Printable View
I thought this was an interesting battle to talk about. As it appears to use the same tactics that the Englaish employed during the Hundred Years War.
http://www.fernweb.pwp.blueyonder.co...es/Taginae.jpg
Also it happens to be my first attempt at creating a historical battle in RTW BI
Yes, the formation is similar to the Battle of Crecy, with the exeption that a central formation of archers were also employed. At Agincourt, there was no appreciable cavalry on the English side as they were all being used in the dismounted Men at Arms role. It is curious how the Ostrogoths set their cavalry in the front ranks. The French did so, albiet against the wishes of their commanders, at both battles and paid a heavy price for not commiting the infantry first.
Who won this battle in BTW?
Byzantines
Byzantines one it, and it proved a turning point in the war. :book:
The Byzantine destruction of the Ostrogothic kingdom was ultimately disastrous for Italy.
How did the battle proceed? It seems that the Ostrogoths were formed up for a major frontal attack to crush the center. Why didn't they use their preponderance of cavalry to overwhelm the flanks of the Byzantines? I have often wondered that about Crecy and Agincourt as well. I realize that there were some geographical limitations for cavalry at those battles, but it wasn't immposible. There doesn't appear to be any such obstacles on this field at all. Was it really such an open plain?
Actually no. The Byzantine commander(Narses or Belisarius?) was a genius, and he stopped the Ostrogothic advance. :balloon2:
Thanks. I don't doubt the genius of the Byzantine commanders. I have read the Strategicon, a treatise on the methods they used in battle. I especially enjoyed the section on the innovative ways that they used cavalry. I was hoping for a little more elaboration on how the battle went. It looks like a fascinating one to reconstruct with BI.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
There are 2 Strategikon'. One written by Maurikios, in the 4th century, and one written by Kekaumenos, in the 11th century. Both illustrate well the military organisation and tactics of the Byzantines. :book:
I think it can be reconstructed in BI, but I think you need a proper mod to reconstruct it correctly. :balloon2:
Yes, and thank you. The one I was referring to was the one from the 4th AD.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
I believe that this site has a good excerpt from it:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...trategikon.htm
Interstingly, it is claimed to be the first formal treatise on combined arms tactics in history until WWII. Like Sun Zu's Art of War and Vegetius's Res Militaria, it is a good read. I have used some of its recommendations for the use of reserves on the flanks of the supporting lines, and combined arms "wing" formations to attack the enemy's flanks. They work quite well with the right types of units. I like the balanced approach that the Byzantines used in their battles....very flexible.
The battle is indeed an interesting one to re-create. I have a battlefield and two armies. I am slowly trying to balance the battle. Currently im increasing the exp of the Byzantine army.
At the moment the Goth always win quite easily. So I have quite a lot more work to do.
From what I have read the battle went roughly like so:
Totila, the Goth commander, was quite impatient. He managed to wait for Teias to reach the field with 2000 cav reinforcements before he bagan the battle.
Some time after midday the Goth cav began their attack, charging straight towards the Byzantine phalanx, ignoring the foot archers on both sides. The result was predictable. The Goth flanks were peppered with arrows, while the centre recoiled from the bristling mass of pikes and spears. The scene was chaotic. The Goths could find no way through and all the while Byzantine archers took a steady toll of their lives. Before the Goth infantry could join the melee, Narses - the Byzantine commanders sprag his trap and the 1000 Byzantine cav hit them on the unguarded flank, rolling up their line and driving them off the field. The Byzantine victory was absolute and within 2 years Italy belonged to the Byzantines.
This would have been under Narses' command, would it not?
This battle was probably one of the greatest calamities in the Italian peninsula's history for the Goths were very much the keepers of Western Roman Civilization and their destruction spelt the end of a united and peaceful (as peaceful as one could get back then) Italy.
Quite Ironic that the Byzantines wished to keep alive Roman civilization in the west but helped to weaken it further.
That site looks like a gem! Cheers!:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
I don't agree -- the entire process of decades of war was far more important to its weakness, methinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
Actually, the battle sped up the inevitable. The conquer of Italy by the Byzantines. :book:
Interesting are the words of Totila, who orders the cavalry not to use bows and javelins. The Gothic cavalry would have been able to skirmish given the adoption of steppe warfare and weapons (composite bow) but Totila decided to make an all-out shock attack.
The infantry with the germanic spearmen with long spears and large shiels and the archers armed with composite bows would have been able to cover the center with ease, enabling the cavalry to rule on the flanks :book:
It would really be interesting to simulate this battle with RTW, given that I really think that the Goths could have easily won with their fine and versatile cavalry and infantry blends of germanic and steppe warfare.
I would first of all like to say sorry that I havent done much on this for a while, but im having trouble with my video card as its not that good. Hopefully my new one will arrive tomorrow and I can get back to working on this.
Its been a nightmare trying to move around the screen.
