|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 30, 2017 7:56:39 GMT
I/34c Later Hebrew Army (799 BC – 586 BC) change Ally I/35 to I/35b Cypriot/Phoenician Army (900 BC – 666 BC)
(Army I/34c lists army I/35 as an ally...but which I/35 army? I/35a and I/35d we can discount as being the wrong dates.
That leaves either I/35b or I/35c, or maybe both of them. I think it would have been I/35b, but I’m not 100% sure.)
The older version gives both I/35b and I/35c as allies for the Later Hebrew of this sub-list. It seems the sub-list notation was omitted while copying the list.
Action:
Change Ally I/35 to I/35b and I/35c for I/34c Later Hebrew Army (799 BC – 586 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 30, 2017 7:59:05 GMT
(Still no broadband, so I'm posting this from a Wetherspoons pub while her indoors...er...the love of my life  is cooking Sunday dinner.)I/32b Wu or Yueh Chinese Army (584 BC – 480 BC) add I/14d Chinese Border Tribes (2000 BC – 401 BC)
(Army I/14d lists I/32b as an enemy, but I/32b doesn’t mention I/14d)
Interesting. I do not find I/32b on the list of enemies for I/14d, but do read I/13b.
I/32b are the Wu and Yueh states are located on the East China Sea and would have fought each other, their neighbouring states or the Vietnamese (I/49a).
Action:
See no need to add.
My mistake. I don't know where I got I/14d verses I/32b from. Too many wicked strength ciders perhaps. And you're also right about the II/4b Yueh army being too far south to fight the I/14d Chinese Boarder Tribes. (I've got several World History atlases at home...I just didn't think of looking at them.)
Is the following correct? I/14d Chinese Border Tribes (2000 BC – 401 BC) change II/4a to II/4d Other Chinese Armies (480 BC – 356 BC)
I/14d Chinese Border Tribes (2000 BC – 401 BC) remove II/4e Other Chinese Armies (355 BC – 202 BC)
Yes. The Chinese Border notations are correct.
N.B. I just noticed this had been answered earlier. Disregard.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 30, 2017 11:22:11 GMT
GOOD NEWS!My broadband is back in service (hurrah!). (And it only took the wizards of British Telecom 21 days to restore it.....)
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?
Well, we will still have to remove I/21b and I/31b from having I/6c as a mutual enemy because their dates don’t match. My thoughts were that because I/6c (end date 1101 BC) evolves into I/31a and I/31b, then army I/21b (start date 889 BC) would have to fight the later evolved version of I/6c which is I/31b (start date 900 BC). But if most of the Aramaean Kingdoms were subjugated by the Neo-Assyrians in this period, and that does sound historically plausible, that then raises the question of who was it the I/31b Aramaeans actually did fight? The I/31b Later Aramaeans (900 BC – 710 BC) currently have the following listed as enemies:- I/6a Early Bedouins (3000 BC – 1001 BC)...wrong dates I/6b Midianites/Amalekites/Early Arabs (1500/1000 BC – 312 BC) I/6c Early Aramaeans (2000 BC – 1101 BC)...wrong dates I/25b Early Neo-Assyrians (882 BC – 745 BC) I/29b Later Philistines (1099 BC – 600 BC) I/30b Dark Age Greeks (900 BC – 725 BC) I/30c Geometric Greeks (724 BC – 650 BC) I/31b Neo-Hittite/Later Aramaeans (900 BC – 710 BC) I/34b Later Hebrews (968 BC – 800 BC) I/34c Later Hebrews (799 BC – 586 BC) I/35b Cypriots/Phoenicians (900 BC – 666 BC) I/39a Urartian Army (880 BC – 765 BC) I/39b Urartian Army (764 BC – 585 BC) I/40 Phrygian Army (851 BC – 676 BC) As army I/31b has an end date of 710 BC, all the above (apart from I/6a and I/6c) are in the correct date range. Or is it me missing the vital ‘elephant in the room’...I/31b are the Neo-Hittites as well as the Later Aramaeans. Could it be that most of the enemies listed above are meant for the Neo-Hittites? If this is the case then perhaps employing the splitting of enemies like we did for the II/81c British-Armoricans would be the best solution (you know, same army but different enemies).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 30, 2017 11:32:26 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.
Oh yes, I remember that.
Good thinking!
Could you do me a favour and see if you can find it on the old website?
(Go on, you know you want too. )
Cheers.
