|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:15:46 GMT
I/57a Etruscan League (600 BC – 400 BC) remove as Allies the II/11 Gallic Army (400 BC – 50 BC)
(The Gauls had only just started to enter the Po Valley in 400 BC, so it’s too early for the Etruscans to have them as allies. But they are listed as allies in the later I/57b Etruscan League Army of 399 BC – 280 BC)
Agree.
Action:
Remove II/11 Gallic Army (400 BC – 50 BC) as Allies of I/57a Etruscan League (600 BC – 400 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:16:30 GMT
I/61b Early Carthaginian Army (340 BC – 275 BC) remove as Allies the II/40 Numidians (215 BC -24 AD)
(It is too early for Carthage to have the Numidians as allies, as the dates don’t match.
Note that the II/40 Numidians are already listed as allies for the later II/32b Carthaginians.)
Agree.
Action:
Remove II/40 Numidians (215 BC -24 AD) as Allies of I/61b Early Carthaginian Army (340 BC – 275 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:17:27 GMT
I/63 Paionian Army (512 BC – 284 BC) change end date to – 274 BC?
(This is a tricky one...if army I/63 ends in 284 BC, then they can’t be the enemies or allies of the II/30a Galatians, as their start date is in 280 BC. DBMM says that the Paionian tribes included the Eastern Paionians, the Agrianians, and the Kingdom of Paionia until it was annexed by Lysimachos. Perhaps some of these tribes remained independent for a bit longer to allow them to become enemies and allies for the Galatians in 278 BC – 274 BC)
Actually, I do not view this as a problem.
I am speculating here, but after the Macedonian expansion it is possible small Paionian tribes migrated to Asia Minor and maintained their independence; not large enough to constitute an army, but of substantial size to supply an allied contingent.
As allies, they would certainly supply the ‘fast’ troop types lacking on the Galatian list.
Action:
In place of a changed end date, perhaps a footnote in the text may be better?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:19:59 GMT
I/64b Kofun culture Japanese (275 AD – 407 AD) change II/77 to II/77a Shilla Korean Army (300 AD – 670 AD)
I/64c Kofun culture Japanese (408 AD – 500 AD) change II/77 to II/77a Shilla Korean Army (300 AD – 670 AD)
(Army II/77a lists I/64b and I/64c as enemies, but both of these just list the generic II/77 as an enemy.
They should be more specific and list II/77a, as II/77b has a much later date.)
Agree.
The Kofun culture Japanese are a new addition to the army list. The II/77 may have served as a place marker after which sub-list detail would be added later. That last step did not happen.
Action:
Change II/77 to II/77a Shilla Korean Army (300 AD – 670 AD) for I/64b Kofun culture Japanese (275 AD – 407 AD).
Change II/77 to II/77a Shilla Korean Army (300 AD – 670 AD) for I/64c Kofun culture Japanese (408 AD – 500 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 8, 2017 4:20:50 GMT
I/64b Kofun culture Japanese (275 AD – 407 AD) add I/64b Kofun culture Japanese (275 AD – 407 AD)
(The DBA 3.0 army of I/64b doesn’t list itself as an internal enemy like the DBMM army list does, but I think it should.
The DBMM listing informs us that Chinese sources say over 100 Japanese states existed in the earlier Yayoi period, and that priestess-queen Himiko ruled some 20 of them in 248 AD from her palace in Yamatai. In the subsequent Kofun period there was a gradual consolidation of most of Japan under an Imperial dynasty based in the Yamato basin.
Note the words ‘gradual’ and ‘most’ of Japan.
The 27 years between Himiko’s death in 248 AD to the start of the Kofun period in 275 AD does not seem long enough to consolidate some 80 autonomous tribal Uji clans, each with its own clan gods and domain...but the 160 years from 248 AD to 407 AD is certainly enough time to allow for the consolidation of most of Japan.)
This may be a question of the obvious being overlooked.
Action:
Add I/64b Kofun culture Japanese (275 AD – 407 AD) as an enemy of I/64b Kofun culture Japanese (275 AD – 407 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 8, 2017 8:28:23 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.
