GHULAMS vs SKOUTATOI

For the third and final solo wargame inspired by an “ancient” report discovered in the July 1981 issue of Slingshot (The Journal of the Society of Ancients), I decided to increase the size of the playing surface as well as expand the number of formations that would be participating in the contest. Therefore, I would be using my 10.5 feet long by 3.75 feet wide tabletop, and I hoped to triple, at least, the 12 units of Ghaznavids fielded by Fraser Drummond and the 10 units of Late Byzantines assembled by the article’s author, Nicholas Barrett. Though not specifically stated, my guess is that these gentlemen employed a version of the WRG 4th, 5th or 6th Edition rules as there is mention made of scouting, reaction tests, and rallying in the very brief report. Further, some units are described or identified as containing EHC (Extra-Heavy Cavalry) or an even mix of EHC and HC (Heavy Cavalry). For this final leg of the “adapted triangle” of quasi-historical battles, I would be employing the Tactica II rules. [1] In the early stages of planning this scenario, I seriously considered drawing on some of my previous amendments to these long-in-production and thoroughly play tested rules, but decided against “adding chrome” (or my work-in-progress version of it) to the spiral-bound rules. [2]

Orders of Battle, A Brief 

While the Tactica II rulebook contains a fair number of army lists, there is not a list for Nikephorian Byzantines or for Ghaznavids. Using the army lists found in a number of other rulebooks, I cobbled together what I thought might be a representative force for both sides. [3] While I was concerned with achieving a measure of historical accuracy, I confess that I was more concerned with developing an engaging and entertaining solo wargaming experience. In broad outline, the Byzantine army consisted of 9 divisions. The majority of these rules-based formations were cavalry. While the Ghaznavids also brought a large number of horsemen to the fictional engagement, their army had only 8 divisions. The one troop type the Ghaznavids possessed that the Byzantines did not was elephants. As a long-time fan of pachyderms on the tabletop, I was curious to see what role these animals would play and what impact they might have in the planned scenario. Details about the exact composition and numbers in the opposing armies can be found in Appendix A. 

Deployments, Simply 

Both armies placed cavalry on their flanks and positioned infantry formations in their centers. Map 1, in conjunction with the information provided in Appendix A, shows how each army was arranged for the coming battle. The simple look of the terrain used in this fictional engagement is also shown. As the two areas of scrub / light wood were not “true” woods, the movement penalty against infantry and cavalry formations was revised to an allowance of 6 inches instead of a maximum move of 4 inches. It was very doubtful that any elephants would find their way to these two patches of scrub / light wood, but just in case, elephants were permitted a move of 4 inches when negotiating this particular feature. 

How It Played 

Maps 2 and 3 provide a visual summary of how the battle progressed. To the extent that I can expand upon those captions and that brief narrative, the following description is presented for the reader’s engagement and possible enjoyment. Let me preface what follows by commenting that “detailed notes” were only typed for Turns 5 through 8. Additionally, there may be some redundancy between the caption for Map 3 and the following paragraphs.

By the start of Turn 5, the battle was fully joined all across the tabletop. The light cavalry on each flank was either engaged in melee or “dancing to and fro,” trying to gain a better position by which to rain arrows on enemy formations or gain a flank bonus in a possible melee. The movement of both Byzantine and Ghaznavid light horse was somewhat constrained, however, by the proximity of heavier supporting units. These cavalrymen were eager to get into the action, but could not force their way through the lighter formations. 

To be certain, there was heavy and desperate fighting in the center of the field, as the main lines of infantry made contact and the orderly formations dissolved into the disorderly chaos of separate melees. Typically, warband units and elephants stand a decent chance of securing impetus and thus more combat dice when fighting close combats. However and unfortunately, neither the Dailami nor the unit of elephants in the Ghaznavid first line were able to roll well enough to gain an impetus advantage. The Byzantine infantry facing each of these formations fought well. The elephants were the first to be broken. Luckily, the panicked survivors did not cause disorder in any friendly units. The Dailami unit was engaged in a local battle of attrition. Each melee phase saw its strength depleted until a Fates Test was required. The dice were not kind and the formation disintegrated. 