I couldn’t think of a use for it at the time...but it might be of some use now.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 30, 2017 12:18:46 GMT
GOOD NEWS!My broadband is back in service (hurrah!). (And it only took the wizards of British Telecom 21 days to restore it.....)
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?
Well, we will still have to remove I/21b and I/31b from having I/6c as a mutual enemy because their dates don’t match. My thoughts were that because I/6c (end date 1101 BC) evolves into I/31a and I/31b, then army I/21b (start date 889 BC) would have to fight the later evolved version of I/6c which is I/31b (start date 900 BC). But if most of the Aramaean Kingdoms were subjugated by the Neo-Assyrians in this period, and that does sound historically plausible, that then raises the question of who was it the I/31b Aramaeans actually did fight? The I/31b Later Aramaeans (900 BC – 710 BC) currently have the following listed as enemies:- I/6a Early Bedouins (3000 BC – 1001 BC)...wrong dates I/6b Midianites/Amalekites/Early Arabs (1500/1000 BC – 312 BC) I/6c Early Aramaeans (2000 BC – 1101 BC)...wrong dates I/25b Early Neo-Assyrians (882 BC – 745 BC) I/29b Later Philistines (1099 BC – 600 BC) I/30b Dark Age Greeks (900 BC – 725 BC) I/30c Geometric Greeks (724 BC – 650 BC) I/31b Neo-Hittite/Later Aramaeans (900 BC – 710 BC) I/34b Later Hebrews (968 BC – 800 BC) I/34c Later Hebrews (799 BC – 586 BC) I/35b Cypriots/Phoenicians (900 BC – 666 BC) I/39a Urartian Army (880 BC – 765 BC) I/39b Urartian Army (764 BC – 585 BC) I/40 Phrygian Army (851 BC – 676 BC) As army I/31b has an end date of 710 BC, all the above (apart from I/6a and I/6c) are in the correct date range. Or is it me missing the vital ‘elephant in the room’...I/31b are the Neo-Hittites as well as the Later Aramaeans. Could it be that most of the enemies listed above are meant for the Neo-Hittites? If this is the case then perhaps employing the splitting of enemies like we did for the II/81c British-Armoricans would be the best solution (you know, same army but different enemies). My first impression this may have been a rebellion or a usurper propped up by the Assyrians to fight the Babylonian as there were a number of locations that such an event could have taken place. Therefore asking for any information seemed a useful step as I had looked at each reigning king and found nothing useful. It is most likely the two were mutual enemies (Later Aramean and Babylonia) but before or after the period of subjugation by the Assyrians. Can anyone add further information? |
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Mar 31, 2017 7:09:32 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.
Oh yes, I remember that.
Good thinking!
Could you do me a favour and see if you can find it on the old website?
(Go on, you know you want too. )
Cheers.
I couldn’t think of a use for it at the time...but it might be of some use now.
Here is the link to the old thread... "DBA 3.0 visualization" Unfortunately the pictures seem to have disappeared. www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=16626 link
If you read the thread you can see that "Oceanwide" had actually put all of the enemy-enemy relationships into a spreadsheet already. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 1, 2017 7:31:13 GMT
I/37b Taurus/Zagros Highland Army (749 BC – 610 BC) change Ally from I/39a to I/39b Urartian Army (764 BC - 585 BC)
(Army I/37b lists I/39a as an ally, but the dates don’t match. I/39b as an ally is a better match.)
I do not read a I/39a as an ally for the sub-list I/37b, but do for I/37a.
Action:
None.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 1, 2017 7:33:19 GMT
I/43a Kimmerian or Skythian Army (750 BC – 301 BC) change Ally I/4b to I/4b (if Kimmerian) and I/4d (if Skythian)
(The I/43a Skythian already has I/4d as an enemy, so it makes more sense to have them as an ally against the Chinese rather than the I/4b European Iron Age Army from the other end of the continent.)
The Ally should read I/14 and not I/4 and yes, the additional information in parenthesis would be useful.
Action:
Change Ally I/14b to I/14b (if Kimmerian) and I/14d (if Skythian) for I/43a Kimmerian or Skythian Army (750 BC – 301 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 1, 2017 7:35:18 GMT
I/43b Skythian or Early Hu Army (400 BC – 70 AD) change Ally I/4b to I/14e Jung (if Hu)
I/43b Skythian or Early Hu Army (400 BC – 70 AD) change Ally II/19d to II/19d (if Skythian in 129 BC)
(The dates for I/43b and I/14b as allies don’t match, and neither does the date for I/14d.
