|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 11, 2017 22:33:34 GMT
More Book 2 errors:-II/28c Armenian Army (245 AD – 627 AD) remove II/69a Sassanid Persian Army (220 AD – 224 AD)
II/69a Sassanid Persian Army (220 AD – 224 AD) remove II/28c Armenian Army (245 AD – 627 AD)(Although II/28c and II/69a are listed as mutual enemies, the dates don’t match.) II/29 Tien & K’un-Ming Chinese (295 BC – 45 AD) change II/4d to II/4e Other Chinese Armies (355 BC - 202 BC)
II/4e Other Chinese Armies (355 BC - 202 BC) add II/29 Tien & K’un-Ming Chinese (295 BC – 45 AD)(The dates for II/29 and II/4d don’t match...but the dates for II/29 and II/4e do match. I think this has been mentioned before, but I’ll post it again just to be sure.) II/30a Galatian Army (280 BC -274 BC) remove II/5d Thessalian Army (448 BC – 320 BC)
II/5d Thessalian Army (448 BC – 320 BC) remove II/30a Galatian Army (280 BC -274 BC)(Although II/30a and II/5d are listed as mutual enemies, the dates don’t match. The cities of Thessaly were annexed after the Lamian War of 323 – 322 BC (yep, that again!) and had been a part of Macedonia for some 40 years when the Celtic Galatians invaded.) II/31a Later Carthaginian Army (275 BC – 202 BC) remove as an Ally the II/5h Siciliot Army (448 BC – 280 BC) (Remember an earlier post about II/33 Polybian Rome removing the II/5h Siciliots because of the wrong dates? Well this is the same.) The Polybian Roman war against the Cimbri is sooo obvious it doesn’t need re-mentioning...oh what the hell...II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) add II/47a Armies of the Cimbri-Teutones (113 BC – 102 BC)
II/47a Armies of the Cimbri-Teutones (113 BC – 102 BC) add II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC)II/36b Graeco-Indian Army (170 BC – 55 BC) change Ally II/3 to II/3a Classical Indian Army (500 BC – 178 AD)(Pretty obvious...it doesn’t specify which II/3 Classical Indian army can be an ally.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5 has been updated: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/603/historical-opponents?page=5&scrollTo=4419
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 12, 2017 7:12:50 GMT
II/28c Armenian Army (245 AD – 627 AD) remove II/69a Sassanid Persian Army (220 AD – 224 AD)
II/69a Sassanid Persian Army (220 AD – 224 AD) remove II/28c Armenian Army (245 AD – 627 AD)
(Although II/28c and II/69a are listed as mutual enemies, the dates don’t match.)
I have just noticed that Ardashir I has three Armenian sub-lists to chose from, but II/28b has the correct dates.
Action: Remove II/69a Sassanid Persian Army (220 AD – 224 AD) from II/28c Armenian Army (245 AD – 627 AD).
Remove II/28c Armenian Army (245 AD – 627 AD) from II/69a Sassanid Persian Army (220 AD – 224 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 12, 2017 7:13:30 GMT
II/29 Tien & K’un-Ming Chinese (295 BC – 45 AD) change II/4d to II/4e Other Chinese Armies (355 BC - 202 BC)
II/4e Other Chinese Armies (355 BC - 202 BC) add II/29 Tien & K’un-Ming Chinese (295 BC – 45 AD)
(The dates for II/29 and II/4d don’t match...but the dates for II/29 and II/4e do match.
I think this has been mentioned before, but I’ll post it again just to be sure.)
This entry was copied from the old version as it listed both II/4a and 4d. It is possible that the last entry should read 4e, but who are the ‘Other’ Chinese armies?
Action:
Anyone else have information?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 12, 2017 7:14:41 GMT
II/30a Galatian Army (280 BC -274 BC) remove II/5d Thessalian Army (448 BC – 320 BC)
II/5d Thessalian Army (448 BC – 320 BC) remove II/30a Galatian Army (280 BC -274 BC)
(Although II/30a and II/5d are listed as mutual enemies, the dates don’t match.
The cities of Thessaly were annexed after the Lamian War of 323 – 322 BC (yep, that again!) and had been a part of Macedonia for some 40 years when the Celtic Galatians invaded.)
Agree.
Action:
Remove II/5d Thessalian Army (448 BC – 320 BC) from II/30a Galatian Army (280 BC -274 BC).
