|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 3, 2017 12:54:25 GMT
I/62 Lykian Army (546 BC – 300 BC) remove I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC)
I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC) remove I/62 Lykian Army (546 BC – 300 BC)
(The dates for army I/62 and I/60a don’t match.
I would have suggested making I/62 and I/60c mutual enemies, but DBMM says that although nominally vassals of Persia, the Lykan princes were for all practical purposes independent, though they often co-operated with Persian satraps.)
Agree. This has the same issue as those below regarding the date changes among the I/60 sub-lists from 2.2 to 3.0.
Action:
Remove I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC) from I/62 Lykian Army (546 BC – 300 BC).
Remove I/62 Lykian Army (546 BC – 300 BC) from I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 3, 2017 12:55:13 GMT
I/63 Paionian Army (512 BC – 284 BC) change I/60a to I/60c Achaemenid Army (539 BC – 420 BC)
Agree as the timeframe of I/60a in the older version extended to 466 BC, so would have included them as an enemy.
Action:
Change I/60a to I/60c Achaemenid Army (539 BC – 420 BC) for I/63 Paionian Army (512 BC – 284 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 3, 2017 12:58:33 GMT
I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC) remove I/63 Paionian Army (512 BC – 284 BC)
I/60c Achaemenid Army (539 BC – 420 BC) add I/63 Paionian Army (512 BC – 284 BC)
(As mentioned above, it was Darius I who subdued the Thracians and Macedonians in 492, and he probably did the same to the Paionians at the same time. Certainly Cyrus the Great didn’t do it in 550 – 547 BC)
Agree like all the previous errors most are a result of the revised timeframe of I/60a as the older version ended at 466 BC.
Action:
Remove I/63 Paionian Army (512 BC – 284 BC) from I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC).
Add I/63 Paionian Army (512 BC – 284 BC) to I/60c Achaemenid Army (539 BC – 420 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 3, 2017 21:26:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 4, 2017 5:14:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 6, 2017 9:10:12 GMT
Thanks for the link to Herodotus, but I still wish I could find my own copy...it's full of notes that I've made over the years.
And he seems to say nothing about the Aetolians being neutral during the Persian invasion of Greece, although almost all other modern authorities say they were (they must derive their information from sources I have no access to).
-----------------------------------------------
Oops! Looks like I missed some from the Persian Problem (I thought it went a bit too easily):-
I/35d Cypriot or Phoenician Army (489 BC – 332 BC) remove I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC)
I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC) remove I/35d Cypriot or Phoenician Army (489 BC – 332 BC)
(Although listed as mutual enemies, the dates don't match.
I’ll put these directly into Group #1 in blue as they are blatantly obvious.)
But I’m not sure what to do with these next ones.
We can’t leave them as they are, as the dates don’t match.
On the other hand, Cyrus the Great is supposed to have expanded the newly formed Persian Empire all the way to the Indus River in 530 BC, forming the Gandhara satrapy (or was this satrapy formed later by Darius I?), but this date is already covered by list I/60c...and 530 BC is still too early for the Indians start date of 500 BC.
So, from what little I can find out about this period, I would say remove 1/60a as a mutual enemy of these Indians on the grounds that Cyrus the Great may have formed a political boundary along part of the Indus River, and may have even received tribute from some of them, but it was Darius I (521 BC – 486 BC) who really fought in this region.
I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC) remove II/1 Republican Indian Army (500 BC – 321 BC)
I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC) remove II/2 Mountain Indian Army (500 BC – 170 BC)
I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC) remove II/3a Classical Indian Army (500 BC – 178 AD)
II/1 Republican Indian Army (500 BC – 321 BC) remove I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC)
II/2 Mountain Indian Army (500 BC – 170 BC) remove I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC)
II/3a Classical Indian Army (500 BC – 178 AD) remove I/60a Achaemenid Army (550 BC – 547 BC)
Source: “History of the Persian Empire” by A.T. Olmstead, 1948, page 48:-
“From Bactria, the most easterly of the truly Iranian lands, Cyrus looked across the boundary river, the Cophen, into the territory of their cousins, the Indians. At this time the Iranians still called it in their own language Paruparaesanna, the land ‘beyond the mountains’, although it was known to the natives as Gandara. At this date then, this far corner of India first came under the control of the Iranians.”
Derived from: Strabo xv 1.26, Pliny vi 94, Arrian 1.1, Diodotus xvii 82, Hecataeus (fragment) 178(M), Herodotus iii 91, vii 66.
