|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 27, 2017 17:19:51 GMT
I/61b Early Carthaginian Army (340 BC – 275 BC) remove I/36c Sicel Army (480 BC – 380 BC)
I/61b Early Carthaginian Army (340 BC – 275 BC) remove as Allies the I/36c Sicel Army (480 BC – 380 BC)
(Although I/36c and I/61b are listed as mutual enemies and allies, the dates don’t match.
And as the I/61a Carthaginians can have I/36c Sicels as allies, I assume that the reverse is also true.
After all, they were listed as mutual allies in the wrong dated I/61b period.)
I would be caution that assumption as an ally of Nation ‘A’ would not necessarily mean Nation ‘A’ would reciprocate and provide an allied contingent.
There can be a number of circumstances that would hinder this such as economics or logistics.
Agree with the changes as dates are not correct.
Action:
Remove I/36c Sicel Army (480 BC – 380 BC) from I/61b Early Carthaginian Army (340 BC – 275 BC).
Remove as Allies the I/36c Sicel Army (480 BC – 380 BC) from I/61b Early Carthaginian Army (340 BC – 275 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 27, 2017 17:20:51 GMT
I/57a Etruscan League Army (600 BC – 400 BC) change Ally I/36 to I/36d Other Italian Hill Tribes (1000 BC – 290 BC)
I/57b Etruscan League Army (399 BC – 280 BC) change Ally I/36 to I/36a Samnites/Umbrian, etc (1000 BC – 356 BC)
Agree, as sub-list notation is missing in both cases.
Action:
Change Ally I/36 to I/36d for I/57a Etruscan League Army (600 BC – 400 BC).
Change Ally I/36 to I/36a for I/57b Etruscan League Army (399 BC – 280 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 27, 2017 17:22:37 GMT
I/57b Etruscan League Army (399 BC – 280 BC) add Ally I/36d Other Italian Hill Tribes (1000 BC – 290 BC)
I/57b Etruscan League Army (399 BC – 280 BC) change Ally I/55c to I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC)
(In the first case I/36 is too vague, and at this early period it should be the allies closest to Rome.
In the second and third cases I/36 is also too vague, and it should be allies that took part in the Samnite Wars.
In the forth case, the dates don’t match.)
Agree as the dates are now correct.
Action:
Change Ally I/55c to I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC) for I/57b Etruscan League Army (399 BC – 280 BC).
The notation for allies should actually be a deletion of I/55c as I/55d does appear in the line of allies for I/57b Etruscan League Army (399 BC – 280 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 27, 2017 17:25:36 GMT
I/36a Samnites, Umbrian, Hernici, Ligurians (1000 BC -124 BC) remove I/55b Roman Army (650 BC – 578 BC)
I/36a Samnites, Umbrian, Hernici, Ligurians (1000 BC -124 BC) remove I/55c Latin Army (650 BC – 400 BC)
I/36a Samnites, Umbrian, Hernici, Ligurians (1000 BC -124 BC) change Ally I/55c to I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC)
I/55b Roman Army (650 BC – 578 BC) remove I/36a Samnites, Umbrian, Hernici, Ligurians (1000 BC -124 BC)
I/55c Latin Army (650 BC – 400 BC) remove I/36a Samnites, Umbrian, Hernici, Ligurians (1000 BC -124 BC)
I/55c Latin Army (650 BC – 400 BC) change Ally I/36a to I/36d Other Italian Hill Tribes (1000 BC -290 BC)
(Although all these armies are mutual enemies, and the dates are compatible, having the very early Romans and Latins fighting the Samnites before the 1st Samnite War in 343 BC is obviously wrong. Also, the Umbrian and Ligurians are too far away in this period to be enemies or allies of either Rome or the Latins.)
Of the six suggestions noted, I would agree with the last as the sub-list letter is omitted (read I/36) for the I/55c Latin Army.
Action:
Change Ally I/36 to I/36d Other Italian Hill Tribes (1000 BC -290 BC) for I/55c Latin Army (650 BC – 400 BC).
The first five listed, as you pointed out, these armies are mutual enemies and dates are compatible.
