|
|
Post by Dangun on May 12, 2017 1:18:58 GMT
If one wants something with more alignment with the sources, one needs to do a lot of research and design armies for specific battles or campaigns.... What is important, however, is: The RULES are good. And they work. The rules are more important. But presently, there is no mechanism whereby the lists can ever be improved, even if glaring historical problems are pointed out. It is likely that the classical period European lists are much more difficult to improve, because there is so much literature available and the lists were probably written by historians who play wargames. The further you get from the classical period, and the further you get from Europe, the lists are much easier to improve because there is so much less literature available in English, there are no historians who play wargames, and the sources so much more obscure. |
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 15, 2017 5:01:38 GMT
The problem with any history, and I include up to WW2 and probably now, is that no source is reliable.
I have a good laugh when I watch historical programs (not films) on WW2, you watch 1943 Tiger tanks in Russia moving through France in 1940, film clips supplied by organizations that should know better.
Your sources are unreliable at best, and should be treated as such.
DBA3 needs a single reliable source that people can go to, that interprets the rules "as written", and where unintended consequences occur, gives a ruling accordingly. For example artillery closing the door from an overlap, it is not permitted to move into contact, however an overlap is in corner to corner contact, so closing the door on the flank is not moving into contact (it already is in contact) and maintains the overlap situation. This should not be allowed, it goes against the intention of the rules, but not the word.
If the situation is not sorted out, further fragmentation will occur.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 15, 2017 17:36:58 GMT
You do have a source. Two actually. Those sources are Tom Thomas and the DBA FAQ. Both have been endorsed by Phil and Sue. The FAQ team is composed of folks from the DBA3 play test team and a few other players. On occasion Phil and Sue have contributed. The FAQ team works on the basis of consensus. Everyone must agree on a new answer. Phil appointed Tom as the head decision maker for the US tournament scene. Joe Collins The problem with any history, and I include up to WW2 and probably now, is that no source is reliable. I have a good laugh when I watch historical programs (not films) on WW2, you watch 1943 Tiger tanks in Russia moving through France in 1940, film clips supplied by organizations that should know better. Your sources are unreliable at best, and should be treated as such. DBA3 needs a single reliable source that people can go to, that interprets the rules "as written", and where unintended consequences occur, gives a ruling accordingly. For example artillery closing the door from an overlap, it is not permitted to move into contact, however an overlap is in corner to corner contact, so closing the door on the flank is not moving into contact (it already is in contact) and maintains the overlap situation. This should not be allowed, it goes against the intention of the rules, but not the word. If the situation is not sorted out, further fragmentation will occur. David Constable |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 19, 2017 8:52:45 GMT
But presently, there is no mechanism whereby the lists can ever be improved, even if glaring historical problems are pointed out. I would think there is: Write your own list and use that. Outside of tournaments, I see zero problem. And tournaments need fixed and stable rules and lists. The experience with frequent rules changes and even more frequent list changes in other rules are quite agonizing. I have quit playing a game that I liked a lot because of increasingly unwieldy errata. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 22, 2017 20:02:49 GMT
Hi guys I may have another list query for you?...List I/22a New Kingdom Egyptian 1543-1200 BC does not have list I/28 Sea Peoples 1208-1176 BC as an enemy? Ramases II made a big deal of bragging about defeating Sherden (around 1278 BC) and incorporating the prisoners into his personal Guard and also let us know they fought in his army at Kadesh (1274 BC).
The Sea Peoples list does not list the I/22a as an enemy either.
Firstly, is the start date of the Sea Peoples list a typing error and should be 1278 BC?
Secondly,should these two lists be mutual enemies or is a preceeding list that I have overlooked that the Sherden belong to?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 23, 2017 6:27:41 GMT
Hi guys I may have another list query for you?...List I/22a New Kingdom Egyptian 1543-1200 BC does not have list I/28 Sea Peoples 1208-1176 BC as an enemy? Ramases II made a big deal of bragging about defeating Sherden (around 1278 BC) and incorporating the prisoners into his personal Guard and also let us know they fought in his army at Kadesh (1274 BC). The Sea Peoples list does not list the I/22a as an enemy either. Firstly, is the start date of the Sea Peoples list a typing error and should be 1278 BC? Secondly,should these two lists be mutual enemies or is a preceeding list that I have overlooked that the Sherden belong to? Haardrada,
Looking at DBA 2.2 and 3.0, both list the Sea Peoples (Sherden) as an enemy appearing in the ‘b’ sub-list of the New Kingdom Egyptian 1199 BC – 1089 BC, which is consistent.
