Early Medieval Byzantine Flags II (Conjectural)

Introduction

On Monday I posted a set of these that included flags with square tails. In it I said:

They are all highly stylised compared to the reference image. The absence of swallow tails is deliberate. I printed mine 10 mm high and, at this size, simplicity counts for a lot.

If you are feeling brave you can cut, shape and curl the tails to match the reference. I decided not to. Mainly because I really didn't fancy cutting a shallow taper on something 2.5 mm high.

This is a case of famous last words. After I posted a link to Bluesky I received some photos of Varangian Guard re-enactors with a very similar banner design. Of course theirs had swallow tails, but some photos showed banners with only three tails. I also received various contemporary images also with three swallow-tailed banners:

From "Synopsis of Histories" by John Skylites, late 11th century. Images from Wikimedia.

I began to wonder...

Early Medieval Byzantine Flags I (Conjectural)

Introduction

For those following my progress of my "fantasy" Byzantine army, will have noticed that I've started the command bases and have recently finished the mounted commanders. I'm about half way through the foot commanders and have one base in need of a flag.

I decided to design my own. I based them, very loosely, on illustrations 27b & c from page 75 of Ian Heath's classic WRG book "Armies of the Dark Ages 600-1066":

It's worth noting this from Heath "[Leo's Tactica] records .... a new type of swallow-railed bandon had become the principal standard of both infantry and cavalry units". Must have been awkward for the infantry.

ADLG: Good And Bad V4 Lists

Background

Recently, I wrote my final piece on the subject of "super" armies in Art de la Guerre (ADLG). The main points were:

From a visual, and statistically naive, analysis I concluded that there are no "super" armies in ADLG. By "super" I mean armies that offer all players an advantage.

My underlying hypothesis was that as games increase, luck, player skill and list choice even out, so efficacy tends to 50%, leaving only inherent list differences (if any).

More rigorous testing showed that luck does even out. What is left behind is real and not chance, but that leftover is a tangle of list strength, player skill and popularity. The tests can only measure its size, not pull the tangle apart.

My hypothesis was only partially right. In a perverse way my initial conclusion still holds, but for totally different reasons. There still aren't any "super" armies because, given the data available, it's impossible to prove or disprove their exstance. It's case unproven.

One of the "byproducts" of the rigorous testing was a list of 20 (yes just 20) statistically different armies (good and bad) in ADLG V4. At first I didn't see it as particularly useful: the differences could be due to any combination of factors not just an army's inherent performance.

Now I've had time to reflect, I think the lists may be of more general interest; not least because they contain a few surprises and people do love a good list or two.