The casualties continued to pile up during Turn 7. On the Byzantine right flank, a stand off had developed between the surviving Byzantine light cavalry (mostly Pechenegs) and a unit of Ghulams that had been ordered to wheel left and deal with these irritating horsemen. A unit of Cataphracts from the Byzantine reserve had charged into an ongoing melee, but they did not get the impetus advantage and the swirling cavalry contest continued. On the opposite flank, the reserve lines of cavalry engaged. The Ghaznavid light cavalry buzzed around the Byzantine left flank, but were not able to offer any substantial assistance. Turning to the center of the field, volleys of arrows from some fresh Ghaznavid units inflicted “missile halts” on 3 adjacent units of Byzantine infantry. In the melee phase, the Byzantines were blooded further. In fact, 5 units were very close to their breaking point. In a vicious melee against some Afghan spearmen, which saw both sides pushed past their determined breakpoint, the Byzantines were able to best these stubborn enemy troops with a higher score on a competitive die roll. At the other end of the line of melees, another unit of Byzantine foot just passed its required Fates Test. 

At the risk of “crunching some numbers” and delaying this narrative, a casualty count at the end of Turn 7 informed that: the Byzantines had lost 11 units. The damage done amounted to 174 figures out of an army breakpoint of 486. On the Ghaznavid side of the field, 19 units had been wrecked. The damage here added up to 396 figures. This was close to their determined morale tipping point of 471. (Essentially, the difference was the equivalent of two units of foot, each having 36 “figures.”) It may be worth noting that as of this turn, all of the Byzantine losses were from cavalry units. The Ghaznavid casualties were a combination of cavalry, elephants, and infantry, with the foot units accounting for 180 figures. 

Turn 8 produced something similar to a seismic shift with regard to the casualty count. Before those totals are revealed and reviewed, the cavalry action on both flanks continued as it had for the past few turns. On the Byzantine right, their light cavalry remained undecided while the rest of the Cataphracts and a unit of Norman knights finally got “stuck in.” Even though both of these units secured impetus, their melee dice were pretty average and so, a decisive blow was not struck in this sector. Over on the Ghaznavid right, solid punches were landed by each side, with each formation losing a unit as well as having an engaged unit in disorder. On closer inspection, it appeared that a very slight advantage was held by the Byzantines. 

In the center of the field, the effective arrow volleys were followed up by a succession of charges. The weakened units of Skoutatoi tried to resist the assault but failed and in a rather large way. Earlier in the contest, a fairly large hole had been made in the Ghaznavid center, had been torn in their first line of foot regiments. Now, the favor had been returned, and an even larger hole was created in the Byzantine line of battle. A new tally of losses was completed. The Byzantine “butcher’s bill” now stood at 17 units worth 371 figures, with 180 of these being infantry. The Ghaznavids were at 21 units routed, for a total of 432 figures. 

With the collapse of the more-than-decimated unit of Dailami infantry inevitable, the decision was made to call a halt to the proceedings. It seemed quite evident that the Ghaznavids would reach their army breakpoint before the Byzantines did, so the Ghaznavid commander sounded a general retreat, hoping that he could save what was left of his battered army. As one might imagine, the Byzantine commander and his troops were quite relieved, as they had received a very bloody nose in achieving this hard-fought victory. 