Remove II/30a Galatian Army (280 BC -274 BC) from II/5d Thessalian Army (448 BC – 320 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 12, 2017 7:15:29 GMT
II/31a Later Carthaginian Army (275 BC – 202 BC) remove as an Ally the II/5h Siciliot Army (448 BC – 280 BC)
(Remember an earlier post about II/33 Polybian Rome removing the II/5h Siciliots because of the wrong dates?
Well this is the same.)
Agree.
Action:
Remove as an Ally the II/5h Siciliot Army (448 BC – 280 BC) from II/31a Later Carthaginian Army (275 BC – 202 BC)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 12, 2017 7:16:30 GMT
The Polybian Roman war against the Cimbri is sooo obvious it doesn’t need re-mentioning...oh what the hell...
II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) add II/47a Armies of the Cimbri-Teutones (113 BC – 102 BC)
II/47a Armies of the Cimbri-Teutones (113 BC – 102 BC) add II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC)
The Cimbrian War – however, one could argue this is better placed under the Marian list, which it is. The reforms for which Marius is credited with were actually well under way years earlier.
Action:
Would suggest no change needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 12, 2017 7:17:25 GMT
II/36b Graeco-Indian Army (170 BC – 55 BC) change Ally II/3 to II/3a Classical Indian Army (500 BC – 178 AD)
(Pretty obvious...it doesn’t specify which II/3 Classical Indian army can be an ally.)
Yes, the error was brought over from the old version.
Action:
Change Ally II/3 to II/3a Classical Indian Army (500 BC – 178 AD) for II/36b Graeco-Indian Army (170 BC – 55 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 12, 2017 14:12:21 GMT
The Polybian Roman war against the Cimbri is sooo obvious it doesn’t need re-mentioning...oh what the hell...
II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) add II/47a Armies of the Cimbri-Teutones (113 BC – 102 BC)
II/47a Armies of the Cimbri-Teutones (113 BC – 102 BC) add II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC)
The Cimbrian War – however, one could argue this is better placed under the Marian list, which it is. The reforms for which Marius is credited with were actually well under way years earlier.
Action:
Would suggest no change needed.
Leaving aside the fact that just about every modern academic historian including Phil Barker, as well as the ancient historians such as Plutarch, accepts the importance of Marius and his reforms, and how his new Roman army was a great improvement over the old levy system as described by Polybius and was a pivotal event in Roman military history, let us just look at practicalities.
What type of army did Consul Gnaeus Paprius Carbo lead when he was routed by the Cimbri in Noricum in 112 BC?
And Consul Marcus Junius Silanus when he lost 30,000 men fighting the Cimbri in Gallia Narbonensis in 109 BC?
And Consul Gaius Cassius Longinus Ravalla who was defeated and killed by the Cimbri at Burdigala that same year?
And Consul Lucius Cassius Longinus who was defeated and killed by the Tigurini at the battle of Aginnum in 107 BC?
And Consuls Quintus Servilius Caepio and Mallius Maximus who lost 80,000 men at the battle of Aurasio in 105 BC?
The II/33 Polybian Roman Army has an end date of 105 BC, and II/49 Marian Army doesn’t start till 105 BC.
It seems a bit odd that the Polybian Romans are suffering massive defeats from a people they are not even aware of. 
There seems to be three ways of reconciling this:-
Either a) these Roman disasters are air-brushed out of history, and we forget they ever happened,
or b) the II/49 Marian start date is moved back to 112 BC and the II/33 Polybian end date moved back to 113 BC,
(and the Marian Roman Army exists before Marius reformed it, as his first consulship was not until 107 BC)
or c) we make the II/33 Polybian Romans mutual enemies of the II/47a Cimbri-Teutones.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 12, 2017 15:42:26 GMT
The Polybian Roman war against the Cimbri is sooo obvious it doesn’t need re-mentioning...oh what the hell...
II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC) add II/47a Armies of the Cimbri-Teutones (113 BC – 102 BC)
II/47a Armies of the Cimbri-Teutones (113 BC – 102 BC) add II/33 Polybian Roman Army (275 BC – 105 BC)
The Cimbrian War – however, one could argue this is better placed under the Marian list, which it is. The reforms for which Marius is credited with were actually well under way years earlier.
Action:
Would suggest no change needed.
Leaving aside the fact that just about every modern academic historian including Phil Barker, as well as the ancient historians such as Plutarch, accepts the importance of Marius and his reforms, and how his new Roman army was a great improvement over the old levy system as described by Polybius and was a pivotal event in Roman military history, let us just look at practicalities.
What type of army did Consul Gnaeus Paprius Carbo lead when he was routed by the Cimbri in Noricum in 112 BC?
