No skutatoi or psiloi or byzantine archers for Belisarian army?

[Dunadd]

From the books i'd read Belisarius had Skutatoi infantry (spear or pike and large shield havy infantry), archers with some leather armour and powerful bows. In this game he just seems to have a late Roman army. Which is right. (Yes, i know Byzantines were Eastern Romans , but Belisarius was born decades after the Western Empire had fallen - and from reading W.R.G books even Patrician Roman armies (last before they fell) were very different to late Roman armies (most elite troops cavalry, not infantry - and ditto for Byzantine armies in Belisarius' time).

I know skutatoi certainly weren't elite troops, but were they as bad as limitani?

[Zarkarion]

Like the Roman army, the Byzantine army evolved over time. The evidence from Byzantine manuals is that Byzantine infantry still threw their spears, at least against infantry, until circa 600 AD. The units continued to include a proportion of archers, but not enough to have a significant long-distance shooting effect in game. (A game design decision was made to avoid explicitly representing desultory long-distance shooting, for reasons of playability).

The post-600 army lists will have new Skutatoi units, still including a proportion of archers, but rated overall as Spearmen, as well as separate Byzantine archer units. In the 963-1041 period the skutatoi units will have a higher proportion of archers, and will be treated as 50% spearmen, 50% archers - so will have significant long-distance shooting effect.

There was continuity in the early Byzantine army with the Late Roman Army - changes were evolutionary rather than revolutionary. For example, the Legio V Macedonica, listed in the Notitia as Legio Comitatensis, is known from inscriptions to have still been stationed in Egypt circa 636 AD just before the Arab conquest.

Hence, with infantry tactics being essentially unchanged in the period up to 600 AD, we use Late Roman style units, with shield patterns based on the Notitia, in the absence of any direct knowledge of the Byzantine shield patterns of this early period. As in the Late Roman period, we assume that field army units would be of reasonable quality, and border units less so.

We probably did not allow enough infantry in the current Byzantine lists, so we will be increasing the quantity of infantry available to them in the (free) update later this week.

The further evolution of the Byzantine army will require at least five more army lists to cover the period from 600-1041 AD alone, and (because of the division of the Empire into several separate polities after the 4th Crusade) up to ten more to cover the period from 1042 to 1461 AD!

As you might infer from the name of our company, we like Byzantines, and take representing them accurately very seriously!

[Captain_Narol]

As a side note, the "Byzantine Empire" is a modern term and quite unappropriate.

The "Byzantines" were in fact the "Eastern Roman Empire" and still considered themselves as Romans even after the fall of Rome and the "Western Roman Empire".

So it is indeed natural that the Late Roman Army and the Early Bizantine Army are quite alike.

[Zarkarion]

Originally posted by Captain_Narol:

As a side note, the "Byzantine Empire" is a modern term and quite unappropriate.

We agree, but felt it would be confusing to call them Romans when they are generally known to history as Byzantines.

[Captain_Narol]

I agree and I wasn't criticizing the game, just the usual usage which took a wrong turn.

Now we have to deal with it as everyone today calls them Byzantines, I guess.

[Dunadd]

The reasons for the names historians use for states in the past are often byzantine and inscrutable ;-)

[Captain_Narol]

https://www.quora.com/When-and-how-did-the-Eastern-Roman-Empire-become-the-Byzantine-Empire

In fact after the fall of the "Western Roman Empire", they even called themselves just "Roman Empire" (not "Eastern") as they were the only legitimate roman empire remaining.

After forcing the abdication of the last Western Emperor Romulus Agustule in 476, the germanic Odoacer who was then ruling Italy made the Roman Senate send a request to the Emperor Zeno in Byzance asking to reunite the Western and Eastern Empire in a single Roman Empire and it was accepted, so technically they were right !

Odoacer, like many germanic rulers of that time, was officially ruling his lands as Administrator for the (one and only ) Roman Empire managed from Byzance, even if he was de facto independant.

