Nikephorian Byzantine 963 AD - 1042 AD

 

 

Proposal: An alternative Nikephorian Byzantine Army List

 

Author: Ulf Olsson

 

Synopsis: An alternative list featuring modifications to Aggression, increased Light Horse, less rigid Skoutatoi levels, and an increase in the availability of local troop-types.

 

 

Alternative Nikephorian Army List, AD 963 – AD 1042

Warm. Ag 4 963 -1025 AD, Ag 2 1026-1042. WW, Rv, H(S), H(G), Wd, O, V, E, Rgo, Rd, BUA

 

C-in-C - Reg Cv(S) @ 30 AP 1

Sub-General - Reg Cv(S) @ 30 AP 1-3

Downgrade Sub-General to Ally-General – Reg Cv(S) @ 30 AP 0-1

 

Katafraktoi/Klibanaforoi - Double-based Reg Kn(I) @ 10 AP front rank, 8AP rear rank 0-4

Kavallarioi - Up to 1/3 Reg Cv(O) @ 8 AP, rest Reg Cv(S) @ 10 AP 6-16

Prokoursatores, Trapezitai, & Detached Kavallarioi and Katafraktoi - Reg LH(S) @ 7 AP 2-5

Outflankers & Flank Guards - Reg LH(S) @ 7 AP or Reg LH(F) @ 4 AP 0-2

Nomad Mercenaries – Irr LH(S) @ 7 AP or Irr LH(F) @ 4 AP 0-4

Skoutatoi - Double-based ½ Reg Bw(X) @ 7 AP front, ½ Reg Bw(O) @ 3 AP rear 12-36

Akontistai - Reg Ps(S) @ 3 AP or Reg Ax(O) @ 4 AP 1-2 per 4 Bw

Light Archers and Slingers - Reg Ps(O) @ 2 AP (can support Akontistai) 0-1 per 4 Bw

Replace Akontistai with Rhousiai – Irr Ps(S) @ 3 AP or Irr Ax(O) @ 3 AP Any

Detached Menavlatoi - Reg Bd(X) @ 8 AP 0-1 per 8 Bw

Fire-Siphoneers - Reg Ps(X) @ 6 AP 0-1

Rus or Armenian Mercenary Spearmen – all Irr Sp(O) @ 4 AP or all Irr Sp(I) @ 3 AP 0-4

‘Shadow War’ foot or local levy –Irr Ax(O) @ 3 AP 0-4

Ditch & bank camp defences - TF @ 1 AP 1 6-16

Bolt-shooters - Reg Art(O) @ 8 AP 1 0-2

Stone throwers - Reg Art (S) @ 10 AP 1 0-1

Servants, pioneers, etc - Irr Hd(O) @ 1 AP or Irr Ax(I)@ 2 AP 1 0-4

Galleys - Up to ½ Khelandia Reg Gal (O) @ 3 AP, rest Pamphylai Reg Gal (S) @ 4 AP, with Marines Reg Ax(S) @ 5 AP or Reg Sp(O) @ 5 AP or with Varangians, Reg Bd(O) or Irr Bd(O) 0-4

 

Only in Italy

Replace Skoutatoi Bw with Lombard infantry – Reg Sp(I) @ 4 AP 1/4-1/2

 

 

Only in the East

Banu Habib defectors or other local Arabs – Irr LH(O) @ 5 AP 0-4

 

Available AD 963-AD 967 & AD 972-AD 1042

Rus Allies - List: Rus (Book 3) 0-14 + 0-4 boats

 

Only AD 963 – AD 988

Rus &Varangian Mercenary Bands - Irr Bd(O) @ 5 AP 0-2

Rus & Varangian boats replacing galleys - Irr Bt(O) @ 2 AP or Irr Bt (S) @ 3 AP (Irr Bd(O)) 0 or 1 per Bd

 

Only AD 989 – AD 1042

Varangoi Druzhina - Irr Bd (O) @ 5 AP 0-8

Varangian boats replacing Gal - Irr Bt (O) @ 2 AP or Irr Bt (S) 3 AP (Varangoi Irr Bd(O)) 0-4