A nice idea...but here is what I have found about Tarentum, the largest and most important Italiot city:-
Taranto supported the Peloponnesian side against Athens in the Peloponnesian War and even sent ships to help the Peloponnesians after the Athenian disaster at Syracuse in 413 BC.
Under the rule of its greatest statesman, strategist and army commander-in-chief, the philosopher and mathematician Archytas, Taranto reached its peak power and wealth; it was the most important city of the Magna Graecia, the main commercial port of southern Italy, it produced and exported goods to and from motherland Greece and it had the biggest army and the largest fleet in southern Italy. However, with the death of Archytas in 347 BC the city started a slow decline.
In 282 BC, Rome sent a fleet under Admiral Lucius Valerius, carrying troops to garrison Thurii, but ten ships were caught in a tempest and arrived in the sea off Taranto during a holy day (the festival of Dionysus). This angered the Tarentines, who considered it a hostile act openly in conflict with a treaty which forbade the Gulf of Taranto to Roman ships, and responded by attacking the Roman fleet: the Tarentine navy sunk four Roman ships, and captured a fifth.
The DBA 3.0 Army Lists appear to abide by the following ‘rule’:-
I/52i Italiots (668 BC – 449 BC) are littoral, because they are coastal city states.
II/5g Italiots (448 BC – 280 BC) are littoral, because they are coastal city states.
I/52i Siciliots (668 BC – 449 BC) are littoral, because they are coastal city states.
II/5h Siciliots (448 BC – 280 BC) are littoral, because they are coastal city states.
I/36c Sicels (480 BC – 380 BC) are hilly, because they are inland, away from the coast of Sicily.
However, this ‘rule’ does bring into question what exactly is required for an army to be considered as ‘littoral’?
Is simply being on the coast sufficent?.....
Do all coastal city states possess a fleet?.....
And how big a fleet is needed to become littoral? (5 ships, 10 ships, 20 ships, or more?).
This could open a whole new can of worms, so I think it might be better to just stick with the current army list guideline and leave both the Italiots and Siciliots as littoral.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 8, 2017 8:30:36 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?
I’m afraid that the only evidence I can find is the following quote from the “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, page 23 of the 1982 edition:-
“Kyrene and the other Greek cities of Libya had been more or less left alone by the last Persians and Alexander; but Ptolemy I seized Kyrene and henceforth it remained closely tied to Egypt.”
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 8, 2017 8:32:19 GMT
I/61b Early Carthaginian Army (340 BC – 275 BC) remove as Allies the II/40 Numidians (215 BC -24 AD) (It is too early for Carthage to have the Numidians as allies, as the dates don’t match. Note that the II/40 Numidians are already listed as allies for the later II/32b Carthaginians.) Agree. Action:Remove II/40 Numidians (215 BC -24 AD) as Allies of I/61b Early Carthaginian Army (340 BC – 275 BC).
Ah...I’ve changed my mind on this one.
As I posted on page 20:-
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)
So although the dates don’t match, they could still be hired as mercenaries before they became ‘unified’ under Carthaginian control.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 8, 2017 8:34:23 GMT
I/63 Paionian Army (512 BC – 284 BC) change end date to – 274 BC? (This is a tricky one...if army I/63 ends in 284 BC, then they can’t be the enemies or allies of the II/30a Galatians, as their start date is in 280 BC. DBMM says that the Paionian tribes included the Eastern Paionians, the Agrianians, and the Kingdom of Paionia until it was annexed by Lysimachos. Perhaps some of these tribes remained independent for a bit longer to allow them to become enemies and allies for the Galatians in 278 BC – 274 BC) Actually, I do not view this as a problem. I am speculating here, but after the Macedonian expansion it is possible small Paionian tribes migrated to Asia Minor and maintained their independence; not large enough to constitute an army, but of substantial size to supply an allied contingent. As allies, they would certainly supply the ‘fast’ troop types lacking on the Galatian list. Action:In place of a changed end date, perhaps a footnote in the text may be better?