However, as ‘The lists are a simplified version of the four army list books of DBNMM and have the same numbers and titles. (page 31, ARMY LISTS), would it not be simpler to add brief text during which wars, as an example, their conflicts would take place?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 27, 2017 17:27:04 GMT
I/36a Samnites, Umbrian, Hernici, Ligurians (1000 BC -124 BC) remove I/59 Tullian Romans (578 BC – 400 BC)
I/59 Tullian Romans (578 BC – 400 BC) remove I/36a Samnites, Umbrian, Hernici, Ligurians (1000 BC -124 BC)
I/59 Tullian Romans (578 BC – 400 BC) change Ally I/36 to I/36d Other Italian Hill Tribes (1000 BC -290 BC)
(The I/36a Samnites/Umbrian/Ligurians are still too far away and not yet neighbours of Rome in this period.
And the Romans shouldn’t have I/36b Sardinians or Sicilian I/36c Sicels as allies at this early date...or at any date.)
During this period a number of cities in Umbria did fight against Tullian Rome, Clusium for one and ‘others beyond the Apennines’ (Livy).
Therefore, the first two suggestions should remain.
Do agree with the third suggestion to add the sub-list.
Action:
change Ally I/36 to I/36d Other Italian Hill Tribes (1000 BC -290 BC) for I/59 Tullian Romans (578 BC – 400 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Mar 28, 2017 0:41:47 GMT
It is frustratingly obvious that THIS SHOULD BE PUT ONLINE.
Every ally pair and every enemy pair could sit in a spreadsheet/database. Instantly internally consistent.
It would then be trivial to extract the list of allies and list of enemies for each army list.
And you wouldn't have to give up the IP of the lists themselves... such as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 29, 2017 15:11:28 GMT
The Other Italian Hill Tribes problem revisited:I/36d Other Hill Tribes: add “near Latium such as the Sabines, Aequi, Hernici , Volsci, Aurunci, Sidicini (until 290 BC)”
No action required, just some general information:
How does this sound:-
I/36d Other Italian Hill Tribes: add “near Latium 1000 BC – 290 BC”
I/36d Other Italian Hill Tribes: change element list to read “10 x infantry (3Ax/3Wb or if Hernici all 3Ax javelinmen)”
I/36d Other Italian Hill Tribes: add to the text “such as the Sabines, Aequi, Hernici , Volsci, Aurunci, Sidicini” ---optional edit---
(I agree that adding the Sabines, Aequi, Hernici , Volsci, Aurunci, Sidicini into the title is a bit of a mouthful, but this information could still be useful to players…as an optional edit to be added to the historical text, should people wish.
Of course adding the dates, especially the end date, is essential.
And I would still like to add the two words “near Latium”, if only to stop my mate thinking it means every hill in Italy!)
Not really. When looking just at the II/13 Samnite army of 355 BC – 272 BC:-
They can’t fight the earlier I/36a Samnites because these have already evolved into II/13 and don’t exist anymore...
They can’t fight the earlier I/36a Umbrians because these have already evolved into I/55e and the dates don’t match.
They can’t fight the I/36a Ligurians because these are too far north beyond Latium, Etruria and Cisalpine Gaul...
They can’t fight the I/36a Hernici because we moved them to list I/36d (where I/36d and II/13 are already mutual enemies)...
...so there is no one left in list I/36a for II/13 to fight!
And if II/13 cannot fight anyone in list I/36a, then nobody in list I/36a can fight army II/13.
Ah. I may have muddied the waters here. My fault for not being clear.
Yes, just because army ‘X’ is any ally of army ‘Y’, and was on the same battlefield, that doesn’t mean the reverse is also true.
But that is irrelevant to the issue here.
Army list I/36c Sicels says they had Carthaginian allies...but gives the wrong Carthaginian allies as I/61b.
I think the I/36c Sicels should have Carthaginian allies...but the right Carthaginian allies of I/61a.
The alternative is the Sicels never having Carthaginian allies, which seems a bit harsh just because of a proofreading error.