 

Only AD 995 – AD 1042

Upgrade Varangoi Druzhina to Varangian Guard - Reg Bd(O) @ 7 AP An

Upgrade Varangian Guard to mounted infantry- Horses @ 1 AP 0/All

 

Only in Italy AD 1018 – AD 1042

Normans and Lombards - Irr Kn(F) @ 9 AP 0-4

 

Only AD 1030 – AD 1042

Downgrade Kavallarioi - Reg Cv(O) @ 8 AP 1/4-1/2

 

Only AD 974 - AD 976

Hamdanid Arab allies - List: Dynastic Bedouin (Book 3)

Bagratid Armenian Allies - List: Bagratid Armenian (Book 3)

 

Only AD 976 – AD 1042

Georgian Allies - List: Georgian (Book 3)

 

Special Rules

• The minimum 1 applies only if any item so marked is used. The artillery and any Hd(O) and/or Ax(I) MUST set up in a fortified camp and/or in a fortified BUA.
• A Byzantine Ally-General need not command otherwise compulsory troops.
• Skoutatoi double—based Bw(X) and Bw(O) must be purchased in groups of 4 elements. It is, for example, legal to obtain 12 or 16 Bw elements, but not 14 or 18.
• Varangoi Irr Bd(O) or Reg Bd(O) can be used instead of Byzantine Marines as ship-board troops.
• Rus Mercenary Spearmen may not be used together with a Rus Ally.
• The Rus Ally can have boats. Such boats do not include any ship troops in addition to the 14 element maximum.

 

 

Notes on changes to Nikephorian List

I have made the following changes to the standard DBM Army List:

 

 

Ag factors

The Byzantine Empire was not terribly aggressive after the period of the soldier emperors. I therefore reduce the Ag factor to 2 after the death of Basil II. There were still offensive campaigns and a few conquests, but it was apparently more out of old habit than any actual policy.

The immediate successors of Basil II were uninspiring nonentities and I find it doubtful that they had any long-term foreign policy of any kind. They were usually too busy with their own intrigues and pleasures to devote much effort to foreign policy and military affairs.

 

And for a generation they got away with it. The military machine kept on going. The borders were safe, their enemies defeated or busy elsewhere. The army was so successful it was surely safe to cut back on its funding, wasn’t it?

 

It could not last, of course. It was a classic case of winning the war and losing the peace. At the very end of the Konstantinian period the Emperor Diogenes tried to reverse the trend. He was partially successful, and his campaign against the Turks was going reasonably well until treachery and/or incompetence brought about defeat at the battle of Manzikert. This battle was a very serious defeat, but not really worse than several other reverses in the preceding centuries. The civil war that broke out after the defeat was the real disaster. It put an end to Diogenes’ reign, his life, the Byzantine economy and the ‘classic’ Byzantine army. The army and the state itself never recovered.

 

Increased Numbers of LH

Sometimes a significant proportion (up to 20% apparently) of the heavy cavalry troopers were deployed with light equipment as light cavalry along with the regular light cavalry. This was, according to the manuals, at least in part to enable the heavy cavalrymen a fair share of the loot normally gathered by the light cavalry troopers before the others could arrive! So slightly more numerous LH(S) are available. The number of regular light horsemen (Prokorsatores, Outflankers and Flank Guards) in the ideal army of the military manuals total about 700 men, but this does not include any heavy cavalry troopers deployed as light cavalry, nor any mercenaries.

 

 

Kavallarioi as Cv(S) or (O)

The option, and in the later part of the period requirement, to downgrade some of the Reg Cv(S) kavallarioi to Reg Cv(O) is based on the continual difficulty in retaining unit quality in general and horse archer skills in particular, especially in provincial units. There was an increasing tendency for the Thematic units of provinces far from the frontiers to get ‘out of shape’ since their provinces were hardly ever attacked and they were rarely called up for offensive campaigning. The offensive operations of this period were based more and more on the full-time Tagmatic units, some of which were now based in the provinces, and mercenaries. Some of the Thematic units were still effective, though.