A reasonable proposition...you could also surmise that as their overlord Lysimachos was unable to provide sufficient help with fighting the II/30a Galatians, they took it upon themselves to resist these Celtic Gauls, and that some of them even joined the invaders as the ancient historians say they did.
Therefore, although the I/63 Paionians have an end date of 284 BC, signifying the loss of their independence, they are still able to confront and ally with the II/30a Galatians in 280 BC to 274 BC.
Page 5 has been updated: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/603/historical-opponents?page=5&scrollTo=4419
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 8, 2017 17:03:39 GMT
More from Book 2:-
II/17a Lysimachid Army (320 BC – 303 BC) remove II/27a Pyrrhic Army (300 BC – 281 BC)
II/27a Pyrrhic Army (300 BC – 281 BC) remove II/17a Lysimachid Army (320 BC – 303 BC)(Although II/17a and II/27a are listed as mutual enemies, their dates don’t quite match. And for a good reason...Pyrrhus didn’t confront Lysimachus until well after 300 BC. Pyrrhus lost the throne of Epirus in 302 BC because of Cassander, fought on the losing side at Ipsus in 301 BC, was a hostage in Egypt in 298 BC and married Ptolemy I’s stepdaughter, and with his help regained his throne in 297 BC, then after a long war took half of Macedon from his former ally Demetrius in 288 BC, Lysimachus taking the other half. In 286 BC Lysimachus drove Pyrrhus from Macedon and took full control for himself. Therefore the correct mutual enemies should be II/7b and II/27a, and these are already listed as such.) Source: “Pyrrhus of Epirus” by Jeff Champion, 2009.II/18a Antipatos’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC) remove II/18f Queen Olympias’ Army (317 BC – 316 BC)
II/18c Kassandros’ Army (318 BC – 298 BC) add II/18f Queen Olympias’ Army (317 BC – 316 BC)
II/18f Queen Olympias’ Army (317 BC – 316 BC) change II/18a to II/18c Kassandros’ Army (318 BC – 298 BC)(I know I’ve mentioned these before, but I thought I’d repeat them in case anyone has forgotten.  Antipater died of old age in 319 BC...Queen Olympias first led an army when she invaded Macedonia in 317 BC. Cassander, the son of Antipater, was her mortal enemy, and it was he that had her executed in 316 BC.) Source: “The Wars of Alexander’s Successors: volume I” by Bob Bennett and Mike Roberts, 2008.
II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC) remove II/19a Seleucid Army (320 BC – 280 BC)
II/19a Seleucid Army (320 BC – 280 BC) remove II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC)(Although II/18a and II/19a are listed as mutual enemies, and the dates match, they never actually fought. Seleucus I Nicator was appointed as the Commander of the Companions at the Partition of Babylon following Alexander’s death in 323 BC, and was one of the officers that murdered the regent Perdiccas in 321 BC following the failed attempt to invade Ptolemy’s Egypt. Antipater was made the new regent in 321 BC at the Partition of Triparadisus, and Seleucus was made satrap of Babylon which he entered in 320 BC, but was forced to flee in 317 BC by Antigonus and only returned there in 312 BC, some 7 years after Antipater’s death. With Antipater in Macedonia dying in 319 BC, and Seleucus far away busy trying to take control of Babylon in 320 BC, the two could not have fought each other.) Source: “The Wars of Alexander’s Successors: volume I” by Bob Bennett and Mike Roberts, 2008. II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC) remove II/20a Ptolemaic Army (322 BC – 275 BC)
II/20a Ptolemaic Army (322 BC – 275 BC) remove II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC)(Although II/18a and II/20a are listed as mutual enemies, and the dates match, they never actually fought. This is the same as the entry above. Ptolemy I Soter was appointed the satrap of Egypt at the Partition of Babylon following Alexander’s death in 323 BC. He quickly killed the former governor, the Greek Cleomenes, annexed Cyrene in 322 BC, stole Alexander’s body, and repelled an invasion by the regent Perdiccas in 321 BC. Antipater was made the new regent at the Partition of Triparadisus in 321 BC, with Ptolemy confirmed as the satrap of Egypt. With Antipater in Macedonia dying in 319 BC, and Ptolemy far away in Egypt, the two could not have fought each other.) Source: “The Wars of Alexander’s Successors: volume I” by Bob Bennett and Mike Roberts, 2008. II/26 Later Sarmatian Army (310 BC – 375 AD) change II/64a to II/64b Eastern Roman Army (193 AD – 324 AD) II/64a Western Roman Army (193 AD – 324 AD) remove II/26 Later Sarmatian Army (310 BC – 375 AD) II/64b Eastern Roman Army (193 AD – 324 AD) add II/26 Later Sarmatian Army (310 BC – 375 AD) (From a geographical point of view, wouldn’t the Sarmatians and their mates have fought the Eastern Roman Empire?) The items in blue are pretty obvious, so have been added to Group #1 (comments are still welcome of course).
