|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 18, 2017 6:12:58 GMT
II/83a Later Visigothic Army (419 AD – 621 AD) add II/82b Eastern Patrician Romans (408 AD – 493 AD)
(Army II/82b lists II/83a as an enemy, but II/83a doesn’t mention II/82b)
This seem unlikely as the Visigoths were ‘federate’ of Western Rome under Honorius. Even during the campaigns of Aetius against Theodoric we don’t find Rome of the East involved in Gaul. Of major concern for the east were the Vandals in Africa for which Basiliscus commanded the navy and Heraclius the land operations.
II/83a was the old number listed for the Western Patrician Roman and they now became II/82a.
Action:
Delete II/83a Later Visigothic Army (419 AD – 621 AD) from II/82b Eastern Patrician Romans (408 AD – 493 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 18, 2017 6:13:46 GMT
III/1c Southern Slavs (476 AD – 896 AD) add II/82b Eastern Patrician Romans (408 AD – 493 AD)
(Army II/82b lists III/1c as an enemy, but III/1c doesn’t mention II/82b)
Related to the previous problem of incorrect list number.
Action:
Change II/83b to II/82b Eastern Patrician Romans (408 AD – 493 AD) for III/1c Southern Slavs (476 AD – 896 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 18, 2017 20:59:53 GMT
Page 5 has been updated: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/603/historical-opponents?page=5&scrollTo=4419-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As it will take me a couple of days to go through the first dozen or so of the Book III armies in order to find enough errors to make posting worthwhile, I wonder if this would be a good time to have another look at some of the previously discussed green entries and see if any of these can be finalized and turned black:- I/7d Early Libyan Army (475 BC – 70 AD) add I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC)?
I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC) add I/7d Early Libyan Army (475 BC – 70 AD)?(I’m still convinced that this is an omission error caused by the expansion of the I/7 sub-lists...but I could be wrong.) I/31b Later Aramaean Army (900 BC – 710 BC) add I/21b Later Babylonian Army (889 BC – 747 BC)?(If you remember, I only proposed this because I/21b cannot have I/6c as an enemy because the dates don’t match. So I thought that I/6c would have evolved into I/31b, and these would be the enemy instead. But if the I/31 Aramaeans were under the Assyrian thumb, then perhaps I/21b should remove I/6c altogether.) I/36c Sicel Army (480 BC – 380 BC) change Ally I/61b to I/61a Early Carthaginian Army (550 BC – 341 BC)?(Army I/36c says the Sicels had Carthaginian allies...but gives them the wrong dated allies of I/61b. I think the Sicels should have Carthaginian allies...but the right Carthaginian allies of I/61a. The alternative is that the I/36c Sicels never have Carthaginian allies, all because of the I/61 sub-list expansion error?) II/4e Other Chinese Armies (355 BC - 202 BC) add II/29 Tien & K’un-Ming Chinese (295 BC – 45 AD)?
II/29 Tien & K’un-Ming Chinese (295 BC – 45 AD) change II/4d to II/4e Other Chinese Armies (355 BC - 202 BC)?(I can’t remember what the problem was with these two. We can’t leave them as they are because of the dates.) II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian Army (359 BC – 319 BC) remove I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC)?
I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC) remove II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian Army (359 BC – 319 BC)?(I’ve changed my mind about these two...we should leave them as mutual enemies. True, neither Alex nor his dad ever campaigned in Cyrenaica, but if army II/12 represents Philip 359-336 BC, Alexander 336-323 BC, Antipater 342-321 BC, and all Alexander’s lieutenants, governors, newly appointed satraps, and other minions, then it also represents Ptolemy until his own army starts in 320 BC, and he annexed Cyrene in 322 BC. So let him use army II/12 to do it.) II/60 Caledonian Army (75 AD – 211 AD) add II/60 Caledonian Army (75 AD – 211 AD)?
II/67b Other Early Ostrogoths, etc (200 AD – 493 AD) add II/67b Other Early Ostrogoths, etc (200 AD – 493 AD)?(I’m not really sure about these...perhaps the following motto will help: ”If in doubt, leave them out!”  ) II/68b Pictish Army (211 AD – 842 AD) add II/68b Pictish Army (211 AD – 842 AD)?
