|
|
Post by Dangun on Apr 10, 2017 12:04:04 GMT
Well, human beings did live in very early Japan...and human beings do have a habit of fighting each other.
That is true. And this is only a minor point, so I am not getting too excited about it, but that would still make the a sub-list quite an exception for Japan. We don't have similar proto-historic lists for many other geographies, so I would suggest... why make the exception for Japan? But its not a big deal. PS: Yes, well spotted! I saw Dangun's supposed tomb in North Korea about 15 years ago and the King-Arthur-like silliness of it all appealed to me at about the same time I joined the Fanaticus forum. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 10, 2017 19:19:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 10, 2017 20:37:17 GMT
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.
The older version does not have either II/2 Mountain Indian, II/3 Classical Indian listed as an enemy of II/19c Seleucid nor II/19d Seleucid. John D. Grainger, in his Seleucid trilogy, quotes the same.
Action:
Remove II/19c Seleucid Army (204 BC – 167 BC) from II/2 Mountain Indian Army (500 BC – 170 BC).
Remove II/19c Seleucid Army (204 BC – 167 BC) from II/3a Classical Indian Army (500 BC – 178 AD).
Remove II/2 Mountain Indian Army (500 BC – 170 BC) from II/19d Seleucid Army (166 BC – 64 BC).
Remove II/3a Classical Indian Army (500 BC – 178 AD) from II/19d Seleucid Army (166 BC – 64 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 10, 2017 20:38:00 GMT
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.)
Agree.
Action:
None required.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 10, 2017 20:39:33 GMT
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.)
The end date for Italiot and Siciliot armies under the old version was 235 BC. The end date was revised but the removal of the Italiot and Siciliot did not take place.
Action:
Remove II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) from II/5g Italiot Army (448 BC – 280 BC).
Remove II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) from II/5h Siciliot Army (448 BC – 280 BC).
Remove II/5g Italiot Army (448 BC – 280 BC) from II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC).
Remove II/5h Siciliot Army (448 BC – 280 BC) from II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 10, 2017 20:40:37 GMT
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.)
Another error carried over from the old to new version.
Action:
Remove II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) from II/8b Campanian Army (420 BC – 340 BC).
Remove II/8b Campanian Army (420 BC – 340 BC) from II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 10, 2017 20:41:33 GMT
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 Syracusan in 307 BC.
The same also probably applies to the Early Carthaginians of army list I/61b)
The book reference is on page 39 of the new edition. The passage further describes the Numidians on both sides bolting leaving the Greeks and Carthaginians to fight it out. As mercenaries, the Numidians do show up on the Carthaginian list of troops, but not on the Syracusan in Africa.
Strange as it may seem, the Numidian do appear as allies in the older version but not on the Carthaginian list, presumably because they were then an option on that list. To leave the list as is would give historical scenario designers an opportunity to repeat their performance of 307 BC.
Action:
Anyone have further information?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 10, 2017 21:31:18 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
The items in blue should be changed as noted.
The Sarmatian of this period are found scattered across the Roman and Parthian/Sassanid frontier; from the north of the Caucasus and Black Sea, along the eastern boundary of the empire and north of the upper Danube.
They are frequently allied with the Quadi who did invade the western provinces including northern Italy.
You may add the Sarmatian to the eastern list as they are allies of the Carpi. Reference, Herwig. Wolfram, History of the Goths (the campaign of King Cniva 251 AD).
Action:
Leave II/26 Later Sarmatian as enemy of II/64a Western Roman Army (193 AD – 324 AD) .
Add II/26 Later Sarmatian as enemy of II/64b Eastern Roman Army (193 AD – 324 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Apr 11, 2017 1:19:21 GMT
Well, I’ve been doing some research into early Korean-Japanese history...and what a minefield it is, with lots of historical reinterpretations and the pushing of nationalistic causes. I could spend the next 5 years of my life studying this fascinating period...and the first couple of years would be taken up with just sorting out those sources with a modern day political agenda! Having barely skimmed the surface, the more I read the more I am coming to the conclusion that the DBA 3.0 army lists are more or less correct in their findings. Its even more fun when you go deeper. There is no significant Japanese writing of any kind until well after the Kofun list (6th Century) - no engravings, no artwork, no parchment, nothing - let alone on topic. There is no Japanese or Korean literary histories until about 800AD, and they reduce to competing nationalistic fantasies for everything before about 400CE. So you have no sources for your lists or even your battles. What is the point of having army lists, for periods where we can not identify a single historical battle? or even a pattern of conflict? All you have is a significant change in grave goods in the middle of the 4th century - that's about it. The Yayoi list is uniquely silly and the Kofun list is largely fantasy. So I am not sure what you mean by "more or less correct"? > (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.) Your earlier comparison with Republican Romans is not fair at all, (to the Romans) because we know SO MUCH MORE about when the Republican Romans fought, who they fought, how they fought, who led them, what they fought with etc etc from both literary histories and archaeology. Actually I am being overly polite - the comparison is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 11, 2017 6:22:34 GMT
(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.) Your earlier comparison with Republican Romans is not fair at all, (to the Romans) because we know SO MUCH MORE about when the Republican Romans fought, who they fought, how they fought, who led them, what they fought with etc etc from both literary histories and archaeology. Actually I am being overly polite - the comparison is ridiculous.
