BULGARS AND BYZANTINES

[Chris]

Initially, I had planned on wargaming the fictional battle using the rules as written. To be certain, this would have represented a rather radical departure from my usual approach wherein I tinker, toy, and tweak until the rules are almost unrecognizable and my memory is taxed with all the changes. However, given the preponderance of cavalry formations present on the tabletop (a grand total of 95!), I decided that the prudent course would be to adopt scenario specific rules 1 and 2 from Mark Fry's "Chalons 451 AD - With Epic Armati" report which appeared in the July-August 2013 issue of Slingshot. In very brief summary, these two rules permit light cavalry to interpenetrate and/or evade through friendly heavy cavalry formations.

I imagine that it will come as no great surprise to readers familiar with my "work" that, once again, I enlisted and manufactured large armies for use on the "miniature" field of honor.

ORDERS OF BATTLE
The Byzantines were drafted from Page P (the Triumph of Cavalry lists) of the ARMATI 2nd Edition rule book. Theirs was a quadruple-size army reinforced by 400 points of bonus units. The opposing force, the Bulgars, were selected from the list on Page Q. Their army was also four times the standard size and was supported by 400 points of bonus units as well.

The foot component of the Byzantine army included 14 units of Skutatoi (heavy infantry) screened by 13 units of skirmishers. These light troops consisted of 4 units of slingers, 4 units of javelinmen, and 5 units of archers. The mounted component contained 10 units of Obsequium (heavy cavalry with a fighting  value of 5), 18 units of Kavallari (heavy cavalry with a fighting value of 4), and a single unit of Optimates (heavy cavalry with a fighting value of 5). The Optimates were classed as veterans. There were three more veteran units in the army,  one each for the Skutatoi, Obsequium, and Kavallari. In addition, there was a small contingent (10 units, split between 3 units of heavy and 7 units of light cavalry) of Khazars present. With the exception of the Optimates "regiment," all of the Byzantine and Khazar units were armed with some kind of missile weapon. The overwhelming majority of these formations carried bows.

The Slavic contingent of the Bulgar force numbered 8 units of light infantry, 6 units of light horse, and 4 units of heavy horse. All of these formations would ride or run into battle carrying javelins. Eight units of Subject light cavalry armed with bows were also present in the Bulgar host. The majority of this assembled mass consisted of noble heavy cavalry. There were 18 units of nobles (with a fighting value of 4) supported by 6 sturdier "regiments" (each possessing a fighting value of 5). Fourteen units of Bulgar light cavalry would screen and or support their heavier brothers in arms.

TERRAIN AND DEPLOYMENTS
With regard to the landscape of my fictional battlefield, instead of taking the core terrain for each army and spending valuable points on additional pieces, I simply adapted the  tabletop diagram provided on page 146 of the Napoleonic battle report found in Chapter 17 of Charles Grant's excellent  WARGAME TACTICS. Having no place in ninth century Byzantine territory, the two early nineteenth century villages were removed from the playing surface. The wooded area, the two hills (one gentle, the other steep but negotiable), the small lake, and the impassable terrain along one short edge of the table were kept intact.

As they were defending against an invasion of their border, the Byzantines deployed first. The impassable terrain was on their right while the steep hill and lake "combination" was on their center-left. In order to utilize every inch of my 6-foot table, I extended the dimensions of the 15mm deployment area detailed on page 5 of the rule book. The restricted zones were increased to 5 inches from 4. The flank zones were increased to 13 inches from 12, and the central zone of the field was expanded to 36 inches.

The Khazar contingent was tasked with protecting the right flank of the Byzantine army. A small reserve of Byzantine heavy horse was positioned on this side of the field as well in case the Khazar cavalry formations were broken. The center of the Byzantine position was held by the foot regiments. Nine stands of skirmishers (variously armed) screened a solid line of Skutatoi. Some distance behind this 9-unit strong division of heavy infantry, there was a 5-unit reserve formation. The veteran Skutatoi were the center of this shorter line. A single unit of heavy horse guarded each flank of this reserve formation. The steep hill overlooking the lake was garrisoned by 4 units of bow-armed skirmishers. The majority of the Byzantine cavalry was arranged on the left flank, with 23 units deployed in 3 lines.

