Art De La Guerre

[KevinD]

A couple of points about these lists:

1. The Cursores should probably have the option to be Heavy Cavalry. They were deployed in open order but were armored as well or better than the Defensores, who after all were troops from the same units just deployed in closer order to support the skirmishing Cursores. If they are not open order light troops the Cursores should be equally well armored as the Defensores. Also since about 1/3 could be deployed as Cursires, there should probably be more Cursores permitted, say 2-6. Maybe the argument for 0-6 could be made if we assume that sometimes none of the troops were sent forward as Cursores and everyone was held back in the close order as Defensores.

2. The end date of the Mauritian list should probably be earlier, maybe 636 AD. The cavalry fought credibly at Yarmouk, at least for the first six days. However, the Army of the East was destroyed there and after Yarmouk the Roman army never really won a field battle against the Arabs for the next generation or so. The Thematic list with its lack of Elites and optional Mediocre cavalry would better represent their poor field performance from 637 as compared to the Maurikian list. The lower command rating of the Thematic list better aligns with the uninspired leadership we saw from the Roman field army during this era.

[KevinD]

Should Constantine V (741-775) be a Strategist?

He personally led the army on numerous occasions and fought quite a few field battles (a dozen or more) against the Arabs, Bulgars, Slavs and would be usurpers, winning every one of them as near as I can tell. He was also pretty good at logistics, finance, campaign planning and reorganized the Theme system. (He was the one who created the Tagmata.)

What about John Kurkouas? Should he be a Strategist from 923-944. During this time he was the Domestic of the Scholea and led Roman armies to victories over the Arabs in Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Cilicia and over the Rus in Bithynia and recaptured the Holy Mandylion relic at Edessa. He campaigned successfully almost every year for over two decades fighting and defeating numerous opponents.

[KevinD]

A couple of other points regarding the Thematic Byzantines.

First, should the Skutatoi really be HI Sp Supported? Their infantry was mainly used for ambushing Arab raiders in mountain passes and similar actions or holding fixed fortifications. They weren’t really regarded as being reliable in standing up to enemy cavalry in the open. Perhaps graded them as MI Sw or even LMI Javelinmen might be more appropriate. (Before (Maurikian) and after this period (Nikephorian) Roman infantry was much more solid in open battle, but during this era they really weren’t all that reliable in open battle but did well in petite guerre.)

Another issue is the the “ Caliphate Deserters” 834-839? Are these supposed to be Khurramites? If so, a couple of points. First, should they be allies? The Byzantines were quite concerned they might defect at the Battle of Anzen. Second, ironically they were actually quite determined when fighting the Arabs, performing well when most of the Roman army broke, covering the emperor’s escape as a rear guard, so rating some or all of them as Elite might be warranted. The combination of Elite but potentially unreliable might capture the Roman’s fear about their reliability but their determination in combat. Additionally, should they be allowed to have an included general? Theophobos was with them?