I believe you are referencing the Wikipedia article on the ‘Sherden pirates, whom he (Ramesses II) defeated in a sea battle and subsequently incorporated into his own army’. The source for the reference comes from Grimal, N. “The History of Ancient Egypt” pp. 250 – 253 and is one sentence long with photos appearing on p. 251 and 252.
Grimal continues, ‘his real offensive only began in the fourth year of his reign, with the first campaign in Syria’, the Sherden are no longer mentioned.
After Ramesses II, we find similar references of Sherden incursion and similar victories on funereal reliefs of subsequent Pharaohs. Where the Sherden originated from is still in dispute, but the massive invasion by the Sea Peoples and settlements on Egyptian soil is clear and all take place in the period of Ramesses III (‘b’ sub-list).
I much prefer Jeffery Emmanuel’s (Harvard University) assessment as presented in his paper to the American Research Center in Egypt (2012). Titled:"Srdn of the Stronghold, Srdn of the Sea: The Sherden in Egyptian Society, Reassessed".
www.academia.edu/1716293/%C5%A0rdn_of_the_Strongholds_%C5%A0rdn_of_the_Sea_The_Sherden_in_Egyptian_Society_Reassessed
Have a read and let me know what you think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 23, 2017 8:15:52 GMT
Hi guys I may have another list query for you?...List I/22a New Kingdom Egyptian 1543-1200 BC does not have list I/28 Sea Peoples 1208-1176 BC as an enemy? Ramases II made a big deal of bragging about defeating Sherden (around 1278 BC) and incorporating the prisoners into his personal Guard and also let us know they fought in his army at Kadesh (1274 BC). The Sea Peoples list does not list the I/22a as an enemy either. Firstly, is the start date of the Sea Peoples list a typing error and should be 1278 BC? Secondly,should these two lists be mutual enemies or is a preceeding list that I have overlooked that the Sherden belong to? Haardrada,
Looking at DBA 2.2 and 3.0, both list the Sea Peoples (Sherden) as an enemy appearing in the ‘b’ sub-list of the New Kingdom Egyptian 1199 BC – 1089 BC, which is consistent.
I believe you are referencing the Wikipedia article on the ‘Sherden pirates, whom he (Ramesses II) defeated in a sea battle and subsequently incorporated into his own army’. The source for the reference comes from Grimal, N. “The History of Ancient Egypt” pp. 250 – 253 and is one sentence long with photos appearing on p. 251 and 252.
Grimal continues, ‘his real offensive only began in the fourth year of his reign, with the first campaign in Syria’, the Sherden are no longer mentioned.
After Ramesses II, we find similar references of Sherden incursion and similar victories on funereal reliefs of subsequent Pharaohs. Where the Sherden originated from is still in dispute, but the massive invasion by the Sea Peoples and settlements on Egyptian soil is clear and all take place in the period of Ramesses III (‘b’ sub-list).
I much prefer Jeffery Emmanuel’s (Harvard University) assessment as presented in his paper to the American Research Center in Egypt (2012). Titled:"Srdn of the Stronghold, Srdn of the Sea: The Sherden in Egyptian Society, Reassessed".
www.academia.edu/1716293/%C5%A0rdn_of_the_Strongholds_%C5%A0rdn_of_the_Sea_The_Sherden_in_Egyptian_Society_Reassessed
Have a read and let me know what you think.