[chiconspiracy]

Originally posted by Zarkarion:

Like the Roman army, the Byzantine army evolved over time. The evidence from Byzantine manuals is that Byzantine infantry still threw their spears, at least against infantry, until circa 600 AD. The units continued to include a proportion of archers, but not enough to have a significant long-distance shooting effect in game. (A game design decision was made to avoid explicitly representing desultory long-distance shooting, for reasons of playability).

The post-600 army lists will have new Skutatoi units, still including a proportion of archers, but rated overall as Spearmen, as well as separate Byzantine archer units. In the 963-1041 period the skutatoi units will have a higher proportion of archers, and will be treated as 50% spearmen, 50% archers - so will have significant long-distance shooting effect.

There was continuity in the early Byzantine army with the Late Roman Army - changes were evolutionary rather than revolutionary. For example, the Legio V Macedonica, listed in the Notitia as Legio Comitatensis, is known from inscriptions to have still been stationed in Egypt circa 636 AD just before the Arab conquest.

Hence, with infantry tactics being essentially unchanged in the period up to 600 AD, we use Late Roman style units, with shield patterns based on the Notitia, in the absence of any direct knowledge of the Byzantine shield patterns of this early period. As in the Late Roman period, we assume that field army units would be of reasonable quality, and border units less so.

We probably did not allow enough infantry in the current Byzantine lists, so we will be increasing the quantity of infantry available to them in the (free) update later this week.

The further evolution of the Byzantine army will require at least five more army lists to cover the period from 600-1041 AD alone, and (because of the division of the Empire into several separate polities after the 4th Crusade) up to ten more to cover the period from 1042 to 1461 AD!

As you might infer from the name of our company, we like Byzantines, and take representing them accurately very seriously!

By the time of the battle of Strasbourg in 357, the Roman Army's heavy infantry was using a thrusting spear as their primary melee weapon, and using plumbatta as the primary missile weapon. Where did you get the idea that they threw their spears post 600ad?

[pinwolf]

Originally posted by dmcf:

The reasons for the names historians use for states in the past are often byzantine and inscrutable ;-)

It surely get's complicated fast enough: -> http://www.friesian.com/decdenc1.htm

[Zarkarion]

Originally posted by chiconspiracy:

By the time of the battle of Strasbourg in 357, the Roman Army's heavy infantry was using a thrusting spear as their primary melee weapon, and using plumbatta as the primary missile weapon.

This is incorrect. Late Roman infantry used spiculum and/or verutum or lancea. These could be retained in the hand to repel cavalry, but they were all primarily throwing spears. They were supplemented by plumbata, of which more could be carried, and which could be thrown at a longer range, but were unlikely to be lethal.

As Vegetius writes (circa 400 AD) of plumbata (martiobarbuli): "Every soldier carries five of these javelins in the hollow of his shield. And thus the legionary soldiers seem to supply the place of archers, for they wound both the men and horses of the enemy before they come within reach of the common missile weapons."

The "common missile weapons" being spiculum, verutum or lancea.

Where did you get the idea that they threw their spears post 600ad?

I said pre-600 AD.

From Maurice's Strategikon, dating to the very late 6th century. This has some men throwing plumbata and grounding their spears while others "hurl their spears like javelins, then take out their swords and fight".

This is likely to be pretty much the same tactics as used by Late Roman infantry.

Under the FOG2 system, this gives them a classification of "Light Spear, Darts, Swordsmen.". To be classified as "Spearmen" in the system, they would need all ranks to be using their spears to thrust. Note that the Light Spear/Darts combo is just as effective as Spearmen classification vs cavalry. So really we are discussing semantics, not whether the game gets their effect right.

[Captain_Narol]

Thanks for the link, pinwolf ! Fascinating read !

[pinwolf]

There is even more: -> http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm

[chiconspiracy]

Originally posted by Zarkarion:

Originally posted by chiconspiracy:

By the time of the battle of Strasbourg in 357, the Roman Army's heavy infantry was using a thrusting spear as their primary melee weapon, and using plumbatta as the primary missile weapon.