Review & Remarks 

There is no contest. This third and final meeting between Byzantines and Ghaznavids was the largest, “most complicated,” and longest game of the three that were staged. The result of this battle placed the Byzantines on the winner’s podium, even though, like the Armati scenario, this wargame saw another concession as opposed to an outright defeat. It could be suggested that the Ghaznavids still have those “bragging rights” based on the results of the first contest, which saw the TRIUMPH! rules being used. Looking again at the orders of battle, it appears (some might say, “well, obviously . . .”) that I went a little too far. I am an avid reader of the Tactica II reports Simon Watson often posts to either the Society of Ancients Battle Reports discussion thread or the smaller community/forum of Tactica II enthusiasts. Simon and his fellow generals hold weekly gatherings and by all accounts, appear to have a very engaging time commanding forces half the size of the armies I employed. There is a lesson or there are lessons to learn there, I suppose. (During this final solo wargame, I often caught myself thinking about if I could manage a To The Strongest! scenario with comparable forces. Anyway.) 

The “most complicated” description refers to the eight phases of the game turn, and specifically to the procedures involved in resolving melees. To be sure, one has to roll quite a few dice with these rules. This was not a complete surprise to me, as I am somewhat familiar with the rules. However, during the latter stages of this wargame (I estimate a total playing time from first moves to decision being made at between 3-4 hours), figuring out how many dice to roll, rolling those dice and then checking for the “kill” numbers, and then doing the same for the opposing unit became a tad repetitive. This is my own fault, as again, I made the battle rather large. Exposure to and experience with other sets of rules for ancient wargaming often gave me pause to stop and question why light cavalry could not interpenetrate heavier horse in these rules, or why archers, with a 97.8 percent clear zone of fire, could not loose on the unengaged front of an enemy unit involved in a melee. I also “struggled” with the concept of having just a very small fraction of a unit in contact with an enemy and that friendly unit getting to roll an entire complement of dice even though the vast majority of its “figures” were nowhere near the enemy front rank. I will admit that it is odd that I do not have this same “concern” when playing Armati. I think it has to do with scale or unit representation. 

Reviewing some other notes, the Ghaznavids won the move option 5 times out of 8 turns played. They were able to retain the initiative during turns 5 and 6, before giving back it back to the Byzantines. There were missiles exchanged for 7 of the 8 turns. The volume of arrows decreased however, as both sides drew swords or readied spears and advanced into melee contact. The close combats began on the third turn and were still in process when the battle was called in favor of the Byzantines. (Could they have won more of a pyrrhic victory? Best said in a Chandler Bing voice.) Each side alternated in determining the direction melees were resolved. The Ghaznavids appeared to favor moving right to left when resolving these contests, while the Byzantines preferred moving left to right down the line. 

Reviewing the casualty rates, well, the Ghaznavids were always in the lead. At the end of 4 turns, they had lost 6 units, which added up to 84 figures. The Byzantines were barely scratched, having lost just 2 units valued at 24 figures. As the battle developed and more units made contact with enemy formations, the casualties increased at a steady and sometimes alarming rate. The Ghaznavids continued to lead however, and given that they had a smaller army breakpoint, this was a race that they could not afford to win. 

In summary, I think, despite my “resistance” to some of the procedures and rules, that the wargame went fairly well. I found myself thinking that it seemed to resemble, at least in some respects, an actual historical battle. Both armies deployed with cavalry on the wings and infantry in the center. Both armies also had reserve formations. As both armies contained many units with missile weapons, there were preliminary volleys before units charged into contact. When contact was made, it was very much a battle of attrition. Well, except for the light cavalry units. Those formations tended to break rather quickly. (Perhaps I should have deployed half of them as skirmishers?) While it would have been nice or fun to see the generals get involved and to see at least a little flexibility with regard to unit penetration, again, it seems that history was largely repeated on my bigger tabletop. While a degree of fun was indeed had, and while more was learned about playing at war with Tactica II (at least I hope!), I have not “converted” completely despite the arguments put forth by Simon and Paul Innes. [4] I have found Tactica II to be adaptable, however. So I think I will continue to use these rules. (Somewhat related but rather premature: I am eagerly awaiting the announcement of Battle Day 2024. I have yet to try and stage a Battle Day selection using the Tactica II rules.)