Thank you for that reference Robert it is interesting reading.It is really frustrating piecing together even the mildest understanding of where the Sea Peoples come from as several sources are mearly speculative with poor evidential support. I did start with the wikipedia offering but started checking the sources and followed a few paths of my own as the origins and assumptions of the Sea Peoples are too varied,vague and are often disputed due to lack of evidence.The Historum History site also has a currently running topic about the Sea People on it's Ancient History forum which is quite informative and is "discussing" most possibilities with input from authors and archeological evidence to support the theories. I have found the diversity of the Sea peoples to be such that I have started to look at each people individually to try and understand a bit about their background.The Peleset are argued to have originated from the Aegean/Cyprus area and to have been settled in Caanan after their defeat by Rameses III and to have become the Philistines which is disputed. The Sherden however are not that easy to work out.Name references point to Sardis as a point of origin but no evidence supports this,nor is their evidence to support any of the theories where they came from.But when looking for such evidence it is clear these guys were moving around before the 1208 BC date. I think the 1208BC start date for the Sea peoples is due to the reference to the defeat of the Libyan-Sea People defeat ate the Battle of Perire where thousands of the Sea peoples were taken prisoner. However,Rameses II had placed several garrisons in order to entrap the the Sea Peoples as attested by his victory over them in 1278BC.Further to this the Amarna letters dated mid-13th century attested to Sherden mercenaries hired by an Egyptian vassel at Byblos.Further mention is of their raiding activities. So evidently these guys were active well before the supposed start date of the list. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 23, 2017 8:48:20 GMT
Haardrada,
Looking at DBA 2.2 and 3.0, both list the Sea Peoples (Sherden) as an enemy appearing in the ‘b’ sub-list of the New Kingdom Egyptian 1199 BC – 1089 BC, which is consistent.
I believe you are referencing the Wikipedia article on the ‘Sherden pirates, whom he (Ramesses II) defeated in a sea battle and subsequently incorporated into his own army’. The source for the reference comes from Grimal, N. “The History of Ancient Egypt” pp. 250 – 253 and is one sentence long with photos appearing on p. 251 and 252.
Grimal continues, ‘his real offensive only began in the fourth year of his reign, with the first campaign in Syria’, the Sherden are no longer mentioned.
After Ramesses II, we find similar references of Sherden incursion and similar victories on funereal reliefs of subsequent Pharaohs. Where the Sherden originated from is still in dispute, but the massive invasion by the Sea Peoples and settlements on Egyptian soil is clear and all take place in the period of Ramesses III (‘b’ sub-list).
I much prefer Jeffery Emmanuel’s (Harvard University) assessment as presented in his paper to the American Research Center in Egypt (2012). Titled:"Srdn of the Stronghold, Srdn of the Sea: The Sherden in Egyptian Society, Reassessed".
www.academia.edu/1716293/%C5%A0rdn_of_the_Strongholds_%C5%A0rdn_of_the_Sea_The_Sherden_in_Egyptian_Society_Reassessed
Have a read and let me know what you think.
Thank you for that reference Robert it is interesting reading.It is really frustrating piecing together even the mildest understanding of where the Sea Peoples come from as several sources are mearly speculative with poor evidential support. I did start with the wikipedia offering but started checking the sources and followed a few paths of my own as the origins and assumptions of the Sea Peoples are too varied,vague and are often disputed due to lack of evidence.The Historum History site also has a currently running topic about the Sea People on it's Ancient History forum which is quite informative and is "discussing" most possibilities with input from authors and archeological evidence to support the theories. I have found the diversity of the Sea peoples to be such that I have started to look at each people individually to try and understand a bit about their background.The Peleset are argued to have originated from the Aegean/Cyprus area and to have been settled in Caanan after their defeat by Rameses III and to have become the Philistines which is disputed. The Sherden however are not that easy to work out.Name references point to Sardis as a point of origin but no evidence supports this,nor is their evidence to support any of the theories where they came from.But when looking for such evidence it is clear these guys were moving around before the 1208 BC date. I think the 1208BC start date for the Sea peoples is due to the reference to the defeat of the Libyan-Sea People defeat ate the Battle of Perire where thousands of the Sea peoples were taken prisoner. However,Rameses II had placed several garrisons in order to entrap the the Sea Peoples as attested by his victory over them in 1278BC.Further to this the Amarna letters dated mid-13th century attested to Sherden mercenaries hired by an Egyptian vassel at Byblos.Further mention is of their raiding activities. So evidently these guys were active well before the supposed start date of the list. Haardrada,
After reading Jeffery Emmanuel’s presentation I could imagine the Sherden were in the service of another yet unnamed nation, launched their attack on Egypt and like the Swiss of a much later era, simply change employers. The fact that they were recruited into Pharaoh’s guard says they were an established fighting force. Further, there is no mention in any sources of a culture, people or cities other than the strongholds they occupied from which they launched their attacks; all that would come later during the period of Ramesses III.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 23, 2017 9:51:32 GMT
I know frustrating isn't it? Lol
There are a few theories offered suggesting they were a fighting class rather than a defined people.They are referred to as being hard to fight and a possible counter for chariot troops may be barking up the right tree as they seemed prized for their fighting quality.They may have been no more than pirates and mercenaries initially, much like the Normans,Franks,Bretons and others described collectively as "Normans" when first arriving in Italy.
