Robert Guiscard, Count of Apulia, led a mixed Norman-Lombard army against the Byzantines under Basil, the Katapan of Langobardia. Robert's aim was to sweep Basil's army from the field with the overpowering might of his Norman knights. But when the dust settled, over one-third of the Normans were either dead or fleeing for their lives and almost all the others, including all the Lombards, hadn't even gotten into the fight. Not a good day for the Normans.

On Dec. 4, 1999, Jim Pitts (Count Robert) and Jay Stribling (the Katapan) tested Terry Gore's Medieval Warfare rules using troops supplied by Jim Pitts. There were 504 points of Norman-Lombards (3 leaders and 48 stands) (Army # 33) and 508 points of Byzantines (3 leaders and 49 stands) (Army # 29).

Count Robert badly underestimated the ferocity and fighting ability of his Norman heavy cavalry (milites) and charged unshaken Byzantine skutatoi spearmen and cataphract heavy cavalry. Needless to say, Robert quickly learned that 2 or 3 stands of milites will make little to no impression on 6 stands of skutatoi with long spears. He also found out that even going heads up with Byzantine cataphracts wasn't a good bet.

By the end of the battle, the Normans had lost 9 of 16 stands of milites, 6 of 12 stands of HI spearmen and 4 of 8 stands of bowmen. The Byzantines had lost 3 stands of psiloi skirmish archers and a few scattered scutatoi spearmen! A decisive victory for the Byzantines. Oh, well, that's the good thing about playing with toy soldiers; they can get back up and fight again another day.

While we were playing several questions came up that didn't seem to covered in the rules.

1. When measuring for missile fire, do you measure from:

a. each individual firing stand to the closest enemy stand?
b. the center of the front of the firing unit to the closest enemy stand?
c. the center of the front of the firing unit to the center of the front of the nearest enemy unit?
d. the closest point of the firing unit to the closest point of the enemy unit? [This is the correct answer.]

2. In Byzantine (or any other) mixed infantry or cavalry missile and melee units, can the missile stands be placed in the second rank and still fire "over" the heads of the melee stands in the first rank? Is there any penalty? [Yes, they may fire overhead at the unit they are in contact with, but they must be able to hit stands which do not count as fighting in the close action...i.e. rear ranks that are not eligible to fight. They will take the penalty for In Contact.]

3. If they (see #2) can't, can trained cavalry and infantry units freely interchange the first and second ranks between the missile and melee troops and vice versa? [Not if they are in a close combat. They may be issued with a Deploy order and exchange ranks in other situations.]

How about irregular units? [The same as Trained.]

Is a deploy or defend order necessary? [The only orders that can be issued to troops in close combat are to Retreat or to Deploy the entire unit to face to flank or rear.]

Note: I am basing these questions on reading that I have done which would seem to indicate that the Byzantines particularly practiced the tactic of having bow armed troops in the front rank firing at the enemy, both while advancing and defending. When the unit got close to the enemy, then the bows would infiltrate to the rear ranks, allowing the spear armed infantry or lance armed cavalry to bear the brunt of collision. The bows would then continue to fire arrows over the heads of their front rank(s) into the rear ranks of the enemy unit. I don't know if any other nations practiced or trained this way.

[This is perfectly legal in the rules. You issue a deploy order when you sense the foot are about to be attacked and may interchange ranks...note this cannot be done if you are being charged this turn! You must plan ahead for this.]

4. How do you account for the following weapons? In what class do you place them?
a. Two handed swords, such as used by the 11th century Swabians, the Landsknechts, and others. [Count them as axes.]
b. Improved peasant weapons, such as flails, pitchforks, scythes, etc. [Undefined in the army lists. Count as sword factor (0).]

The rules at first seemed rather complicated. But after we had several turns of firing and fighting under our belts, they became easier to use. I think that with several more tests we'll become familiar enough with them to introduce them to our wargaming group.

[It is much easier to play them after a game or two. At the cons, we invite interested players to "sit in" with us at our tournament games...there's no better way to learn a game than in battle situations. As always, anyone who has any questions, please email me and I'll respond within a day usually.]

I presume that Jay will be putting a brief report on our web site, with pictures if they come out OK. I'll try to remember to e-mail the MW net group when that happens