Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

Let me again stress that the "omission" of the Trapezitoi was not. Paul
Georgian, who I consider to be my preeminent source on this subject and the
author of the first draft of the lists, deliberately, repeat, deliberately left
the friggin' trapezitoi out.

Why? It was his intepretation of the record, and one that I agreed with (fwiw),
that the trapezetoi operated more as scouts, irregular raiders and trackers than
as battle line skirmishers. That job belonged to mercenaries and the
prokoursatores and hyperkerastai.

Yes, in some armies, we might actually include something like "scouts",
"irregular raiders" and such in an army list but that has a lot to do with the
army list (usually barbarian-ish) and the context of how we feel that army list
fought historically so that if "scouts" were typically found in the battle
array, they are included.

That simply, in our not so humble opinion, isn't the case with trapezitoi.
Given the context of the Byzantine lists and their military system in general,
trapezitoi simply didn't "fit" and they certainly weren't around in any
significant numbers in a battlefield context to justify a unit. Sure, they
might have been present but we don't know and we don't feel that if that
occurred, they were around in any numbers as to have been any part of a
battlefield commander's thinking.

Paul has stated that while the extant manuals suggest some Byzantine HC had
javelins instead of bows, it appears to have been far from a common practice and
such, seemed reasonable to leave it out for the HC much less for a LC "type"
that's main focus was to do things outside the battlefield context. As a
result, one particular troop type, by name, was dropped. This type of mutable
list change has gone on constantly in all the FHE lists so why trapezitoi
aperiodically come up for air is anybody's guess.

This issue is open to interpretation......like almost everything we look at that
has either conflicting data or not enough data or a person who has one
particular bias or another when it comes to reading the historical record.
However, I am very happy with how we arrived at this specific issue.

I hope this answer does to trapezitoi that my legendary (and still unfindable)
answer to stirrups did to that subject.

If not, please let it. Jack, you weren't around for this 18 months ago. Please
don't take this as a diatribe directed at you. I sincerely want to give *you*
an answer to a question that was answered to FHE's satisfaction 18 months ago.

scott

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/2/2004 4:58:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

> I hope this answer does to trapezitoi that my legendary
> (and still unfindable) answer to stirrups did to that subject.>>

Scott, I have your stirrup answer. I keep a paper copy wrapped around a steel
rod to hit people with...lol

Remind me offline and I will send you an e-copy....

MOrning Scott H.,

NO problem with me. I did not take your response in a negative way.
You feel you have dealt with this issue and I understand the
frustration of it coming up again. We won't agree on this issue, but
I respect your view point as you have based it on your own research
and that of people you respect.

Your friend,

Aubrey J. Young.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> Let me again stress that the "omission" of the Trapezitoi was not.
Paul Georgian, who I consider to be my preeminent source on this
subject and the author of the first draft of the lists, deliberately,
repeat, deliberately left the friggin' trapezitoi out.
>
> Why? It was his intepretation of the record, and one that I agreed
with (fwiw), that the trapezetoi operated more as scouts, irregular
raiders and trackers than as battle line skirmishers. That job
belonged to mercenaries and the prokoursatores and hyperkerastai.
>
> Yes, in some armies, we might actually include something
like "scouts", "irregular raiders" and such in an army list but that
has a lot to do with the army list (usually barbarian-ish) and the
context of how we feel that army list fought historically so that
if "scouts" were typically found in the battle array, they are
included.
>
> That simply, in our not so humble opinion, isn't the case with
trapezitoi. Given the context of the Byzantine lists and their
military system in general, trapezitoi simply didn't "fit" and they
certainly weren't around in any significant numbers in a battlefield
context to justify a unit. Sure, they might have been present but we
don't know and we don't feel that if that occurred, they were around
in any numbers as to have been any part of a battlefield commander's
thinking.
>
> Paul has stated that while the extant manuals suggest some
Byzantine HC had javelins instead of bows, it appears to have been
far from a common practice and such, seemed reasonable to leave it
out for the HC much less for a LC "type" that's main focus was to do
things outside the battlefield context. As a result, one particular
troop type, by name, was dropped. This type of mutable list change
has gone on constantly in all the FHE lists so why trapezitoi
aperiodically come up for air is anybody's guess.
>
> This issue is open to interpretation......like almost everything we
look at that has either conflicting data or not enough data or a
person who has one particular bias or another when it comes to
reading the historical record. However, I am very happy with how we
arrived at this specific issue.
>
> I hope this answer does to trapezitoi that my legendary (and still
unfindable) answer to stirrups did to that subject.
>
> If not, please let it. Jack, you weren't around for this 18 months
ago. Please don't take this as a diatribe directed at you. I
sincerely want to give *you* an answer to a question that was
answered to FHE's satisfaction 18 months ago.
>
> scott