The destinctive armour (of the Peleset and Sherden) and swords (identified as the Naue II claimed to have originated from the Balklands) add to the enigma of their identity.
I myself have considered the Sea peoples could have been a gathering of army-sized groups of un-employed mercenaries after the treaty and long period of peace between Egypt and the Hittite empire much like in France during the Hundred Years War.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 24, 2017 11:08:00 GMT
I might have missed this, so sorry if I have.
Romans verses Gaul's at Allia 390/387/386BC, the Romans should use list I/59, not II/10, the lists assume this battle uses II/10.
I have always been told the change in army style resulted from the defeat at Allia, so the change date needs to be 385BC? I have not checked what happens with other opponents of II/10.
David Constable |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 25, 2017 11:41:40 GMT
HaardradaThere is also the question of dating ancient Egyptian events. There are several different dating versions used by various modern historians. In the Old Kingdom the dates could be out by several centuries depending upon who you read, although the variation is only a couple of decades by the New Kingdom period. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David ConstableThe question of exactly when the I/59 Tullian Romans becomes the II/10 Camillian Romans is a tricky one. Historical Events: 406 BC: begining of the 10 year war with the Etruscan city of Veii. 401 BC: Marcus Furius Camillus appointed as ‘Consular Tribune’ (an early name for the later ‘Consuls’). 398 BC: Camillus defeats the Falerii and Capena, allies of Veii. 396 BC: Camillus named ‘Dictator’, destroys the city of Veii, celebrates a triumph and then retires. 390? or 387? BC: the Gauls defeat the Romans at the Battle of Allia and sack Rome. 387?BC: Camillus is again named ‘Dictator’ and defeats the Gauls. 386?BC: Camillus defeats the Volsci and Aequi ‘Italian Hill Tribes’. Dates are a little vague after 390 BC, but basically Camillius was in charge in 400 BC and the army lists assumes that was when he reformed the army. The ancient historians say that the defeat at Allia was due to the Romans using hastily raised half trained troops. The truth is that nobody knows exactly when the army was reformed. Was it in 401 BC, and that is what led to Camillus’ victories over the Etruscans and their allies? Or was it in 387 BC, when Camillus as an old man comes out of retirement to defeat the Gauls after the sack of Rome? Or was the ‘reform’ merely a gradual thing that happened over several decades, both before and after 400 BC? One guess is as good as another. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To one and all
I do apologise for being so quiet and not quite finishing the “Army List Corrections”. The usual excuse…I’ve been a bit busy of late. I’m hoping to get it all done this weekend, what with it being a Bank Holiday. Things still to do:- Reform each line to make them shorter (half done). Add a one-word explanation for the change at the end of each line (mostly ‘dates’ and ‘non-mutual’…half done). Add footnotes describing the reason for some of the more obscure changes (i.e. geographical/historical changes). And create two appendixes (one for Early Rome and one for the 1st Diadochian War). Nearly done…just a few more days…hopefully… 
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 25, 2017 18:34:05 GMT
HaardradaThere is also the question of dating ancient Egyptian events. There are several different dating versions used by various modern historians. In the Old Kingdom the dates could be out by several centuries depending upon who you read, although the variation is only a couple of decades by the New Kingdom Hi Stevie I follow your point.Durrant dated the Battle of Kadesh as early as 1288 BC! I think you are refering to the more widely accepted Conventional Egyptian Chronography which generally places most dating of the Egyptian New Kingdom within 30 years.That being the case the Amarna letters are dated between the reigns of Pharohs Amenhotep III and Arkenaten (anywhere between 1391-1351 BC and 1353-1334 BC,only mentioning the Sirdannu as a people but no status or role. However, the Sherden are mentioned in the 2nd year of the Reign of Rameses II ( whose reign is dated between 1279-1213BC) with the Battle of Kadesh dated as between 1274-1273BC).Even allowing a further difference of 30 years for the date would place the battle as late as 1243BC. My point is the Sherden at least were present in Caanan in the 13th Century BC and fighting and later in employment by the Egyptians by 1243 BC using known sources....just saying.