---------------------------------------------
(All the other Book 1 errors have been found...honest!)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 7, 2017 20:50:45 GMT
Here is the start of the Book 2 errors...II/2 Mountain Indian Army (500 BC – 170 BC) remove II/19c Seleucid Army (204 BC – 167 BC) II/3a Classical Indian Army (500 BC – 178 AD) remove II/19c Seleucid Army (204 BC – 167 BC) II/19d Seleucid Army (166 BC – 64 BC) remove II/2 Mountain Indian Army (500 BC – 170 BC) II/19d Seleucid Army (166 BC – 64 BC) remove II/3a Classical Indian Army (500 BC – 178 AD) (Armies II/2 and II/3a list II/19c as an enemy, but II/19c doesn’t mention either of them. And army II/19d lists II/2 and II/3a as enemies, but neither of these mentions II/19d, and some dates don’t match. Probably errors caused by the expansion of the Seleucid army into several sub-lists. It appears that the last contact with India was by Seleucid king Antiochus III the Great, who turned Bactria into an ally and a buffer state against the Indians by winning the battle of Arius in 208 BC and spending 3 years besieging the Bactrian capital. He also led an expedition into India to meet king Sophagasenus, who gave Antiochus some 150 elephants as tribute. In 205 BC Antiochus returned to the west, and I can find no other contact with India after this date.) Sources: Polybius 10.49, 11.34.II/2 Mountain Indian Army (500 BC – 170 BC) leave as an enemy II/36b Graeco-Indian Army (170 BC – 55 BC) II/36b Graeco-Indian Army (170 BC – 55 BC) leave as an enemy II/2 Mountain Indian Army (500 BC – 170 BC) (Although these two are listed as mutual enemies, the dates only just match. Apparently the Mountain Indians were incorporated into II/36a Graeco-Bactrian kingdom by Eucratides I in 170 BC, so the Mountain Indians may have briefly clashed with the II/36b Graeco-Indians. I just thought I’d mention it in case anyone else has further information.) II/5g Italiot Army (448 BC – 280 BC) remove II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) II/5h Siciliot Army (448 BC – 280 BC) remove II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) remove II/5g Italiot Army (448 BC – 280 BC) II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) remove II/5h Siciliot Army (448 BC – 280 BC) (Although II/33 is listed as mutual enemies of II/5g and II/5h, the dates don’t match. All the Italiot Greek city states were absorbed by the II/10 Roman Republic by 275 BC, and the Siciliot independent Greek city states appear to have fallen under the influence of either Carthage or Syracuse by this date.) II/8b Campanian Army (420 BC – 340 BC) remove II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) remove II/8b Campanian Army (420 BC – 340 BC) (Armies II/8b and II/33 are listed as mutual enemies, but the dates don’t match. Although the major city of Capua joined Hannibal in 216 BC, the rest of Campania stayed loyal to Rome, and after a long siege Capua was retaken by Rome in 211 BC. The later Carthaginian army of II/32a does have II/8b listed as an ally, which seems about right.) II/9b Syracusan Army in Africa (310 BC – 307 BC) leave as an Ally II/40 Numidian Army (215 BC – 24 AD) I/61b Early Carthaginian Army (340 BC – 275 BC) leave as Allies the II/40 Numidians (215 BC -24 AD) (Although the II/9b and II/40 dates don’t match, Duncan Head in his “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars”, on page 11 of the 1982 edition, specifically states that some Numidians were mercenary allies of the Syracusians in 307 BC. The same also probably applies to the Early Carthaginians of army list I/61b) Page 5 has been updated: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/603/historical-opponents?page=5&scrollTo=4419
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:06:40 GMT
Replace the I/52i Enemies with Italiot Enemies: I/36a, I/36d, I/52i, I/55a, I/55b, I/55c, I/57a and Italiot Allies: none.
Replace the I/52i Enemies with Siciliot Enemies: I/36c, I/52i, 61a and Siciliot Allies I/36c.
(This is similar to what we did with the II/81c British-Armorican...split their enemies to make things clearer.
The same people, and the same army, but in different locations with different enemies.)
Good idea.
Would the two have differing homeland; the Italiot Army an ‘arable’ and the Siciliot a ‘littoral’ one?
Action:
Organize enemies under Italiot or Siciliot list.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:07:57 GMT
I/53 Saitic Egyptian Army (664 BC – 335 BC) add I/7d Early Libyan Army (475 BC – 70 AD)
I/7d Early Libyan Army (475 BC – 70 AD) add I/53 Saitic Egyptian Army (664 BC – 335 BC)
(Why would the Early Libyans, who are mutual enemies of the I/2 Early Egyptians, the I/22 New-Kingdom Egyptians, the I/46b Kushite Egyptians, the I/53 Saitic Egyptians up till 476 BC, and a bit later the II/20 Ptolemaic Egyptians, suddenly decide not to fight the I/53 Saitic Egyptians during the period of 475 – 335 BC?