Over on the Bulgar side of the field, the Slavs were positioned to advance against the Khazars. Light infantry and light cavalry were deployed in the first two lines; the noble heavy cavalry were held in reserve. The center of the Bulgar army was covered by a cloud of light cavalry. Seven divisions of heavier horse (21 units in all) formed up in two lines behind this screen of Subject and Bulgar light cavalry armed with bows. A patch of woods separated the center from the right flank and so, "interrupted" the Bulgar deployment. The far right flank formation consisted of more light cavalry screening 7 units of heavy cavalry deployed in 2 divisions.

SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
First blood was drawn by the Slavic light cavalry on the second turn of the battle. The Khazar light horse fared poorly against an aggressive enemy and when the Slav light infantry joined in the multiple combats, the Khazars suffered even more. By the fifth turn, only 1 unit of Khazar light cavalry (out of an original complement of 7) remained. The slightly damaged Slav light infantry turned their attention to the Khazar heavy horse and continued to dole out punishment, although they did lose one unit when a charge struck home and routed the javelin-wielding foot soldiers. In the center of the field, the Byzantine skirmishers led the Bulgar and Subject light horse on a "merry dance." The assorted slingers, javelinmen and single unit of archers not only kept the enemy occupied but screened the steady advance of the main line of Byzantine infantry. At a signal, the skirmishers withdrew through the friendly ranks and allowed the archers of the infantry regiments to start their pointed correspondence with the enemy light cavalry. The Byzantine left advanced quickly and endured harassing fire from the enemy light cavalry. Pressing their advantage in numbers and weight, the Byzantine Kavallari soon forced the Bulgar light horse to retreat. A division of noble heavy cavalry was right behind the withdrawing light horse and a series of melees commenced between the opposing formations. In contrast to the Khazar  "catastrophe" on the other flank, the dice seemed to favor the Byzantine cause in these contests. An enemy "regiment" in the center of their line was broken. This local victory was followed by another on the end of the engaged line. The swirling action soon involved divisions on both sides of the woods located on the Bulgar right. Here again, the dice proved kind to the Byzantine effort, though a price certainly was paid in men and mounts. As the struggle continued, formations on both sides became exhausted and hence, more fragile to the vagaries of close combat.

Over the course of the next several turns,the Byzantine main line of Skutatoi continued to loose volleys of arrows against the scampering groups of enemy light horse. They were assisted in this duel by the various "companies" of skirmishers that would dash forward to fling javelins or sling stones and then withdraw behind a wall of shield just as quickly. In an attempt to get at the skirmishers, several units of Subject and Bulgar light horse galloped forward and dared to make contact with the line of heavy infantry. At first, to the surprise and chagrin of the Byzantine foot, the advantage went to the enemy horsemen. Soon enough, however, the advantage swung the other way and a number of Bulgar and Subject "squadrons" were routed. While this was transpiring, the millstone of the Byzantine left flank continued to grind down the Bulgar formations in front of them. As before, this process was not without minor setbacks as the enemy horse made the Byzantines pay a steep price for every yard of ground gained. Numbers told here as well, and eventually, the far right of the Bulgar line found itself outnumbered by more than two to one. In the meantime, back over on the Byzantine right flank, the Khazars were proving a tough nut to crack. The remaining three groups of irregular horsemen destroyed half of the Slav light infantry and then started to decimate their supporting light cavalry. By the end of game turn 8, the Bulgars had lost 20 key units in addition to 5 units of Slav light infantry. Another 5 key units (all light horse) were broken during the next move and this tipped the scales of battle very much in favor of the Byzantine army. Although quite a few units of noble heavy cavalry remained ready for action, the morale of the Bulgar host had been shattered.

