 1 unit of Askari heavy cavalry and some Kurdish javelinmen. The center held the general Kerbogha and the CinC Arslan with 2 units each of lightly armed bowmen and javelinmen in the front and some loose bowmen tying in with each flank.

In addition, 3 units of Askari and 2 of Turcomans stood ready to strike at any point along the line. The fourth general, Danishmend, took the last unit of Askaris and three units of Turcomans (two of fanatic disposition) to sweep around and crush the open Byzantine flank.

The opening of the battle saw the Turks rush forward on both flanks, while moving cautiously towards archery range in the center. The Byzantines move solidly forward in the center, staying supported on the left flank and moving a reserve cavalry unit out towards the right flank for better support. As things developed, the left flank proved sufficiently awkward to attack that long-range archery was nearly the only action here for the remainder of the battle. On the right, the fanatic Turcomans charged into a unit of Trapezetoi light lancers and Thematic cavalry crushing the Trapezetoi while reeling from the heavier cavalry. The normally business-like Thematic troops were overcome with bloodlust and, after routing and destroying the Turcomans charged unhesitatingly into Askaris brought over from the center to assist Danishmend's attack. Only a charge by Danishmend and his bodyguard turned around what could have been a remarkable Byzantine victory on this flank. With the impetus of the Thematic charge broken and the unit surrounded it was only a matter of time before it was routed and the flank turned.

Meanwhile, the 2 units of Tagmatic cavalry were brought up alongside the left flank of the slowly advancing Byzantine infantry and charged the Turkish bowmen. The bowmen were prepared and met the charge solidly with a hail of arrows that emptied seemingly half of the Byzantine saddles and caused one unit to falter in its charge (6 of 8 shots caused damage by rolling a 9 or 10 on a D10). The remaining unit contacted the bowmen and drove them back in great slaughter.

Eventually, the bowmen broke and took with them a unit of shot up javelinmen. Askaris came in to flank and break one Tagmatic unit, followed up by charging and being repulsed by the end of the spear line. The other Tagmatic unit drove on through the fleeing infantry and into Arslan killing most of his bodyguard and routing him and a reserve Turcoman unit also engaged.

As the Seljuk center was being driven back in blood and confusion the Byzantine right flank was striving to hold long enough for the infantry to engage the remainder of the Seljuk line. The Varangian guards trotted heavily to the aid of the right as the last Byzantine cavalry unit on the right flank fought grimly on, supported by a charge from Comnenus.

Meanwhile, one of the last remaining units of formed Seljuk infantry had been caught by the Byzantine spears and was facing imminent destruction. Seeing this and knowing the precarious state of the Seljuk morale Kerbogha charged to support his men. The Byzantines calmed awaited the Seljuk charge and slew Kerbogha and his men on first contact. Seeing this, the Seljuks panicked and ran while on the verge of being able to roll up the Byzantine line. Bryennius ordered only a limited pursuit as the only intact mounted unit he had remaining was the left flank Thematic cavalry. It was a victory, and Bryennius would be sure to take all due credit at the Imperial court, but he knew how close run was the affair, and he shivered at the thought of the wild Turcomans roaming the length of peaceful and prosperous Anatolia. These Seljuks would be back….

The game was close run and provided an interesting contrast between the two styles of armies. The Seljuks probably lost because they were a little too aggressive with their inferior infantry in the center and they accepted a stalemate on the Byzantine left flank perhaps too easily. The Byzantines had a few problems with their initial deployment that led to a badly needed Thematic cavalry unit never getting into contact. Also, a couple of tactical errors on the right flank nearly doomed the flank to early extinction despite good shooting dice and the disruption and delay caused by the Thematic cavalry going frenzied. All in all, a very enjoyable game (using a total of 130 stands of troops organized into 35 units plus 7 generals) played to conclusion in about 2 1/2 hours.

If this sounded like fun, look for our Mongols vs. Poles scenario at Fall In!