This is incorrect. Late Roman infantry used spiculum and/or verutum or lancea. These could be retained in the hand to repel cavalry, but they were all primarily throwing spears. They were supplemented by plumbata, of which more could be carried, and which could be thrown at a longer range, but were unlikely to be lethal.

As Vegetius writes (circa 400 AD) of plumbata (martiobarbuli): "Every soldier carries five of these javelins in the hollow of his shield. And thus the legionary soldiers seem to supply the place of archers, for they wound both the men and horses of the enemy before they come within reach of the common missile weapons."

The "common missile weapons" being spiculum, verutum or lancea.

Where did you get the idea that they threw their spears post 600ad?

I said pre-600 AD.

From Maurice's Strategikon, dating to the very late 6th century. This has some men throwing plumbata and grounding their spears while others "hurl their spears like javelins, then take out their swords and fight".

This is likely to be pretty much the same tactics as used by Late Roman infantry.

Under the FOG2 system, this gives them a classification of "Light Spear, Darts, Swordsmen.". To be classified as "Spearmen" in the system, they would need all ranks to be using their spears to thrust. Note that the Light Spear/Darts combo is just as effective as Spearmen classification vs cavalry. So really we are discussing semantics, not whether the game gets their effect right.

Where did you get verutum being used at that time? The only time I've seen that term used is to describe the javelins of the pre-Marian reform era velites.

The spiculum is perfectly functional as a thrusting spear, and worse than the older pilum or contemporary lancea as a thrown weapon. It's a clear tradeoff for melee fighting ability.

I don't have them on hand, but I'm pretty sure both Goldsworthy and Hughes have the Roman Army at Strasbourg using thrusting spears.

[Zarkarion]

Clearly there is room for different interpretations of the evidence, and neither of us is likely to convince the other to change our views. Which is fine, we can agree to differ.

We agree about the spiculum, in so far as it probably wasn't as effective as the pilum as a throwing weapon, but better as a thrusting spear against cavalry. However, it was still primarily a throwing spear, even if less effective in that role than a pilum.

As Vegetius indicates, the legions still used shorter-ranged throwing weapons as well as darts. And, as Maurice's Strategikon indicates, this probably represents some men thrusting with their spears, and others throwing their spears and then drawing their swords.

Under the FOG system, this combo rates as Light Spear, Swordsmen rather than a Greek hoplite-stype phalanx, which would rate as Spearmen.

Inevitably the interpretations of history used in a game are going to be those favoured by the game designer. Equally inevitably some people will disagree with some of those interpretations.

The game is eminently moddable, and if you believe that Late Roman legionaries should be categorized as Spearmen, all you have to do is alter a few lines in a .csv spreadsheet. (Squads.csv).

[chiconspiracy]

Also a description of the battle of Andrianople: "Amidst all this great tumult and confusion our infantry were exhausted by toil and danger, till at last they had neither strength left to fight, nor spirits to plan anything; their spears were broken by the frequent collisions"

That hardly sounds like they are throwing their spears and then taking out their swords.... and this was centuries before you claim they switched.

Also supported by artistic depictions. From Elton: "The standard melee weapon of the infantry was the spear. Monuments and manuscript illustrations almost always show soldiers with spears... From surviving artistic evidence, spears seem to have been c_..2-2.5 m in length"

Please note that length is NOT compatible with the lancea or other throwing spears.

[Zarkarion]

According to Vegetius, the spiculum had a 5.5 ft shaft and a 9 inch long triangular iron head. As the Roman pes is equivalent to 0.97 modern feet, this equates to just over 6 ft in all (1.85 metres). Looking at the surviving (1575 AD) drawings of the soldiers on the since destroyed Column of Arcadius, for example, this seems about right.

Compare this to the Greek hoplite dory, which ranged from 2.4-2.75 metres in length.

Vegetius specifically describes the spiculum as a missile weapon.

As previously stated, the spiculum appears to have been a hybrid weapon which could be used either to thrust or to throw, depending on circumstances.