II/81c British Armies (471 AD – 580 AD) add II/81c British Armies (471 AD – 580 AD)?(Ah, but I am pretty sure about these two. The armies both before and after the Picts of II/68b, such as II/68a and III/45, have themselves listed as mutual enemies. And the armies both before and after the British of II/81c, such as II/81a and III/19, have themselves listed as mutual enemies. It very much looks like this is an omission caused by these sub-list expansions...especially in the case of the II/81c British, who thought they should still be fighting Vortigern’s army of II/81b (wrong dates) and forgot they were supposed to be fighting the II/54a Scots-Irish! (not mentioned).) II/68b Pictish Army (500 AD – 842 AD) remove III/40b Viking Army (850 – 1280 AD)?
II/80d Other Hunnic Armies (374 AD - 558 AD) remove II/83a Later Visigothic Army(419 AD - 621 AD)?
II/82a Western Patrician Romans (408 AD – 493 AD) add III/2 Early Lombard Army (489 AD - 584 AD)?(I’m not sure why these are still green.)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2017 7:03:21 GMT
I/7d Early Libyan Army (475 BC – 70 AD) add I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC)?
I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC) add I/7d Early Libyan Army (475 BC – 70 AD)?
(I’m still convinced that this is an omission error caused by the expansion of the I/7 sub-lists...but I could be wrong.)
Yes. The dates were changed for both I/7c and I/7d such that the I/56a Early Kyrenean overlap both revised sub-lists.
Action:
Add I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC) to I/7d Early Libyan Army (475 BC – 70 AD).
Add I/7d Early Libyan Army (475 BC – 70 AD) to I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2017 7:04:22 GMT
I/31b Later Aramaean Army (900 BC – 710 BC) add I/21b Later Babylonian Army (889 BC – 747 BC)?
(If you remember, I only proposed this because I/21b cannot have I/6c as an enemy because the dates don’t match.
So I thought that I/6c would have evolved into I/31b, and these would be the enemy instead.
But if the I/31 Aramaeans were under the Assyrian thumb, then perhaps I/21b should remove I/6c altogether.)
Looking back at the original problem between I/21b and I/6c the error was a result of the revision of sub-list dating and I/6b was the correct enemy. No need to add Later Aramean to I/21b Later Babylonian.
Action:
Remove I/6c Early Aramean Army 2000 – 1101 BC from I/21b Later Babylonian Army (889 BC – 747 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2017 7:05:01 GMT
I/36c Sicel Army (480 BC – 380 BC) change Ally I/61b to I/61a Early Carthaginian Army (550 BC – 341 BC)?
(Army I/36c says the Sicels had Carthaginian allies...but gives them the wrong dated allies of I/61b.
I think the Sicels should have Carthaginian allies...but the right Carthaginian allies of I/61a.
The alternative is that the I/36c Sicels never have Carthaginian allies, all because of the I/61 sub-list expansion error?)
Yes, the Sicilian Wars.
Action:
Change Ally I/61b to I/61a Early Carthaginian Army (550 BC – 341 BC) for I/36c Sicel Army (480 BC – 380 BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2017 7:05:57 GMT
II/4e Other Chinese Armies (355 BC - 202 BC) add II/29 Tien & K’un-Ming Chinese (295 BC – 45 AD)?
II/29 Tien & K’un-Ming Chinese (295 BC – 45 AD) change II/4d to II/4e Other Chinese Armies (355 BC - 202 BC)?
(I can’t remember what the problem was with these two. We can’t leave them as they are because of the dates.)
I believe it was a related to their geographical location and that is why I posed the question who are the ‘other Chinese armies’? I would leave this for our Sino enthusiast on the forum. (perhaps Macbeth, Dangun?)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2017 7:06:46 GMT
II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian Army (359 BC – 319 BC) remove I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC)?
I/56a Early Kyrenean Army (630 BC – 314 BC) remove II/12 Alexandrian Macedonian Army (359 BC – 319 BC)?
