|
|
Post by ammianus on Mar 4, 2017 13:35:50 GMT
I've been updating & annotating my rules this morning. My thanks to all of you for your hard work. Not infrequently over the years have I found myself scratching my head over opponent anomalies. (I love the internet!)
Regards
A
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 8, 2017 17:18:59 GMT
Sorry I’ve been bit quiet, but my router has blown up (probably due to overwork, poor thing).
So I’m sending this from work….
Here are some rather obscure errors concerning Book III armies (Group #3 on page 5 has been updated):-
III/4b Early Byzantine Army (545 AD – 578 AD) remove II/69b Sassanid Persian Army (225 AD – 493 AD)
(Army III/4b lists II/69b as an enemy, but II/69b does not mention III/4b, only III/4a.
Anyway, as you can see the dates don’t match.)
III/20a Sui Army (581 AD - 611 AD) add II/75 Paekche or Kaya Korean Army (300 AD – 663 AD)
(Army II/75 lists III/20a & III/20c as enemies, but III/20a does not mention II/75)
III/20b Sui Army (612 AD - 623 AD) add II/77a Shilla Korean Army (300 AD – 670 AD)
(Army II/77a lists III/20a & III/20b as enemies, but III/20d does not mention II/77a)
III/20b Sui Army (612 AD - 623 AD) add I/49d Early Vietnamese Army (248 AD – 938 AD)
(Army I/49d lists III/20abc as enemies, but III/20b does not mention I/49d)
III/54b Qaramita Armies (897 AD – 1079 AD) add II/58 Alan Army (50 AD – 1500 AD)
(Army II/58 lists III/54a & III/54b as enemies, but III/54b does not mention II/58)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 8, 2017 17:20:58 GMT
Here are some Book III Arab errors (Group #3 on page 5 has been updated):-
III/25b Arab Conquest Army (639 AD – 660 AD) add III/25c Khawarij Army (658 AD – 873 AD)
(Army III/25c lists III/25b as an enemy, but III/25b makes no mention of III/25c, and the dates do just match.)
III/25c Khawarij Army (658 AD – 873 AD) add III/8 Central-Asian City States (500 AD – 1000 AD)
(Army III/8 lists II/25c as an enemy, but III/25c makes no mention of III/8)
III/25c Khawarij Army (658 AD – 873 AD) add III/12 Christian Nubian Army (550 AD – 1500 AD)
(Army III/12 lists II/25c as an enemy, but III/25c makes no mention of III/12)
III/25c Khawarij Army (658 AD – 873 AD) add III/27 Rshituni Armenian Army (639 AD – 717 AD)
(Army III/27 lists II/25c as an enemy, but III/25c makes no mention of III/27)
III/25c Khawarij Army (658 AD – 873 AD) add II/55b Blemmye or Nobades (201 AD - 831 AD)
(Army II/55b lists III/25c as an enemy, but III/25c does not mention II/55b)
III/25c Khawarij Army (658 AD – 873 AD) add II/57 Later Moorish (25 AD - 696 AD)
(Army II/57 lists III/25c as an enemy, but III/25c does not mention II/57)
III/31 Umayyad Army (661 AD – 750 AD) add III/25c Khawarij Army (658 AD – 873 AD)
(Army III/25c lists III/31 as an enemy, but III/31 makes no mention of III/25c)
....I have a very strong feeling that the III/25c Khawarij Army was proofread on a Friday afternoon....
III/31 Umayyad Army (661 AD – 750 AD) add III/20c T’ang Army (618 AD – 755 AD)
(Army III/20c lists III/31 as an enemy, but III/31 makes no mention of III/20c.
Note that the battle of Talas, where the Muslim Arabs defeated the T’ang Chinese, was in 751 AD...
...but this could be covered by III/37a Abbasid Arabs and III/20c T’ang Chinese, who are already listed as mutual enemies.)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 8, 2017 17:22:08 GMT
Here are some Byzantine errors from Book III (Group #3 on page 5 has been updated):-
III/29 Thematic Byzantine (650 AD – 963 AD) add II/57 Later Moorish (25 AD - 696 AD)
(Army II/57 lists III/29 as an enemy, but III/29 does not mention II/57.