And Consul Marcus Junius Silanus when he lost 30,000 men fighting the Cimbri in Gallia Narbonensis in 109 BC?
And Consul Gaius Cassius Longinus Ravalla who was defeated and killed by the Cimbri at Burdigala that same year?
And Consul Lucius Cassius Longinus who was defeated and killed by the Tigurini at the battle of Aginnum in 107 BC?
And Consuls Quintus Servilius Caepio and Mallius Maximus who lost 80,000 men at the battle of Aurasio in 105 BC?
The II/33 Polybian Roman Army has an end date of 105 BC, and II/49 Marian Army doesn’t start till 105 BC.
It seems a bit odd that the Polybian Romans are suffering massive defeats from a people they are not even aware of.
There seems to be three ways of reconciling this:-
Either a) these Roman disasters are air-brushed out of history, and we forget they ever happened,
or b) the II/49 Marian start date is moved back to 112 BC and the II/33 Polybian end date moved back to 113 BC,
(and the Marian Roman Army exists before Marius reformed it, as his first consulship was not until 107 BC)
or c) we make the II/33 Polybian Romans mutual enemies of the II/47a Cimbri-Teutones.
We find during the Hispanic Wars of the mid 2nd century BC the term 'cohort' to be first used (Livy); at first by the Latin allies and later by the Romans.
‘A’ is not an option I would agree with.
I do not favour adjusting dates as this is Pandora’s Box, but the use of 105 BC as an end date for the Polybian list and start date for the Marian seems a subtle way to allow players the use of either army to fight the Cimbri-Teutones.
So, make the II/33 Polybian Romans mutual enemies of the II/47a Cimbri-Teutones.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 12, 2017 21:42:23 GMT
Yes, it is strange that the II/39 Ancient Spanish and the II/47a Cimbri-Teutones are listed as mutual enemies (because this German migration apparently entered Spain, even though we have no details at all about any battles, dates, or the leaders names), while the II/33 Polybian Romans and II/47a Cimbri-Teutones are not enemies (even though we have information on battlefield locations, dates, the Roman commander’s names, and the outcome of these battles). Still, it’s not the first time a major war has been erroneously forgotten by the army lists... ...the III/48 Rus conflict with the III/16 Khazars springs to mind. Anyway, here are more Book 2 errors:-II/43 Maccabean Jewish Army (168 BC – 104 BC) remove II/22b Army of Emesa (51 BC – 72 AD) II/22b Army of Emesa (51 BC – 72 AD) remove II/43 Maccabean Jewish Army (168 BC – 104 BC) II/22b Army of Emesa (51 BC – 72 AD) change the start date from 51 BC to 151 BC...? (This one is hard to work out...although listed as mutual enemies, the dates for II/43 and II/22b don’t match. But if you look carefully at the way the II/22b date is printed, it’s possible that it was supposed to be 151 BC – 72 AD. Researching into this, here is what little I have managed to discover: the Greek geographer Strabo writing in the 1st century BC says that a Bedouin tribe called the ‘Emesani’ lived around the Orontes River in southern Syria, and the city of Emesa is apparently named after them, though some scholars believe this city may have been founded by Seleucas I Nicator before 280 BC (much later it will become the city of Homs). Emesa was ruled by Azizus about 94 BC (he was the paternal grandson of Iamblichus of about 151 BC), and his priest-king son Sampsiceramus I (who died in 48 BC) was deeply involved in late Seleucid politics and was made a client-king by Pompey in 64 BC. So it is possible that the starting date for Emesa should be 151 BC, or maybe not, but either way Emesa is still too far north of Judea and I can find no mention of them being involved with the Maccabees. It is very unlikely that II/22b Emesa has been confused with II/22e Edessa (modern name Urfa), as that city is in southern Turkey and even further north.) II/46c Kushan Army (411 AD – 477 AD) remove II/69c Sassanid Persian Army (494 AD – 651 AD) (An easier one this time: II/69c does not mention II/46c, and the dates don’t match.) II/11 Gallic Army (400 BC – 50 BC) remove II/47f Suevi (9 AD – 19 AD) II/47e Marcomanni Army of Maroboduus (9 BC – 19 AD) remove II/64a Western Roman Army (193 AD – 324 AD) II/47f Suevi (9 AD – 19 AD) remove II/64a Western Roman Army (193 AD – 324 AD) II/47f Suevi (9 AD – 19 AD) remove II/11 Gallic Army (400 BC – 50 BC) II/64a Western Roman Army (193 AD – 324 AD) remove II/47e Marcomanni Army of Maroboduus (9 BC – 19 AD) II/64a Western Roman Army (193 AD – 324 AD) remove II/47f Suevi (9 AD – 19 AD) (Although listed as mutual enemies, none of the above dates match.) Page 5 has been updated: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/603/historical-opponents?page=5&scrollTo=4419 |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 12, 2017 22:13:53 GMT
Yes, it is strange that the II/39 Ancient Spanish and the II/47a Cimbri-Teutones are listed as mutual enemies (because this German migration apparently entered Spain, even though we have no details at all about any battles, dates, or the leaders names), while the II/33 Polybian Romans and II/47a Cimbri-Teutones are not enemies (even though we have information on battlefield locations, dates, the Roman commander’s names, and the outcome of these battles). Actually in 104 BC, the Cimbri did form a 'touring side' that marched through Southern Gaul and crossed the Pyrenees into Hispania. There they gave the Celtiberians a good thrashing before returning into Gaul to join the Teutones. - Livy, Book LXVII, paragraph unknown.