Ha...I’ll give you that one, I was being a bit facetious. 
As for the I/64a Yayoi list...yes, perhaps some of it is fantasy, but it is not unique... take a look at the I/14 European Bronze Age armies, the I/7 Early Libyan armies, the I/10 Pre-Vedic Indian army, in fact most of the armies of Book 1 that cover periods where there are no actual written records are pure conjecture. This is inevitable without hard historical proof.
But as I said before, ‘human beings do have a habit of fighting each other’.
So unless the Yayoi period was an exceptional time where humans actually lived in perfect harmony, they fought.
How they fought...ah, that is a different matter, and something that I with my very limited knowledge am unable to answer.
Some scholars of this period say one thing, and other scholars say the complete opposite.
It all depends upon who you read...and who you believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 11, 2017 11:02:05 GMT
Dangun…I’ve been thinking…
If, purely by chance, I have been skimming through the same books as Phil Barker and the person who drew up the army lists, then perhaps it is no surprise that the early Koreans and Japanese look about right.
If, purely by chance, you have been looking at other books by different scholars, then perhaps it is no surprise that the lists for the early Koreans and Japanese look wrong.
Just a thought…
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 11, 2017 14:07:31 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.
The differing 'home' terrain was merely a thought. Players who wish to design their own historical scenarios will no doubt find exceptions to them, such as the Gothic seaborne raids of the 3rd century.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 11, 2017 15:11:58 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.
I have no doubt the test committee and army list contributors presented similar detailed proposals yet adding them would have increased the size of a ‘simple set’ of rules with army lists. And if I recall correctly, Phil was firmly set on a particular size and format for this revision.
Fortunately, by using the DBA Fanaticus Wiki we do not have such publishing constraints with regard to space limitation or a publishing deadline. Further, new archeological discoveries and translated documents will generate new changes to be made at a later date.
What you have listed above is very useful. I would however like to move through the four books and ‘weed’ out errors carried over from the old version, anomalies created by additional sub-lists and changed dates.
That would create a good foundation for a second phase and new participants to bring additional detail such as you presented above.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 11, 2017 16:27:05 GMT
...well, he said quite a lot really...far too much to squeeze in here...
What you have listed above is very useful. I would however like to move through the four books and ‘weed’ out errors carried over from the old version, anomalies created by additional sub-lists and changed dates.
That would create a good foundation for a second phase and new participants to bring additional detail such as you presented above.
Ha! I knew nobody would like it. But you are right…it is a lot of effort for just a short 3 or 4 year period. I think that we still need to keep the II/18f Queen Olympias bit, as her date doesn’t match II/16a. As for the rest, I’ll drop the lot, including the II/20a Ptolemy date change. (Once all four books have been completely checked perhaps all this can be released separately as an optional appendix add-on or as a set of house rules…just for the reality obsessed knit picking die-hards like me.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 11, 2017 16:32:13 GMT
What you have listed above is very useful. I would however like to move through the four books and ‘weed’ out errors carried over from the old version, anomalies created by additional sub-lists and changed dates.
That would create a good foundation for a second phase and new participants to bring additional detail such as you presented above.
Ha! I knew nobody would like it. But you are right…it is a lot of effort for just a short 3 or 4 year period. I think that we still need to keep the II/18f Queen Olympias bit, as her date doesn’t match II/16a. As for the rest, I’ll drop the lot, including the II/20a Ptolemy date change. (Once all four books have been completely checked perhaps all this can be released separately as an optional appendix add-on or as a set of house rules…just for the reality obsessed knit picking die-hards like me. )Two thumbs up.
Not to worry as I have similar input for an optional appendix.
|
|
)