EXPLANATION AND EVALUATION
I was  able to fit all of these cavalry formations on my 6 by 4-foot table by reducing the footprint of 15mm Epic Scale Units by 40 percent. By this "method," a unit of heavy infantry has  a frontage of 4.8 centimeters and a depth of 2.7 centimeters and a unit of light cavalry (deployed deep) has a frontage of 2.4 centimeters and a depth of 3.6 centimeters. For measuring missile ranges and movement rates, I used the metric side of a standard ruler. As it turned out, a light cavalry advance of 15 centimeters was the equivalent to a 40 percent reduction of the 15mm Epic/Optimal scale ruler on page 36. I was able to afford all of these troops by making colored counters with my computer instead of preparing approximately 130 bases of painted miniatures. (I have not calculated the cost and time it would take to actually field these armies, but I do imagine that in terms of both dollars and hours, the totals would be impressive.) The terrain on the tabletop was as simple and inexpensive. While the various features did not play a truly significant role in the battle, the functional pieces did serve to break up an otherwise plain stretch of green cloth.

In playing the wargame by myself, against myself, I tried not to favor one side more than the other. On reflection, however, it does appear that I have much to learn with regard to  commanding all-cavalry armies. As the Bulgar commander, I did consider placing all of my heavy horse to the front so that I could scream charge and just try to overwhelm the Byzantine defenders. The odds did not seem very good, however, so I tried a different plan. As evident by the narrative report, light cavalry does not do very well against heavy infantry (especially those with integral archers and skirmisher support) or heavy cavalry that also carries bows. I did better with the Slav light infantry, at least initially. When the Khazar heavy cavalry moved up and became embroiled in the fighting on the Byzantine right, my luck as the local Bulgar chieftain ran out.

The adopted rules concerning unit interpenetration between friendly light and heavy cavalry worked rather well, I thought. But again, I probably should have made better use of this as commander-in-chief of the Bulgar army. During the comparatively short battle, I wondered about the limits of these scenario specific amendments. For example, if light cavalry can evade and or move through friendly heavy cavalry, could it not also evade and or move through friendly light cavalry? Along this same line, what about heavy cavalry moving through friendly heavy cavalry? One could even extend the questioning to include foot formations not already covered by the rules as they are written.

Overall, using the rules as written enabled me to play ("fight") a "cleaner" and quicker battle. In some respects, it was as enjoyable as others I have played or attempted to play within the last 12 months. Without so many amendments and revisions, though, it  seems as though the tabletop action loses some of its "flavor."

So it's back to the "lab" or "test kitchen" for me. The search for the right combination of rule amendments, the right "recipe," continues.



      

[aligern]

Good report Chris. I suggest that in Armati, you either pay points for an advantage or you get both the advantage and a disadvantage, or risk. So, for example, losing cavalry and warband can choose to greak off from an nfantry opponent, but they take the risk that on a throw of 2,or 3 they stay fighting and on a 1 they rout. Conversely infantry that can form shieldwall pay a point for the privilege.
I wonder with the rule amendments that you are using whether some should attract costs or penalties or just be free to both sides.
If we imagine an Armati 'unit' as consisting of several smaller  bodies occupying an area then it is easier to conceive of there  being gaps between the smaller bodies that allow two Armati units to pass. through each other.  The scale of Armati is mutable, the same 75 point plus core force representing anAthurian British army of 2000 men or less and a Roman army of 20,000 so clearly units are only representationaland we should imagine much more fluidity of the formations that are actually on tne base. That makes actions such as letting a light unit pass through much more understandable.
Roy
u

[Chris]

Roy -

Thanks for taking the time to read, reply, and compliment the effort.

Your suggestions re advantages/disadvantages, amendments, and representation are well taken.

Chris