Clarity of Rules

Note: I had a few things I saw in the rules, or things that happened in the games we played that I didn't see in the rules, that I thought I would bring up in order to hopefully clarify a few things for myself and others who will play in the future.

Going through the existing rules in order...

P.3 do you need to keep in the definition for Rabble when there are no troops in the army lists in either MW or AW I have seen rated as such? [There may be scenarios or future army lists, which will require this troop type. Thus, they are included.]

P.4 A) 3 say 2-6 stands per unit but P.24 in army lists section says 2 to 8 stands... should make this uniform. [Absolutely. Future editions will have "1 to 8 stands…"]

P.6 D) Victory conditions. Are the AW victory conditions going to be imported into MW? [They will be included as part of the Optional Rules, primarily for tournament use.]

[General question: how much of the modified (upgraded?) AW structure is going to be incorporated into MW? The maneuver order? Multiple unit combat examples? Etc.]

[MW will continue to have the Hold order, but it will now include the options under AW's Maneuver order. Multiple combat examples will be incorporated practically verbatim from AW.]

Related to this, there are certain rules that explicitly state that infantry can perform certain actions (i.e., echelon in move order, sidestep and fallback in maneuver order). Is this intentional? [Yes.] If so, aren't there some maneuvers that cavalry should be able to execute that infantry can't?

For example, I believe you have a copy of David Bonk's Mongol House rules that we used for our Historicon scenario. If MW incorporates a maneuver rule I can see some elegant solutions for incorporating much of the flavor of these types of light horse archer tactics in general, and Mongol tactics in particular. [I will continue to include these under the Optional Advanced Rules, but welcome any input as to what should be incorporated and how this might be achieved.]

P.9 Defend order: specify who may use not only the defend order in general, but arrow barrage in particular. I know it was mentioned by Terry during one of the games that mounted can't use a defend order or arrow barrage, but that isn't spelled out in the rules. [This will henceforth be included in the order section and the missile fire section of MW.]

P.10 D) 2 perhaps just for simplicity you could make the delay 1/2 D6 rather than the slightly more cumbersome description currently in use (minor streamline possibility). [This suggestion will be included in future additions of the rules.]

D) 4 the statement "get no Charge Bonus Move" is not well defined at this point (though it is better defined under Conrois p.12 6) b). [This rule has been changed to read "Shieldwall and Conrois may charge or countercharge, but only receive 1/2 of their charge bonus movement die roll when charging."]

P.16 A) this may be the place to state the exceptions, in the case of HG and ARTY, of the rule that all missile combat is accomplished by stand, vice figure. [Add: "Handgunners get 1 d10 for each two figures firing and Artillery get one d10 per each remaining Crew figure."]

P.17 Missile Fire Table. [First a question: should mounted have a fire and move penalty? [Yes. It is more difficult to fire from an unsteady platform (a horse) than with your feet firmly planted on the ground.] I tend to think not unless charging when they are currently not allowed to fire at all. Also, should stands that are part of a unit, which is charging, or countercharging but not participating, in the close combat be allowed to shoot at the unit they are charging? Or should a unit or stand be allowed to choose whether to use its missile fire in lieu of close combat resolution (I think this would better simulate units such as Byzantines and others that have units with Lancers in the front row and only bow armed cav in the rear. Also, SC formed in two deep units would have the second rank firing bows almost right up until contact wouldn't they?). I am interested in your thoughts.] [This is an interesting idea. Let's playtest it out and see how it works. We can run a quick demo at Fall In and get some impressions.]

Regarding the missile fire table, you may recall I mentioned there is currently no difference between shooting at knights on horseback and less vulnerable knights on foot. I offer the following reorganization and modification of the table as a suggestion:

place: "-1 Target shieldless" under the Target Protection Modifiers section
Drop reference to "non-CB, LB or HG/ARTY armed" insert "-1 CB/LB vs FM/PA/A mounted target"
change asterisk to read: *Ignore for Handgun/Artillery fire