The items in black have been added to Group #3 (because I could be wrong...)fanaticus.boards.net/thread/603/historical-opponents?page=5&scrollTo=4419
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 9, 2017 14:03:14 GMT
The mutual enemies and their dates for the II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC) are a bit confusing.
So I’d like to take this opportunity to draw-up a timeline of the major events of this period for more clarity.
323 BC: Alexander dies and Perdiccas becomes regent of the entire empire.
The Lamian War (323 – 322 BC):-
Athens and Aetolia with Thessalian allies rebel against Macedonian rule.
Antipater is defeated and besieged in the city of Lamia in Thessaly.
322 BC: Leonnatus brings an army from Anatolia to help Antipater, but is defeated at Rhamnus and killed.
Craterus brings another army from Anatolia and he and Antipater are victorious at the battle of Crannon.
Perdiccas with his loyal lieutenant Eumenes subdue a native Persian rebellion in Cappadocia.
First War of the Diadochi (322 – 320 BC):-
Antipater, Craterus and Antigonus in Macedon and Ptolemy in Egypt decide to rebel against Perdiccas.
321 BC: Perdiccas tries to invade Ptolemy’s Egypt but his army mutinies and the regent is murdered.
Eumenes is left in Anatolia and defeats and kills an invading Craterus at the battle of the Hellespont.
At the Partition of Triparadisus Antipater, now 78 years old, is made the new regent for the whole empire.
320 BC: Antipater returns to Macedonia while Antigonus is assigned to crush the remaining Perdiccans in Anatolia.
Alectas is defeated in Pisidia by Antigonus and commits suicide, while Eumenes flees to the fortress of Nora.
319 BC: Antipater dies and leaves Macedon and the regency not to his son Cassander, but to his friend Polyperchon.
Second War of the Diadochi (319 - 315 BC):-
Cassander and Polyperchon fight for Macedon, while Antigonus and Eumenes fight in the eastern satrapies.
So, these major events have to be shoe-horned into the current army lists.
The first thing to note is that the most senior and high ranking leaders such as Leonnatus and Craterus are not represented, while a complete non-entity such as Alcetas (the brother of Perdiccas) has been given his own army!
Nonetheless, here is how the time-line above appears to be represented in the army lists:-
The II/12 Alexandrian Army (359 BC – 319 BC) represents the Macedonian forces in the Lamian War of 323 – 322 BC led by Antipater, Leonnatus and Craterus (as well as Alexander’s army until 329 BC, plus the army left behind in Macedon under Antipater from 342 until he becomes regent in 321 BC, also the lieutenants and appointed satraps Alexander left to guard his newly conquered territories, and the army of Craterus that invaded Anatolia in 321 BC...and that of Alexander’s father Philip II from 359 to 336 BC of course).
According to the ancient battle accounts, none of these armies had elephants, which fits nicely.
The II/15 Alexandrian Imperial Army (328 BC – 321 BC) represents the Perdiccan forces in the invasion of Egypt and those of Eumenes in Anatolia (Alexander from 328 to his death in 323 BC, Perdiccas from 323 to his death in 321 BC).
The II/20a Ptolemaic Army (322 BC – 275) represents the Egyptian forces that repelled the Perdiccan invasion (and needs the start date pushed back to 322 BC so that Ptolemy has an army to annex Cyrene and defend Egypt).