Could it be that the Carthaginians had subdued ALL of the Libyan tribes between 475 – 202 BC?
Even the far eastern Libyan tribes such as the Garamantes that lived in towns and raided Egypt?
Possibly, but it looks like an omission error to me.)
This most likely is an omission due to revised dating for the Libyan sub-lists.
Old version had Early Libyan as I/7c (659 – 200 BC) and I/7d (199 – 70 AD) in which ‘c’ listed the Saitic Egyptian as an enemy. In the new version the dates changed but missed the Saitic Egyptians.
Action:
Add I/7d Early Libyan Army (475 BC – 70 AD) for I/53 Saitic Egyptian Army (664 BC – 335 BC).
Add I/53 Saitic Egyptian Army (664 BC – 335 BC) for I/7d Early Libyan Army (475 BC – 70 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:08:48 GMT
I/55a Etruscan Army (650 BC – 600 BC) remove I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC)
I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC) remove I/55a Etruscan Army (650 BC – 600 BC)
(Although 1/55a and I/55d are listed as mutual enemies, the dates don’t match.)
This was an error carried from the older version.
Action:
Remove I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC) from I/55a Etruscan Army (650 BC – 600 BC).
Remove I/55a Etruscan Army (650 BC – 600 BC) from I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:09:47 GMT
I/55b Roman Army (650 BC – 578 BC) remove I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC)
I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC) remove I/55b Roman Army (650 BC – 578 BC)
(Although 1/55b and I/55d are listed as mutual enemies, the dates don’t match.)
Agree.
Action:
Remove I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC) from I/55b Roman Army (650 BC – 578 BC).
Remove I/55b Roman Army (650 BC – 578 BC) from I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:10:41 GMT
I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC) remove as Allies the I/52i Italiot or Siciliot Hoplite Army (668 BC – 449 BC)
(Army I/55d lists I/52i as allies, but the dates don’t match. They are listed as allies under the earlier I/55c army.)
Another error copied from the old version.
Action:
Remove Allies I/52i Italiot or Siciliot Hoplite Army (668 BC – 449 BC) from I/55d Latin Army (399 BC – 338 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:11:36 GMT
I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC) add I/7d Early Libyan Army (475 BC – 70 AD)
I/7d Early Libyan Army (475 BC – 70 AD) add I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC)
(Again the I/7d Early Libyans have gone suspiciously quiet during the 475 – 314 BC period.
Looks like another omission error, similar to the I/7d verses I/53 noted above.
Especially suspicious as the I/56a Early Kyrenes can have I/7d Early Libyans as allies.)
The list is consistent with the older version. I checked Herodotus (book IV) and found nothing and Cyrene and the Cyrenaica by Jona Lendering hinted at friction between the two which is insufficient.
Action:
Anyone else have information covering this period?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:12:33 GMT
I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC) remove II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian Army (359 BC – 319 BC) II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian Army (359 BC – 319 BC) remove I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC) (I can find no evidence of Alexander or his father Philip II intervening in Kyrene in this period, at least not militarily. The first conflict with the Macedonians was in 322 BC when Kyrene was annexed by Ptolemy.) There is a reference in the link to ‘plans’ but no expedition was made. books.google.nl/books?redir_esc=y&id=2hdHI2Gd0HwC&q=cyrene#v=snippet&q=cyrene&f=false Action:Anyone have further information to retain this?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:13:56 GMT
I/56b Later Kyrenean Army (313 BC – 74 BC) remove as an Ally the I/7c Early Libyan Army (665 BC – 476 BC)
I/56b Later Kyrenean Army (313 BC – 74 BC) remove II/20d Ptolemaic Army (53 BC – 30 BC)
II/20d Ptolemaic Army (53 BC – 30 BC) remove I/56b Later Kyrenean Army (313 BC – 74 BC)
(The I/7d Early Libyans are still suspiciously quiet, and now the I/7c Libyans want to join in!
Anyway, none of the above dates match.)
Agree. However, I am not sure what you mean by suspiciously quiet as the Early Libyans and Later Kyrenean are still enemies of the II/20c Ptolemaic Army whose list ends at 54 BC.
Action:
Remove I/7c Early Libyan Army (665 BC – 476 BC) as Ally of I/56b Later Kyrenean Army (313 BC – 74 BC).
Remove II/20d Ptolemaic Army (53 BC – 30 BC) from I/56b Later Kyrenean Army (313 BC – 74 BC).
Remove I/56b Later Kyrenean Army (313 BC – 74 BC) from II/20d Ptolemaic Army (53 BC – 30 BC).
|
|