 

 

Artillery, Hordes and Auxilia (I) deployed in camp

The Byzantines had a sizeable logistics ‘tail’ and quite a few part-time and not-so-regular troops. Each cavalry trooper had a personal groom, as did every squad of 8-10 infantrymen. In addition there were large numbers of siege engineers, surveyors, pioneers, mule drivers, etc. The vast majority of these are depicted as part of the camp elements. However, large numbers of them (the Opsikion theme troops for example) were regular parts of the military establishment, and were armed soldiers specialising in logistics. In addition the manuals of the period mention the servants and other logistics troops being left behind with a scattering of combat troops to defend the camp.

Some of them should be represented on the table. I think Hd(O) and/or Ax(I) appropriate. Hd(O) represents camp servants and grooms, Ax(I) also includes local guides, border/mountain levies and any line-of-communications troops with battlefield ability better than that of hordes, stiffened with a few combat troops left behind to guard the camp.

 

In battlefield use, artillery was apparently only deployed within the camp, which the manuals insist must be fortified. Therefore artillery can only be used if the camp is protected by a ditch and bank. Any artillery, hordes and/or Ax(I) MUST set up in a fortified camp or a fortified BUA. I have become convinced by the arguments of G T Dennis and other members of the TNE list that the bolt-shooters on wagons is based on a mistranslation. There might have been some wagon-mounted or wheeled artillery pieces, but the usual type of Byzantine artillery piece was certainly a ground mounted bolt-shooter. There were also numerous stone-throwers of various sizes.

 

The Manuals stress the importance of fortified camps with good water supply. But all commanders did not fortify their camps. This was apparently due to a combination of laziness and overconfidence and at times led to disaster.

 

´Shadow War´ Infantry or local levy

Part of the traditional Byzantine defence against Arab raiders in Anatolia was the use of local light cavalry and light infantry forces as one key component of a quite sophisticated guerrilla-like warfare concept called ‘Shadow War’ by the Byzantines.

This style of warfare was rapidly disappearing during this period since the Empire was on the offensive, but tactical treatises of the period still describe it.

 

Since the ‘Shadow War’ concept was a defensive one, these infantry forces should really be used only when fighting on territory belonging to the empire, i e when the Byzantines are defending.

 

Local levies of tough border peasants and herdsmen, not necessarily part of the ‘Shadow War’ organisation, were presumably also used in small numbers.

 

If the Byzantines are attacking, consider them irregular local infantry from the border region dragged along on this offensive expedition as light troops and guides.

 

Rus/Varangian Mercenaries before AD 988 and Varangian boats

Smaller mercenary contingents were used before the establishment of the Varangian Guard in 988 AD. A treaty of AD 907 or AD 911 stipulates that the Prince of Kiev should provide the Emperor with a mercenary force on demand. It is not clear if this was put into practic, but a Rus/Varangian contingent of about 700 men took part in the invasion of Crete in AD 961 using their own boats. In addition, there is a mention in the AD 940s of a squadron of light Rus naval vessels (‘Ousiai’) stationed in Dyrrhakion in present-day Albania.

 

And why not give the best sailors and ‘marines’ of the era a chance to use their native skills? As an example, at the end of this period Harald Hårdråde, future King of Norway, amassed an amazing fortune while on detached duty as a ‘marine’ in the Mediterranean with a sizable following of warriors, probably around 500 men, and ships under his command. Please note that this also implies that not all varangians employed by the Empire served in the Imperial Bodyguard.

 

Regular Varangian Guard

The original Varangian Guard was a ‘Druzhina’ sent by Prince Vladimir of Kiev to aid Emperor Basil II. Basil was in a very difficult position in a civil war and, in effect, traded his sister as wife to Prince Vladimir in exchange for the services of the Varangians.

Most of the regular Byzantine army had joined the insurgents and the Emperor had few loyal troops. In a classic surprise-at-dawn attack the newly arrived varangians totally crushed the main force of rebels and were kept in service afterwards.