I will close with a link to a more colorful and traditional narrative about Ghaznavids fighting Byzantines. In the course of this “project,” I had prepared and set up a 400-points per side, approximately, L’Art de la Guerre contest. Sad short story shorter: The effort did not go very well. In fact, I stopped the scenario around the third or fourth turn of play. For those readers interested in seeing how one battle between Byzantines and Ghaznavids was competently played to conclusion with the ADLG rules and which side emerged victorious, I invite you to check out Tim Porter’s five year-old but still very detailed, entertaining and stimulating to the senses report at https://www.madaxeman.com/reports/Patras_2018_1.php

Appendix A 

Some of the following language might prove challenging to those readers without a working knowledge of the Tactica II rules. The several lines below serve as a kind of “code book.”

FV - represents the fighting value of the identified unit. This is the number range, on a d6 roll, that the enemy unit must score in order to inflict damage.

Vet - one of 4 morale classes or grades. “Vet” is short for Veterans, or the majority of troops. Other classes include Militia, Elite, and Legendary. 

Lance, Bow, Spear, etc. - The primary weapon carried by the unit. 

[impetus] - indicates that this unit may receive impetus (twice the amount of dice rolled) in certain situations.

Bow support or [x6] - an addition or scenario amendment on may part. This information indicates that the unit may use bows (long range missile weapons) in addition to its melee weapon(s).

The Byzantines:

Division 1 — 4 units of Light Cavalry, each of 12 figures and deployed as Massed Units

1 unit of Prokoursatores, FV 4-6, Vet, Lance

1 unit of Hyperkerastai, FV 3-6,Vet, Bow

2 units of Pechenegs, FV 3-6, Vet, Bow

Division 2 — 4 units of Thematic Kavallarioi, each of 18 figures and deployed as Massed Units

4 units of HC, FV 4-6, Vet, Lance/Bow [x6]

Division 3 — 5 units of Thematic Kavallarioi, each of 18 figures and deployed as Massed Units

5 units of HC, FV 5-6, Vet, Lance/Bow [x6]

Division 4 — 8 units of Skoutatoi, each of 36 figures and deployed as Massed Units

8 units of FT, FV 4-6, Vet, Spear/Bow support

Division 5 — 8 units of Infantry, 6 of 36 figures and 2 of 24 figures, all deployed as Massed Units

6 units of Skoutatoi (FT), FV 4-6, Vet, Spear/Bow support

2 units of Varangian Guards (FT), FV 5-6, Elite, Spear/Axe

Division 6 — 4 units of Light Cavalry, each of 12 figures and deployed as Massed Units

1 unit of Prokoursatores, FV 4-6, Vet, Lance

1 unit of Hyperkerastai, FV 3-6,Vet, Bow

2 units of Cumans, FV 3-6, Vet, Bow

Division 7 — 4 units of Thematic Kavallarioi, each of 18 figures and deployed as Massed Units

4 units of HC, FV 4-6, Vet, Lance/Bow [x6]

Division 8 — 2 units of Kataphraktoi, each of 18 figures and deployed as Massed Units

2 units of CAT, [impetus], FV 5-6, Elite, Lance

Division 9 — 3 units of Norman Knights, each of 18 figures and deployed as Massed Units

3 units of HC, [impetus], FV 5-6, Elite, Lance

The breaking point of the Byzantine Army was: 486 

This number was determined by dividing the total number of Massed Unit figures by 2. 

The estimated point value of the Byzantine Army was: 6,966

According to my sums, the infantry component of this force accounted for 3,912 points, while the cavalry arm accounted for 3,054 points.

The anonymous Byzantine General could contribute 4d6 to melees, when and if he decided to get involved. This leader was assigned a figure value of 20. 