Therefore I like to resubmit the following:-
I/61b Early Carthaginian Army (340 BC – 275 BC) remove I/36c Sicel Army (480 BC – 380 BC)...................wrong dates
I/61b Early Carthaginian Army (340 BC – 275 BC) remove as Allies I/36c Sicel Army (480 BC – 380 BC).......wrong dates
I/36c Sicel Army (480 BC – 380 BC) remove I/61b Early Carthaginian Army (340 BC – 275 BC)......................wrong dates
I/36c Sicel Army (480 BC – 380 BC) change Ally I/61b to I/61a Early Carthaginian Army (550 BC – 341 BC)......right dates
Oops! So it does. My mistake.
I’m not so sure that Clusium was an Umbrian city. My books say it was one of the 12 member cities of the Etruscan central confederacy, and that their king Lars Porsenna led his Etruscan forces in the unsuccessful siege of Rome in 508 BC while trying to restore the exiled king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (the seventh and final king of Rome who died in 495 BC). Of course, the history of this single city tells us nothing about other possible Umbrian conflicts with early Rome, if any. And Livy saying ‘and others beyond the Apennines’ could equally apply to many of the small Hill Tribes of the region. As for the rest, I’ll have to come back to you on these when I’ve had more time to do some research. I’m pretty sure that the very early Romans and Latins of list I/55 didn’t fight the very early Umbrians of I/36a. Not because I think I know better than Phil Barker about history, but because of an error due to sloppy proofreading is allowing it. Now all I have to do is prove it... ...with few books about this legendary period, a local library with less books than I have about early Rome, and no broadband. In the words of Top Gear’s Jeremy Clarkson: “how hard can it be?” 
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 29, 2017 15:15:39 GMT
It is frustratingly obvious that THIS SHOULD BE PUT ONLINE. Every ally pair and every enemy pair could sit in a spreadsheet/database. Instantly internally consistent. It would then be trivial to extract the list of allies and list of enemies for each army list. And you wouldn't have to give up the IP of the lists themselves... such as it is.
Ah, I think I understand what you mean now. Yes, this would be a great idea.
Now would be a good opportunity to explain my own primitive methods (don’t laugh) for finding the army list errors.
At first, like everyone else, I thought that there would only be a few dozen of them. So I just bounced from army ‘A’ to army ‘B’ which led me to army ‘C’ which was linked to army ‘D’, and so on. Then I realized that this was not thorough enough, so I went back to Book 1 and wrote every army/date/enemy/ally into Microsoft Word so that I could use the ‘find‘ facility to see if each army and ally appeared where it should. But this turned out to be no quicker than just writing down one army/date/enemy/ally at a time on a piece of paper and ticking each item off by simply flipping through the book to check each one, so that is what I do now.
Yes, having an electronic version of an excel spreadsheet would be a tremendous boost and speed things up...
...however, I’m afraid someone else is going to have to write it, as I simply do not have the time. This immense project is already taking up too much of my life as it is, and I simply cannot start yet another huge undertaking at this time. I know what you are going to say, that it would make my life easier...and I agree, if this database were already in existence now, it would. But someone else is going to have to compile it. I’m doing enough already.
But please don’t let me discourage anyone else from having a go. As I have already completed Book 1, and will soon be stating Book 2 (and a lot of Book 2 has already been discovered), all that’s really needed is a spreadsheet covering Books 3 & 4, and the earlier books could then be added at a later date just for the sake of completeness.
So if anyone out there has more free time than myself, do please give it a go, as it would benefit us all. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Mar 30, 2017 0:28:32 GMT
Before the old fanaticus site was closed down, there was one member who produced beautiful pictures of every army linked to every enemy by means of a line.
He has the data! He must have a list of every enemy to enemy link to produce such a picture.
Admittedly, I cannot remember whether he was working from 3.0 or 2.2.
Its not for me to say that anyone should do anything.
But the data is just a 2 column list of every enemy to enemy relationship, and every ally to ally relationship.
Its the unpacking it from the current text AND correcting errors that is difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 30, 2017 7:50:29 GMT
I/13a Hsia and Shang Chinese (2000 BC – 1300 BC) change Ally from I/14a to I/14d Chinese Border Tribes
(Oops! I missed this one when I went through the I/14 Early Northern Barbarians before.)