 

It is not clear when exactly they went from being a traditional Rus & Viking-style group of adventurers/warriors to being a regular part of the Byzantine army. The DBM Army List puts it at the start of the Konstantinian period (AD 1042). I do not agree. Here’s why:

 

The soldier-emperor Basil II was most remarkable and very competent. He was also thorougly unpleasant and a foaming-at-the-mouth control freak insisting on discipline above all else. I think he would have made sure that his personal guard regiment was kept firmly in line. His less illustrious successors certainly needed loyal, disciplined troops without local political ties to keep their thrones.

 

The option to upgrade them to mounted infantry is based on the assumption that the guard regiments would be required to keep up with the Emperor on campaign and in battle. In addition there was an incident during Basil´s last campaign, when the varangians fought a skirmish in camp with the Emperor´s allies, the Georgians, after a dispute over a bale of hay that a varangian wanted for his horse. This does not mean that they were used as cavalry, they most probably were not, but they did certainly have horses. An option to field them as mounted infantry seems reasonable

 

Not all the varangians employed by the Empire were part of the Imperial Guard. There was some distinction between the ‘Varangians of the City’, i e the Imperial Bodyguard, and those stationed in the provinces. The ‘provincial’ varangians did not receive the lavish wages of their City-based brethren and I would assume that they were more like the original mercenary/adventurer bands of warriors.

 

Akontistai, Archers/Slingers, Rhousiai javelinmen, Menavlatoi and Skoutatoi

The Byzantine Infantry of this period was quite tough and well disciplined, in sharp contrast with earlier periods. The infantry was divided into Taxiarchies each of 1000 men of which an ideal army had 12 or 16, for a total of 12000 or 16000 regular infantry.

 

Each Taxiarchy consisted of 400 ordinary spearmen (called Hoplitai or Skoutatoi in the manuals) deployed as the first three ranks of the formation and as the rear-most, seventh, rank. 300 archers deployed as the fourth to sixth rank ‘sandwiched’ between the spearmen. 200 lighter troops, mostly javelinmen (Akontistai) with some archers or slingers. The final 100 men were called Menavlatoi and were supposed to be the best soldiers in the unit. They were heavily equipped spearmen with especially sturdy spears or pikes. The Menavlatoi could deploy as a front rank in the main Taxiarchy unit or operate independently on the flanks of the rest of the unit, or even in front of it.

 

As far as I can see the ratio between Skutatoi, Akontistai and light archers as provided in the standard list is both very rigid and not really consistent with that laid down in Byzantine manuals.

In any case, I do not know of many instances an army in the field has exactly matched its TOE. My old army unit certainly never was, and that was in peace-time training. Hence the redefined ratios and more liberal interpretation of the numbers required.

 

The representation of the Akontistai as Reg Ax(O) is based on the practice of using the Akontistai to ‘link’ the various blocks of Skoutatoi. The equipment of the Akontistai is defined in the military manuals of the period as identical to that of the Skutatoi with helmet and textile body armour but with a slightly smaller shield. They carried 2-3 javelins/spears that were about 2m long instead of the longer kontos carried by the Skoutatoi. Does not sound much like a description of psiloi, does it?

 

Of course not all soldiers matched the standards described in manuals and might not possess the ‘ideal’ equipment. Even some of the ones who did could probably operate in ‘light order’ if required. And the manuals assign a very mobile role to the Akontistai. An option to mix Ps(S) and Ax(O) feels right.

 

The regular Akontistai were often replaced with Rus javelinmen called Rhousiai by the Byzantines. If these were in any way different from regular Akontistai is not clear since there is no indication of differences in their ‘job descriptions’. The equipment of the ‘Rhousiai’ is not specified and it is possible that there were no functional difference at all between them and regular Akontistai. But the possibility that they were irregular mercenaries with the same task as the regular Akontistai is reflected by the option to replace Akontistai with Rhousiai Irr Ax(O) or Irr Ps(S).

 

Archers and/or slingers were, at least sometimes, deployed as a third rank behind two ranks of javelinmen and were supposed to support them. Hence the ability of Ps(O) to support Akontistai.