Starting in 320 BC Antipater, Antigonus, Alcetas, Eumenes, Lysimachus, and Seleucid all have their own armies, as does Polyperchon starting a year later in 319 BC.
(Although none of them fought against the Antipater army of 320 - 319 BC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that this is all very confusing, but perhaps the suggestions below would help to clear things up a bit and finally nail this difficult and complex period once and for all:-
II/12 Alexandrian Army (359 BC – 319 BC) add the following to the historical text:-
“Philip II (359 – 336 BC), Alexander (336 – 329 BC), Antipatros/Governors (342 – 321 BC), Leonnatus (322 BC), Craterus (322 - 321 BC)”
II/15 Alexandrian Imperial Army (328 BC – 321 BC) add the following to the historical text:-
“Alexander (328 – 323 BC), Perdiccas (323 - 321 BC), Eumenes (321 BC)”
II/12 Alexander (359 – 319 BC) change the list to read: “1 x Thessalians or Greeks (Cv), 1 x hypaspists or mercenary peltasts (4Ax)”
II/12 Alexander (359 – 319 BC) change Ally II/5d to II/5d (before 323 BC)
II/12 Alexander (359 – 319 BC) add as an Enemy II/5e (Aitolians in 323 – 319 BC)
II/5e Aitolians (448 – 279 BC) add as an Enemy II/12 (Antipatros and Craterus 323 – 321 BC)
(Army II/5d Thessaly was an enemy and not an ally during the Lamian War of 323 – 322 BC. The Aitolians fought on the Athenian side and held out against Craterus until he was called away to invade Anatolia in 321 BC.
And the Hypaspists were with Alexander of course.)
II/12 Alexandrian Army (359 BC – 319 BC) add as an Enemy II/15 (Eumenes in 321 BC)
II/15 Alexandrian Imperial (328 BC – 321 BC) add as an Enemy II/12 (Craterus in 321 BC)
(This covers Eumenes victory over Craterus at the battle of Hellespont during the 1st War of the Diadochi in 322 - 320 BC)
II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC) change Allies to Alexander’s Allies 326 – 325 BC: II/2, II/3a
II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC) remove I/47 Illyrian Army (700 BC – 10 AD)
II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC) remove I/48 Thracian Army (700 BC – 46 AD)
II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC) remove II/5b Athenian Army (448 BC – 278 BC)
II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC) remove II/5d Thessalian Army (448 BC – 320 BC)
II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC) remove II/5e Aitolian Army (448 BC – 279 BC)
II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC) remove II/5i Other Greeks (448 BC – 225 BC)
II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC) remove II/6 Bithynian Army (435 BC – 74 BC)
I/47 Illyrian Army (700 BC – 10 AD) remove II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC)
I/48 Thracian Army (700 BC – 46 AD) remove II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC)
II/5b Athenian Army (448 BC – 278 BC) remove II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC)
II/5d Thessalian Army (448 BC – 320 BC) remove II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC)
II/5e Aitolian Army (448 BC – 279 BC) remove II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC)
II/5i Other Greeks (448 BC – 225 BC) remove II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC)
II/6 Bithynian Army (435 BC – 74 BC) remove II/15 Alexander Imperial (328 – 321 BC)
(Perdiccas and Eumenes should not have Indian allies.
And the imperial army never fought the Illyrians, Thracians, Athens, Thessaly, Aitolians, or Other Greeks....
....these were all left to Alexander’s lieutenants and newly appointed satraps of list II/12, who would not have had Persian Companions, Argyraspids, elephants, or Indian allies, although Leonnatus and Craterus may have brought some Asiatic light horse with them from Anatolia during the Lamian War.)