Sun Tzu was far earlier, and if you know Chinese, his work would be an even better read, as there's no real way to translate ancient Chinese without losing much of the original meaning. (many words have multiple meanings, and if you group two words together the meaning could be completely different compared to when they are separate) Vegetius' work was written before the existence of the Byzantine Empire. It's just typical I guess, claiming your work is the first. Reminds me of the South Korean "cloner".Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
I think you have misconstructed Rotorgun's post. He posted his link and compared it to Vegetius and Sun Tzu. He never claimed it was written by Vegetius nor can I find that name anywhere in the text. Also he does not claim that it was written earlier than Sun Tzu, merely that it is the first to describe combined arms tactics. IIRC Sun Tzu mentions tactics little or not at all, concerning himself mainly with strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
I agree completely and I hope one day to be able to do just that.Quote:
if you know Chinese, his work would be an even better read, as there's no real way to translate ancient Chinese without losing much of the original meaning. (many words have multiple meanings, and if you group two words together the meaning could be completely different compared to when they are separate)
:bow:
Thinking about the Byzantine army and the Gothic I came to the conclusion that they were fairly similar in a good deal of aspects. Both had a figthing style which evolved from the doctrine "heavy infantry will win the day in close combat" to a more balanced approach with a heavy increase in shooting power of the infantry and a increase in versatile cavalry.
At Taginae both had compositebow-armed cavalry and infantry, both armored and light. Both had lancers, both had infantry with large shields and spears, and long swords. While the missile arm of the Byzantine army was clearly superior in this battle, one should not forget the heavy use of bows in the Gothic armies - and other Germanic tribes to a less degree - since 300 AD.
IMHO the trouble was just that the tactic of the day didn't fit the situation.
So do I, even though I'm Chinese myself and have spoken it all my life :embarassed:
By the way, Ludens, can you enlighten me and tell me what the difference between strategy and tactics is? I've never quite gotten it.
Maybe i can help you out with that.In short.Tactics aims for winning battles.How to use your troops and equipment to win the enemy in a battle.Strategy aims for winning a war.How to force your enemy to fight when you want and where you want it to happen.:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
To be honest, neither have I. I suppose one could devote an entire topic to getting a good definition. Personally, I think of strategy as the overall plan, and tactics as the actions taken to execute the plan. In other words: they are two different decision-levels. In this particular case it means that Sun Tzu tells you when you should fight a battle, but not how.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
For back-up, I took out my "New Oxford Dictionary":
Strategy: a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
- The art of planning overall military operations and movements in a war or battle. Often contrasted with tactics.
- A plan for such military operations and movements.
Tactic: an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.
- The art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organizing operations, especially during contact with the enemy. Often contrasted with strategy.
How about:
"Tactics is how you fight battles and strategy is how you fight wars"? which is basically what Kag said.
This has turned into a very enlightening conversation, doesn't everyone agree?
First of all to the ever astute Tiberius, I was indeed only making a comparison of The Art of War and Res Militaria with the Strategicon in a literary sense. Sun Zu and Vegetius ceratainly penned their manuscripts much earlier. I also meant it as a professional compliment. As a matter of fact, I made them mandatory reading for my professional education when I was a Sergeant in the U. S. Army. I was surprised that some of my officers had not read them at the time. (At least not the better ones) Fortunately, that was not the norm.
Not to beat a dead horse, but one could state that strategy is what you do on the world map in RTW, while tactics are used on the battle screens.
PS: I do apologise for not chiming in sooner. I was a bit occupied doing my Annual Training for two weeks. (Had some great classes taught by some of our people who have returned from Iraq)
:viking:
One could say the Gothic defeat was one of the most decisive in European history. If the Gothic Kingdom had survived so much more of Ancient Roman culture could have endured. And what of the Holy Roman Empire?
Would it have then existed it only came about because of the popes troubles with the Lombards, with a strong Gothic kingdom in place would they have proved a great menace?
Justinian had the opportunity to Italy earlier rather than stretch it into a protracted devastating war of attrition of he had let Belisarius put in place an adequate structure instead of recalling quickly to the East on the basis of suspicion. Moreover, after Belisarius he divided the commands in Italy so that no single commander could properly administer Italy thus allowing the Goths to regroup and eventually drag the war for more than 10 years by then it would have been ravaged from one end of the peninsular over and over again not just by the Goths but by the Franks later. After 565, it was the Longobards' turn to do so. It's Justinian's fault because of his vacillating, weak and woefully short-sighted measures despite his influential reform of the laws and his construction works (which would have been better spent on adequate defence).
The Byzantine commander was Narses. Narses did not prove to have many good things about him other then military talent, his eagerness to enforce Justinian's religious persecutions in Italy and the extreme over taxatoin of Italy destroyed the prosperity of Italy and their loyalty to being part of the Roman Empire, which is why the Byzantines could not hold Italy.