Agree. The famous switch of labels from ‘Chinese to European’ .
Action:
change Ally from I/14a to I/14d for I/13a Hsia and Shang Chinese (2000 BC – 1300 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 30, 2017 7:51:16 GMT
I/8c Dilmum, Saba, Ma’in, or Qataban (1300 BC – 312 BC) change Ally from I/8a to I/8c Dilmum, etc (1300 BC – 312 BC)
(Army I/8c lists I/8a as an ally, but I/8a no longer exists as it had already evolved into I/8c by 1300 BC.
The DBMM list informs us that Akkadian texts say large armies were coalitions of dozens of small kingdoms.
Army I/8b is called ‘Makkan’, which is not a kingdom or tribe but merely the ancient name for the Arabian Peninsula.
As I/8a and I/8c armies are very similar, keeping I/8a as an ally or swapping to I/8c means little change to fighting style.)
Agree.
Action:
Change Ally from I/8a to I/8c for I/8c Dilmum, Saba, Ma’in, or Qataban (1300 BC – 312 BC)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 30, 2017 7:52:08 GMT
I/19 Mitanni Army (1595 BC – 1274 BC) leave Ally as I/6a Early Bedouin Army (3000 BC – 1001 BC)
(This is an odd one...I/19 has I/6b as an enemy but I/6a as an ally. Maybe the ally should be I/6b as well, or should the list of enemies also include I/6a? Or perhaps it’s just better to leave it as it is.
Note that army I/20b Other Canaanites, of the same region and time period, have both I/6a and I/6b as enemies.
I thought I’d bring it to people’s attention in case anyone has more information.)
I find no problem with the disparity as the Bedouin are listed within the ranks of the Mitanni as javelinmen (Ps).
Action:
None.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 30, 2017 7:53:16 GMT
I/21b Later Babylonian Army (889 BC – 747 BC) change I/6c to I/31b Later Aramean Army (900 BC – 710 BC)
I/21b Later Babylonian Army (889 BC – 747 BC) change Ally I/6c to I/31b Later Aramean Army (900 BC – 710 BC)
Agree. The dates correspond better and although most of the Aramean Kingdoms were subjugated by the Neo-Assyrian during this period they did manage brief periods of independence.
Action:
Change I/6c to I/31b Later Aramean Army (900 BC – 710 BC) for I/21b Later Babylonian Army (889 BC – 747 BC).
Change Ally I/6c to I/31b Later Aramean Army (900 BC – 710 BC) for I/21b Later Babylonian Army (889 BC – 747 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 30, 2017 7:54:13 GMT
I/31b Later Aramean Army (900 BC – 710 BC) add I/21b Later Babylonian Army (889 BC – 747 BC)
(Army I/6c had already evolved into I/31b by 900 BC, therefore I/21b and I/31b should be mutual enemies instead.)
I am not so sure Babylon would be in conflict with the Later Aramean as the Assyrian Empire were the primary power block in the region.
During this period, most of the Aramean Kingdoms were subjugated by the Neo-Assyrian.
Action:
Would not recommend adding, however, if anyone else can contribute information?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 30, 2017 7:55:29 GMT
I/34c Later Hebrew Army (799 BC – 586 BC) remove Ally I/46a Early Kushite Army (745 BC – 728 BC)
(Army I/34c lists I/46a as an ally, and the dates do match, but how on earth did the Early Kushite of Nubia march all the way across Egypt to appear on the same battlefield alongside Hebrews? Later yes, when the Kushite had already taken over Egypt...but that army of I/46b is already listed as an ally of I/34c.
I think the I/34c Hebrews having the I/46a Early Kushite as allies is an error when they already have I/46b as an ally.)
A third sub-list to cover the years 727 – 664 BC was added to the Kushite Egyptian for 3.0.
The earliest reference to an alliance with Egypt was during the reign of Hezekiah to counter the Assyrian threat (Sennacherib). The Hebrew alliance with I/46a is not correct and should be I/46b
Action:
Change Ally I/46a to I/46b Kushite Egyptian from I/34c Later Hebrew Army (799 BC – 586 BC).
|
|