II/20a Ptolemaic Army (322 BC – 275 BC) change the start date from 320 to 322 BC
II/20a Ptolemaic Army (322 BC – 275 BC) add as an enemy II/15 (Perdiccas in 321 BC)
II/15 Alexandrian Imperial (328 BC -321 BC) add as an enemy II/20a (Ptolemy in 321 BC)
(This is to give Ptolemy an Egyptian army with which to annex Cyrene in 322 BC and to resist Perdiccas' invasion in 321 BC)
II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC) remove II/16a Antigonos’ Army (320 BC – 301 BC)
II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC) remove II/16d Eumenes Army (320 BC – 316 BC)
II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC) remove II/18f Queen Olympias (317 BC – 316 BC)
II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC) remove II/19a Seleucid Army (320 BC – 280 BC)
II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC) remove II/20a Ptolemaic Army (320 BC – 275 BC)
II/16a Antigonos’ Army (320 BC – 301 BC) remove II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC)
II/16d Eumenes Army (320 BC – 316 BC) remove II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC)
II/18f Queen Olympias (317 BC – 316 BC) change II/18a to II/18c Kassandros’ Army (318 BC – 298 BC)
II/19a Seleucid Army (320 BC – 280 BC) remove II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC)
II/20a Ptolemaic Army (320 BC – 275 BC) remove II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC – 319 BC)
(None of these actually fought against Antipatros’ army of 320 – 319 BC when he was regent of the empire)
II/18c Kassandros’ Army (318 BC – 298 BC) add II/18f Queen Olympias (317 BC – 316 BC)
(Antipatros died two years before Olympias’ start date. Kassandros was her historical mortal enemy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it is a lot of changes...an awful lot of changes...but it is more historically accurate. 
I won’t add these to page 5 just yet in order to give people time to comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Apr 9, 2017 16:33:31 GMT
I think we should be very wary of sub-lists for a single year.
Do we seriously believe that we have the sources that credibly point to a significantly different disposition?? In 90% of cases, i highly doubt it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 9, 2017 17:36:37 GMT
I think we should be very wary of sub-lists for a single year. Do we seriously believe that we have the sources that credibly point to a significantly different disposition?? In 90% of cases, i highly doubt it. I do tend to agree, but I’m afraid we are stuck with them:- I/1c Great Sumerian Revolt (2250 BC) II/16c Alktas’ Macedonians (320 BC) II/47b Ariovistus’ Germans (58 BC) II/47c Civilis’ Batavians (69 AD) II/65a Adrianople Goths (378 AD) ....to name but a few. Actually, when you come to think about it, an army that only covers a single year should be more historically accurate, as armies that span several decades or centuries could vary an awful lot from year to year. Mind you, you have to have accurate data to get that single year right. But if it’s not possible to get enough information to get even a single year right, an army spanning several decades or centuries will be even more inaccurate. Anyway, the problem as I see it with the Lamian and 1st War of the Diadochi is trying to fit the major historical events (which the ancient historians tell us happened) into an already existing set of lists that are not necessarily well thought out. We can’t change history... ...so we’ll just have to change the army lists. |
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Apr 10, 2017 1:29:30 GMT
I/64b Kofun culture Japanese (275 AD – 407 AD) add I/64b Kofun culture Japanese (275 AD – 407 AD)
(The DBA 3.0 army of I/64b doesn’t list itself as an internal enemy like the DBMM army list does, but I think it should.
The DBMM listing informs us that Chinese sources say over 100 Japanese states existed in the earlier Yayoi period, and that priestess-queen Himiko ruled some 20 of them in 248 AD from her palace in Yamatai. In the subsequent Kofun period there was a gradual consolidation of most of Japan under an Imperial dynasty based in the Yamato basin.
Note the words ‘gradual’ and ‘most’ of Japan.
The 27 years between Himiko’s death in 248 AD to the start of the Kofun period in 275 AD does not seem long enough to consolidate some 80 autonomous tribal Uji clans, each with its own clan gods and domain...but the 160 years from 248 AD to 407 AD is certainly enough time to allow for the consolidation of most of Japan.)
This may be a question of the obvious being overlooked.
Action:
Add I/64b Kofun culture Japanese (275 AD – 407 AD) as an enemy of I/64b Kofun culture Japanese (275 AD – 407 AD).