This was noted on my Timeline - Campaigns in Hispania 193 BC - 104 BC. dbagora.blogspot.nl/2016/05/project-rome-campaigns-in-hispania-179.html
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 12, 2017 22:26:32 GMT
Ha!...I stand corrected.
Still, the Cimbri-Teutones did play well in the 113-102 BC league against the Polybians, all away matches, until Marius knocked them out of the first division....
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 13, 2017 8:14:35 GMT
II/43 Maccabean Jewish Army (168 BC – 104 BC) remove II/22b Army of Emesa (51 BC – 72 AD)
II/22b Army of Emesa (51 BC – 72 AD) remove II/43 Maccabean Jewish Army (168 BC – 104 BC)
II/22b Army of Emesa (51 BC – 72 AD) change the start date from 51 BC to 151 BC...?
(This one is hard to work out...although listed as mutual enemies, the dates for II/43 and II/22b don’t match.
But if you look carefully at the way the II/22b date is printed, it’s possible that it was supposed to be 151 BC – 72 AD.
Researching into this, here is what little I have managed to discover: the Greek geographer Strabo writing in the 1st century BC says that a Bedouin tribe called the ‘Emesani’ lived around the Orontes River in southern Syria, and the city of Emesa is apparently named after them, though some scholars believe this city may have been founded by Seleucas I Nicator before 280 BC (much later it will become the city of Homs). Emesa was ruled by Azizus about 94 BC (he was the paternal grandson of Iamblichus of about 151 BC), and his priest-king son Sampsiceramus I (who died in 48 BC) was deeply involved in late Seleucid politics and was made a client-king by Pompey in 64 BC.
So it is possible that the starting date for Emesa should be 151 BC, or maybe not, but either way Emesa is still too far north of Judea and I can find no mention of them being involved with the Maccabees. It is very unlikely that II/22b Emesa has been confused with II/22e Edessa (modern name Urfa), as that city is in southern Turkey and even further north.)
These two appear as mutual enemies in the old version so may be an error carried over.
From ‘The Arabs in Antiquity’ by Jan Retso (Excursus: Emesa), the town of Emesa plays an important role in Syrian politics after the defeat of Tigranes (60 BC). Prior to this date, Emesa is nothing more than an insignificant village. Iamblichus is the first of the Emesenians to receive recognition as phylarchus Arabum by Cicero in 51 BC.
Action:
Remove II/22b Army of Emesa (51 BC – 72 AD) from II/43 Maccabean Jewish Army (168 BC – 104 BC).
Remove II/43 Maccabean Jewish Army (168 BC – 104 BC) from II/22b Army of Emesa (51 BC – 72 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 13, 2017 8:15:13 GMT
II/46c Kushan Army (411 AD – 477 AD) remove II/69c Sassanid Persian Army (494 AD – 651 AD)
(An easier one this time: II/69c does not mention II/46c, and the dates don’t match.)
Agree.
Action:
Remove II/69c Sassanid Persian Army (494 AD – 651 AD) from II/46c Kushan Army (411 AD – 477 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 13, 2017 8:16:11 GMT
II/11 Gallic Army (400 BC – 50 BC) remove II/47f Suevi (9 AD – 19 AD)
II/47f Suevi (9 AD – 19 AD) remove II/11 Gallic Army (400 BC – 50 BC)
Agree.
Action:
Remove II/47f Suevi (9 AD – 19 AD) from II/11 Gallic Army (400 BC – 50 BC).
Remove II/11 Gallic Army (400 BC – 50 BC) from II/47f Suevi (9 AD – 19 AD).
|
|