(I’ve changed my mind about these two...we should leave them as mutual enemies.
True, neither Alex nor his dad ever campaigned in Cyrenaica, but if army II/12 represents Philip 359-336 BC, Alexander 336-323 BC, Antipater 342-321 BC, and all Alexander’s lieutenants, governors, newly appointed satraps, and other minions, then it also represents Ptolemy until his own army starts in 320 BC, and he annexed Cyrene in 322 BC. So let him use army II/12 to do it.)
Agree.
Action:
Leave as stated in the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2017 7:07:47 GMT
II/60 Caledonian Army (75 AD – 211 AD) add II/60 Caledonian Army (75 AD – 211 AD)?
II/67b Other Early Ostrogoth, etc (200 AD – 493 AD) add II/67b Other Early Ostrogoth, etc (200 AD – 493 AD)?
(I’m not really sure about these...perhaps the following motto will help: ”If in doubt, leave them out!” )
There might be a stronger case for dynastic rivalry between the Amali and Balti Goths, but I would not add either as mutual enemies of themselves.
Action:
Do not add.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2017 7:08:51 GMT
II/68b Pictish Army (211 AD – 842 AD) add II/68b Pictish Army (211 AD – 842 AD)?
II/81c British Armies (471 AD – 580 AD) add II/81c British Armies (471 AD – 580 AD)?
(Ah, but I am pretty sure about these two. The armies both before and after the Picts of II/68b, such as II/68a and III/45, have themselves listed as mutual enemies. And the armies both before and after the British of II/81c, such as II/81a and III/19, have themselves listed as mutual enemies. It very much looks like this is an omission caused by these sub-list expansions...especially in the case of the II/81c British, who thought they should still be fighting Vortigern’s army of II/81b (wrong dates) and forgot they were supposed to be fighting the II/54a Scots-Irish! (not mentioned).)
Agree.
Action:
Add II/68b Pictish Army (211 AD – 842 AD) to II/68b Pictish Army (211 AD – 842 AD).
Add II/81c British Armies (471 AD – 580 AD) to II/81c British Armies (471 AD – 580 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2017 7:09:48 GMT
II/68b Pictish Army (500 AD – 842 AD) remove III/40b Viking Army (850 – 1280 AD)?
Non-corresponding dates. Action:
Remove III/40b Viking Army (850 – 1280 AD) from II/68b Pictish Army (500 AD – 842 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2017 7:10:47 GMT
II/80d Other Hunnic Armies (374 AD - 558 AD) remove II/83a Later Visigothic Army(419 AD - 621 AD)?
You are overlooking campaigns of Aetius.
He did employ the Huns to deal with Theodoric.
Action:
Do not remove.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2017 7:11:57 GMT
II/82a Western Patrician Romans (408 AD – 493 AD) add III/2 Early Lombard Army (489 AD - 584 AD)?
(I’m not sure why these are still green.)
This seems unlikely as Odovacar (last patrician) fought and defeated the Rugii in his last campaign (487 AD). The vacated territories of Rugiland (Hungarian plain) were then occupied by the Lombard around 493 (Paul the Deacon – Historia Langobardorum, p.33).
Action:
Do not add.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2017 7:17:15 GMT
‘As it will take me a couple of days to go through the first dozen or so of the Book III armies in order to find enough errors to make posting worthwhile, I wonder if this would be a good time to have another look at some of the previously discussed green entries and see if any of these can be finalized and turned black:-‘No need to rush. I have new terrain projects to keep me busy also I am writing a scenario for next week’s game. And I am off to Antwerp this weekend to enjoy life. 
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2017 9:55:40 GMT
Page 5 has been updated: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/603/historical-opponents?page=5&scrollTo=4419No need to rush. I have new terrain projects to keep me busy also I am writing a scenario for next week’s game. And I am off to Antwerp this weekend to enjoy life. Ah! I too have been to Antwerp. If you look closely you can still see the outline of my face on some of the windows.... ‘Meevaller. Veel succes!’
|
|
)