I know this thread is more about consistency than history. But we cannot base a Kofun period list on "Himiko" the existence of whom is doubtful, let alone her role. The Korean and Japanese lists are outdated relative to modern scholarship. The name Kofun just comes from the appearance of large tombs - which is as compelling as saying that Silbury Hill justifies an English Army List starting in 2600BC. Unless, the Kofun list simply exists to give the Korean armies something to attack, its arguable that this is not a justifiable list because we have no evidence of any warfare?? Surely a minimum requirement for any armylist is that combat occurred at some point throughout its history? If we must have lists for this period a more tangible place to start might be dividing the list into no-horses-and-no-Korean-metal-armour and post-horses-and-Korean-metal-armour - or more controversially a pre-Korean "invasion" and post-Korean "invasion" period. Furthermore, the Yayoi Culture Army list (I 64a) is COMPLETELY ridiculous. Before about 300AD there is no Japan to speak of. Archaeology has been quite revealing. Despite Japan's best efforts to the contrary, there is no evidence for cities, no evidence for coinage, no place names, no iron smelting, no roads, no horses, no wheels, no literature, no warfare... it is barely proto-historic. So unless we think DBA is about simulating extended family groups battering each other to death with clay pots and sharp sticks, there is absolutely no justification for a Yayoi list which starts in 500BC. It needs more work. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 10, 2017 11:37:11 GMT
An excellent post Dangun.  This is just the sort of input that I for one need, as I know next to nothing about Korean, Chinese, and Japanese ancient history. Although I would like to emphasize that our goal is not merely ‘consistency’, but is very much aimed at historical accuracy, where possible. Were it not so then such entries like the II/10 Camillan Romans and the II/28b Armenians would have been left as mutual enemies (even though the Romans had not yet set foot outside of Italy in this period), and the III/48 Rus and the III/16 Khazars would have remained ignorant of each other’s presence (even though the Rus eventually destroyed Khazria and sacked their capital Atil). Anyway, down to business... As I see it (uneducated as I am about this region), the main points of contention appear to be these:- 1) Should army list I/64a Yayoi culture Japanese (500 BC – 274 AD) even exist? 2) And should lists I/64b & c Kofun culture Japanese (275 AD – 500 AD) have any Koreans as enemies? Well, human beings did live in very early Japan...and human beings do have a habit of fighting each other. Perhaps the army list elements for I/64a do suggest a more sophisticated society than was the true situation, but that can be partly remedied by using early looking tribal figures, with ‘warriors wearing simple clothing and tattoos’, to remind us players of just how primitive this early culture really was. (Almost all of the compositions for any army are mostly pure conjecture...we don’t even know what colour the Republican Romans painted their shields! But that doesn’t stop us from wanting to play.)
And the Kofun period is already sort of divided into a I/64b ‘no horses’ period and a later I/64c ‘post-horses’ period. (Although perhaps more emphasis should be placed on the fact that I/64a had different style of non-metal armour to the later I/64c Korean style metal armour...is this another case of choosing the right figures for the right period?) As for point number 2, here I am going to have to rely on your better knowledge of these ancient peoples. Did the early Koreans fight the Kofun culture of Japan? Or should they be removed from being mutual enemies? All I can find is that almost all of the culture of the Kofun period, be it religion, weapons or trade, came from Korea. And that the Korean kingdom of Baekje under the leadership of Geunchogo in the late 300’s AD ‘advanced’ (set up trading posts?) into Kyushu, and that he ‘took advantage of the weakened state in Kyushu in the Japanese archipelago’. With all these rich Korean trading posts dotted about, surely some of the Kofun warlords would have thought it a good idea to have a pop at them (but this is pure speculation of course). If the Koreans and Kofun culture did clash with each other, there is another problem. As the Koreans have zero aggression, and the Kofun culture has an aggression of 2, on average five out of six battles will have the Koreans as the ‘defenders’. This could give people the impression that the Kofun culture regularly invaded Korea, which was certainly not the case. I think the Kofun culture should have an aggression of zero and the Korean kingdoms have an aggression of 1. P.S.
Oh, and I also found this:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangun
So that’s where you got the name from. 
|
|