 

The Menavlatoi were sometimes deployed as a front rank for the infantry formation (in which case they are supposed to be integrated in the Bw(X) elements) or as a mobile reserve capable of some independent action. They were equipped with a stout spear or pike reported to be very effective against charging cavalry. The Bd(X) grading in the standard DBM army list seems reasonable although they might be regarded as Spears or possibly Pikes. There never were that many of these soldiers (just 10% of the Taxiarchy infantry), so I have made them less common.

 

The infantry Taxiarchies were historically deployed in a box-like formation that resembled a walking fort with the cavalry and baggage train inside it. Unfortunately I know of no reasonable way to depict this in DBM.

 

Downgrading Sub-General to Ally-General

The Byzantine army of this period was very good indeed, but it still suffered from the same curious dependency on the high-level commanders. Even in this era of remarkable success there were instances, especially later in the period when the army was losing its superior efficiency, when an army on the point of winning suddenly lost heart and routed, or commanders simply would not cooperate. Hence the option to downgrade a sub-general to an ally-general. Use an ally-general if you wish to reflect the less-than-completely-loyal or simply inept battlefield behaviour of some senior officers. An Ally-General is especially appropriate in one of the frequent civil wars.

 

Steppe Nomad Mercenaries

The Byzantines routinely hired steppe nomad mercenaries. Some, maybe most, took their place as individuals in the various regular Tagmatic cavalry regiments, but some probably operated using their traditional tactics as skirmishing light horsemen, LH(S) or LH(F) in DBM terms.

 

The Byzantines always had serious problems maintaining horse archery skills and in later periods, covered by the Konstantinian and Komnenan lists, tried to compensate by recruiting large numbers of horse archers from various Turkic peoples (the Turkopoles being most famous of these).

 

The army sent to Sicily in the 1030s is described by their Arab opponents as ‘consisting of men from all nations’ and Turks, Bulgars, Armenians, Russians, Greeks and ‘Franks’ are all mentioned.

 

Rus or Armenian Spearmen

Large numbers of Armenians served in the Imperial armies. Most served as part of the regular forces, but there are references to specifically Armenian units. A unit of Armenian spearmen enabled the Emperor Basil II to escape from the bungled Bulgarian campaign in 980 AD, for example. This unit was remarked upon as impressively stubborn, so Irr Sp(O) feels reasonable, with a possibility of it being Irr Sp(I) in line with most Armenian foot.

Rus were also employed.

 

Normans/Lombards

I have increased the numbers of Lombards and Normans available in the army. The Lombards and increasing numbers of Normans LIVED in Italy. Hiring considerable numbers of them there would not have been very difficult (and 4 elements would translate into a fairly modest 1024 men at the nominal scale of 256 men per element). I suppose that the 2 elements allowed in the standard army lists are based on the 300 Normans used by George Maniakes in Sicily in the 1030s, but he might well have used a bunch of Lombards too. Normans and/or Lombards were used on mainland Italy at other times and in unknown strength.

 

Lombard Infantry

The Byzantines relied extensively on local forces in their Italian provinces. The local forces do not seem to be modelled on the Byzantine model, but rather resembled the forces of the surrounding Lombard principalities.

 

The bulk of the Lombard infantry is graded as Reg Sp(I), which seems a reasonable grading. Accordingly a proportion of Byzantine infantry forces in the Italian theatre of operations must be graded as Reg Sp(I) Lombards instead of the Skoutatoi Reg Bw(X/O)

 

Arab Light Horse

The Byzantine eastern provinces were reconquered from the Arabs in the later parts of the Thematic period and during the Nikephorian period. These new provinces were also organised as Themes and/or Kleisourai and garrisoned by Thematic forces. However, the eastern provinces included large non-Orthodox populations (heterodox Christian as well as Muslim) with their own indigenous elites. A proportion of this elite fled when the provinces were absorbed into the empire, but large numbers of them stayed and went on to serve the Empire as soldiers and senior administrators. In addition entire tribes, such as the Banu Habib, went over to the Byzantines as Arab power weakened in the region. I therefore allow a number of Bedouin style local Arabs (Irr LH(O)) in the Eastern provinces.