And the Exarchate of Africa did not fall to the Muslims until Carthage was destroyed in 698 AD.)
III/29 Thematic Byzantine (650 AD – 963 AD) add III/16 Khazar Army (568 AD – 1083 AD)
(Army III/16 lists III/29 as an enemy, but III/29 does not mention III/16)
III/29 Thematic Byzantine (650 AD – 963 AD) add III/26a Serbian Army (627 AD – 1180 AD)
(Army III/26a lists III/29 as an enemy, but III/29 does not mention III/26a)
III/29 Thematic Byzantine (650 AD – 963 AD) add III/26b Croatian Army (627 AD – 1089 AD)
(Army III/26b lists III/29 as an enemy, but III/29 does not mention III/26b)
III/29 Thematic Byzantine (650 AD – 963 AD) add III/28 Carolingian Army (639 AD – 888 AD)
(Army III/28 lists III/29 as an enemy, but III/29 does not mention III/28)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 8, 2017 17:31:14 GMT
In a bid to help clear out some of items in Group #3, I want to start a new policy of moving the blatantly obvious errors and fixes to Group #1. These will be coloured blue to show that although they are quite obvious, they have not yet been discussed (or have only been discussed by myself).
But fear not...nothing is set in stone and they can always be moved back to Group #2 if necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 8, 2017 18:13:16 GMT
This coming Sunday, I should have a response to your list of Pict, Caledonians and German armies.
I am awaiting delivery of some books which will be useful; should arrive this week.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 11, 2017 11:13:33 GMT
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/60 Caledonians 75 – 211 AD
I have found little evidence in the 136 year period of this list of any internal conflict, definitely conflict with the neighboring tribes to dominate possession of land for farming purposes. Reading the Roman history of the campaigns against the Caledonian (Dio Cassius), they proved an elusive foe resorting to guerilla warfare. To counter this, Rome devastated the farmlands bringing them into submission through starvation. Claudian wrote in his panegyric (Fourth Consulship of Honorius) the Caledones had evolved into the Dicalydones. ‘Agricola’ by Tacitus is less a help as he references Caledonia as the region and not a tribe.
Action:
Anyone with further information?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 11, 2017 11:14:23 GMT
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/67b Other Greuthingi, Early Ostrogothic, Herul, Sciri & Taifali 200 – 493 AD
The 3rd and 4th century marked the westward migration from the lands north of the Black Sea to the Carpathians. This brought them into contact with the Tervingi and Carpi. The geographical location meant land for grazing was reduced in comparison to the steppe lands left behind; this became a source of friction. If they found themselves on opposite sides of the battlefield it was as mercenaries or allies of the Visigoths and Vandals; later as foederati of Rome.
Action:
This is not a substantial argument to include themselves as enemies of own list, but if anyone has further information please share.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 11, 2017 11:16:55 GMT
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/68b Picts 211 – 842 AD
These posed a similar problem as the Caledones, unfortunately, my library does not cover the post sub-Roman period.
Action:
Anyone have further information?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 11, 2017 11:17:43 GMT
II/70 Burgundi 250 – 539 AD & Limigantes 334 – 359 AD,
A general observation about the barbarian migrations, this should not be viewed as a single event but an on-going process that has been noted since the early writings of Roman historians (Tacitus).
During the late 4th century, Vandal attacks had split the Burgundi into two groups, one migrating westward to eventually settle in the Savoy region and a second group which remained on the right bank of the middle Rhine River. The latter were swept into Attila’s Empire to find themselves on opposite sides with their brethren, the Burgundi of King Gundioc.
Referencing H. Wolfram’s ‘The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples’, the Burgundi were the first of the migrating tribes that assimilated quickly into the Roman Empire by maintaining Gallic administration and policies but eventually creating laws placing Burgundi and Romans on an equal footing. The Burgundi still acknowledged (feodus) their obligations to defend the Empire.