However, the DBMM army list specifically states that the I/74(!) Jung were allies of the I/43b Hu.
Army I/74 doesn’t exist, but the I/14e Jung do...and our job is to correct the DBA 3.0 army list, not the DBMM one!
Also, DBMM says that the Parthians tried to use a captured Seleucid contingent against the Skythian in 129 BC, but it immediately changed sides. I don’t think I would class these as ‘allies’, but as it is listed we better include it as well.)
Agree. This list was expanded from two to three sub-lists and these two items slipped through the editing step.
Action:
Change Ally I/4b to I/14e Jung (if Hu) for I/43b Skythian or Early Hu Army (400 BC – 70 AD).
Change Ally II/19d to II/19d (if Skythian in 129 BC) for I/43b Skythian or Early Hu Army (400 BC – 70 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 1, 2017 7:36:24 GMT
I/43a Kimmerian/Skythian Army (750 BC – 301 BC) change II/5i to II/5L Black Sea Greeks (410 BC – 310 BC)
The older version listed II/5i as ‘Other’ which was further refined in the new version to include the Black Sea Greeks.
The change should be made not as enemy but under allies. See note under Black Sea Greeks.
Action:
Change Allies II/5i to II/5L for I/43a Kimmerian/Skythian Army (750 BC – 301 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 1, 2017 7:37:17 GMT
II/5i Other Hoplites in Greece (448 BC – 310 BC) remove I/43a Kimmerian/Skythian Army (750 BC – 301 BC)
The end and start dates for II/5i are actually 448 BC – 225 BC which would cover Scythian tribes settling in the Balkans, the war with the Bosporan Greek and other Greek cities along the western shore of the Black Sea. I would leave this as is.
Action:
No need to remove.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 1, 2017 7:38:22 GMT
II/5L Black Sea Greeks (410 BC – 310 BC) add I/43a Kimmerian/Skythian Army (750 BC – 301 BC)
(From a geographical point of view, it makes more sense to have I/43a and II/5L as mutual enemies than I/43a and II/5i)
The II/5 L is a new addition to the Later Hoplite Greek list and from the title it is rather vague which cities along the shores of the Black Sea are covered by the list, however, 310 BC marks the beginning of the II/25 Bosporan list. The period of 410 BC – 310 BC covers the Bosporan expansion wars against the Sindike Kingdom in which the Scythian served as allies. The Scythian do become enemy, but after 310 BC.
Action:
See no need to add I/43a as an enemy unless someone has further information.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 1, 2017 7:39:23 GMT
I/44b Later Neo-Babylonians (604 BC – 589 BC) add I/41b Median Army (620 BC – 550 BC)
(Army I/41b lists I/44b as an ally and enemy, but I/44b doesn’t mention I/41b)
Agree. This was missed during editing.
Action:
Add I/41b Median Army (620 BC – 550 BC) to I/44b Later Neo-Babylonians (604 BC – 589 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 1, 2017 7:40:34 GMT
I/44b Later Neo-Babylonians (604 BC – 589 BC) remove I/51 Later Sargonid Assyrians (680 BC – 609 BC)
I/51 Later Sargonid Assyrians (680 BC – 609 BC) remove I/44b Later Neo-Babylonians (604 BC – 589 BC)
(Although I/44b and I/51 are listed as mutual enemies, the dates don’t match.
After the fall of Nineveh to the Babylonians and Medes in 612 BC, the remains of the Assyrian army fled to Syria to form a new capital at Harran, but this was lost in 610 BC and an attempt to retake it with Egyptian assistance failed in 609 BC)
The dating error was copied from 2.2 to 3.0.
Action:
Remove I/51 Later Sargonid Assyrians (680 BC – 609 BC) from I/44b Later Neo-Babylonians (604 BC – 589 BC).
Remove I/44b Later Neo-Babylonians (604 BC – 589 BC) from I/51 Later Sargonid Assyrians (680 BC – 609 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 1, 2017 7:41:16 GMT
I/47 Illyrian Army (700 BC – 10 AD) change Ally II/9a to II/9a (in 385 BC only)
(A bit pedantic perhaps, but it is what the DBMM army list for the Illyrians says......)
The Dardanian alliance with Syracuse (Dionysius I).
Action:
Change Ally II/9a to II/9a (in 385 BC only) for I/47 Illyrian Army (700 BC – 10 AD).
|
|
is cooking Sunday dinner.)