The Ghaznavids:

Division A — 4 units of Light Cavalry, each of 12 figures and deployed as Massed Units

2 units of Turks, FV 3-6, Vet, Bow

2 units of Nomads, FV 3-6, Vet, Bow

Division B — 4 units of Kurds, each of 18 figures and deployed as Massed Units

4 units of HC, FV 4-6, Vet, Various

Division C — 5 units of Ghulams, each of 18 figures and deployed as Massed Units

5 units of HC, FV 5-6, Vet, Lance/Bow [x6]

Division D — 7 units of Infantry, each of 36 figures and deployed as Massed Units

2 units of Ghaznavid Archers (FT), FV 4-6, Militia, Various/Bows

2 units of Afghan Infantry (FT), FV 4-6, Vet, Spears

1 unit of Indian Infantry (FT), FV 4-6, Vet, Various/Bows [x6]

1 unit of Arab Infantry (FT), FV 4-6, Militia, Various, Bows [x6]

1 unit of Dailami (WB), [impetus], FV 4-6, Vet, Various/Bows [x6]

1 unit of Elephants (3 models), [impetus], FV 5-6, Vet, Various

Division E — 6 units of Infantry, each of 36 figures and deployed as Massed Units

2 units of Ghaznavid Archers (FT), FV 4-6, Militia, Various/Bows

2 units of Ghulams (FT), FV 4-6, Vet, Spears/Bow support

1 unit of Afghan Infantry (FT), FV 4-6, Vet, Spears

1 unit of Indian Infantry (FT), FV 4-6, Vet, Various/Bows [x6]

2 units of Elephants (3 models each), [impetus], FV 5-6, Vet, Various

Division G — 4 units of Light Cavalry, each of 12 figures and deployed as Massed Units

1 unit of Arabs, FV 3-6, Vet, Javelins

Division H — 4 units of Nomads, each of 18 figures and deployed as Massed Units

4 units of HC, FV 4-6, Vet, Various/Bow [x6]

Division I — 5 units of Ghulams, each of 18 figures and deployed as Massed Units

5 units of HC, FV 5-6, Vet, Lance/Bow [x6]

The breaking point of the Ghaznavid Army was: 471 

This number was determined by dividing the total number of Massed Unit figures by 2. 

The estimated point value of the Ghaznavid Army was: 6,138

According to my figures, the infantry component of this force was valued at 2,754 points, while the cavalry units added 3,006 points. Not forgetting the elephants, these animals trained for war accounted for 378 points. 

The anonymous Ghaznavid General could contribute 5d6 to melees, when and if he decided to get involved. This leader was assigned a figure value of 25.

Notes 

1. Checking my copy of DE BELLIS ANTIQUITATIS (Version 1.1, March 1995), the Ghaznavid army list (Entry 115 on page 19) indicates a time span of 962 AD to 1186 AD, as well as five presumably historic opponents or enemies. There is not a single Byzantine army on this short list. Checking the Nikephorian Byzantine army list (Entry 117 on page 19) produced a longer list of enemies during its “time in the historical spotlight” (963 AD to 1071 AD), but the Ghaznavids were not included.
2. “Tactica II: Testing and Tinkering” was posted to my blog on June 21, 2021. If interested, please see https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Tactica%20II%3A%20Testing%20%26%20Tinkering
3. In no particular order, I looked at the “Triumph of Cavalry” section in the Armati 2nd Edition rules. I also took some time to check out the “Tourney Approved” armies on the Warflute site. Please see the “Triumph of Cavalry” section at http://warflute.org/approved_army_en.php  I studied the Nikephorian Byzantine list on page 150 of the L’Art de la Guerre rules. This was the 3rd Edition and not the 4th Edition. The Ghaznavid list on page 184 of this colorful and thick book was also examined. I also looked at the provided entries in D.B.M. ARMY LISTS - Book 3: 476 AD to 1071 AD. The wealth of information contained in the notes was most interesting and helpful. I would be remiss if I did not mention taking a look at the lists provided in the Hail Caesar Supplement, ARMY LISTS: Late Antiquity to Early Medieval. The Tagmatic Byzantine list was found on pages 46-47, while the Ghaznavid list was found on pages 50-51. 
4. In the May/June 2020 issue of Slingshot (Number 330), Paul provides a well-written case for these rules. The title of the article is: “Tactica II: A Ruleset Analysis.”