I found many references to battles against the Alamanni, Goths and Franks with one mention of a sub-king of Geneva (Burgundi) switching sides in the Battle of Dijon, fought between the Franks (Clovis) and the Burgundi (King Gundobad). This victorious Franks departed leaving the sub-king of Geneva to his own devices and later be killed by Gundobad.
Action:
I do not think this sufficient evidence to include themselves as an enemy, but if anyone has other information, please share.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 11, 2017 11:18:28 GMT
II/72a Quadi 250 – 406AD
Unlike their neighbors, the Marcomanni, the Quadi survived longer to migrate as a tribe further west to cross the Rhine in 406. During the 3rd and 4th century we often find tribes migrating in different directions to be later assimilated into other groups. The Quadi did so and part remained north of the Pannonian provinces and the remainder migrated west to be assimilated by the Suevi. To complicate matters more, the Marcomanni and Quadi that eventually crossed the Danube lose the identity and are also known as Suevi.
Action:
I see no reason to include themselves as an enemy, but anyone have further information?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 11, 2017 11:19:38 GMT
II/72b Alamanni 250 – 506 AD
Among this list, the Alamanni appear an anomaly; remaining in one location through the course of this period, the triangular region between the Rhine and Danube. John Drinkwater describes them as the weakest of the Germanic tribes and an easy mark for an Emperor’s political gain. He continues, ‘there is no record of significant Roman conflict with the Alamanni after 383.
Action:
I see no reason to include themselves as an enemy, but if anyone has other information, please share.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 11, 2017 11:20:16 GMT
II/72c Suevi 250 – 584 AD
The Suevi followed a similar path as the Burgundi splitting themselves into groups moving to different parts of ‘Germania’ . One group remained in their homeland along the Elbe, a second group settled in part of Pannonia and another moved further west to form with the Alamanni an alliance and latter joined the migration to invade Northern Gaul in 406/407. This army sub-list ends with the Kingdom of Gallaecia in 584.
During the establishment of the kingdom in northwest Hispania, there are number of recorded power struggles for the throne. Note, Gallaecia is noted as the first kingdom to separate from the Roman Empire and mint coins.
Action:
Here is a case to add II/72c as an enemy of itself after 409 and homeland terrain becomes ‘hilly’ for the Kingdom of Gallaecia.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 11, 2017 11:22:34 GMT
II/81c British Armies 471 – 580 AD
Bede and Gildas are often cited as primary references for the sub-Roman period. These are not often the best source, but looking at maps drawn by modern historians of 5th and 6th century Britain we find an array of British kingdoms that would fall under this sub-list. Certainly room for rivalry and conflict.
An ‘unpopular king’ might be challenged by his nobles which would lead to rivalry among the tribal elite. Extending this further, the rivalry may have manifested into internal feuding or raids on neighboring tribes leaving Rome no option but to intervene to maintain the peace.
Action:
My thought would be to add them as enemy of themselves, but this requires more research of the individual ‘kingdoms’; which espouse ‘primogeniture’ or those that adhered to a council to elect their kings.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 11, 2017 11:24:12 GMT
Here are some rather obscure errors concerning Book III armies (Group #3 on page 5 has been updated):-
III/4b Early Byzantine Army (545 AD – 578 AD) remove II/69b Sassanid Persian Army (225 AD – 493 AD)
(Army III/4b lists II/69b as an enemy, but II/69b does not mention III/4b, only III/4a.
Anyway, as you can see the dates don’t match.)
Correct.
Action:
Delete II/69b and replace with II/69c as enemy for III/4b Early Byzantine 545 - 578 AD
Related to this is III/4a Early Byzantine Army 493 -544 AD lists II/69b Sassanid Army 225 – 493 AD as an enemy. This seems highly unlikely as Emperor Anastasias was busy with Bulgar incursions in the Balkans 493). The war with Persia broke out in 502 placing the conflict between III/4a and II/69c (not ‘b’).
Action
Delete II/69b and replace with II/69c as enemy for III/4a Early Byzantine 493 – 544 AD.
|
|