😊 P.S. In Dba 3.0 terms the Battle of Kadesh is mentioned in the narative of the I/24 Hittite Empire 1380 BC-1180 BC as occuring in 1274BC and mentions the innovation of the introduction of the Hittite Hch which is probably reflective of the (b) list start date of 1274BC...so the new Hittite Hch are provided for in the list at that date, but poor Ramses II can't have his Sherden guard (also mentioned as present at the battle), that he created from prisoners he captured fighting a battle against Sea people 3-4 years before?😊 |
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 26, 2017 10:16:44 GMT
Hi Stevie
The Roman army before circa 390BC is a mess, with weapons changes etc.
If the army was reformed after the defeat by the Gauls (for whatever reason) then Allia should be old list, not reorganised army list.
Is it a case that I/59 should include a list or reference to Allia.
The use of the earlier list would make more sense (if the defeat led to army reorganisation).
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 27, 2017 9:59:48 GMT
P.S. In Dba 3.0 terms the Battle of Kadesh is mentioned in the narative of the I/24 Hittite Empire 1380 BC-1180 BC as occuring in 1274BC and mentions the innovation of the introduction of the Hittite Hch which is probably reflective of the (b) list start date of 1274BC...so the new Hittite Hch are provided for in the list at that date, but poor Ramses II can't have his Sherden guard (also mentioned as present at the battle), that he created from prisoners he captured fighting a battle against Sea people 3-4 years before?😊
You know, I think you may be right.
Even using the DBA Army List chronology, it was Rameses II (1279 - 1213 BC) who fought the Hittites at Kadesh (1274 BC), and there is ample historical evidence that he had Sherden mercenaries/guardsmen at that battle.
After all, the DBMM New Kingdom army list allows for two elements of “Shardana Royal Guard” from 1276 BC.
But then there is the question of numbers.
With some 20,000 Egyptians at Kadesh, a single element represents about 1,600 men (i.e. one twelfth of the army).
The sources seem to imply that ‘some’ of the Sherden mercenaries were promoted to guardsmen, but how many?
50 of them , a 100, 200, more? Certainly not enough for a full DBA element of 1,600.
Nonetheless, some Sherden mercenaries were apparently present.
So here’s a suggestion:-
Why not have one of the 3 x spearmen (3Bd) of army list I/22a representing the ‘Mercenary Sherden’.
A different name, different figures, but the same type of element, so the army composition is unchanged.
This seems to be the simplest solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 27, 2017 10:01:59 GMT
If the army was reformed after the defeat by the Gauls (for whatever reason) then Allia should be old list, not reorganised army list. Is it a case that I/59 should include a list or reference to Allia. The use of the earlier list would make more sense (if the defeat led to army reorganisation). David Constable You know, I think you may be right. No one really knows when the I/59 Tullian Romans (578 - 400 BC) evolved into the II/10 Camillan Romans (400 - 275 BC). Was it in 400 BC half way through the war with Veii, or in 390 BC after the sack of Rome by the Gauls? So why not let players decide for themselves by extending the I/59 Tullian end date to 390 BC and have them overlapping? Fortunately I am currently composing an appendix for the early Romans so I’ll include this alternative end date. (The reason for the appendixes is because some players are more interested in the ‘consistency’ of the army lists - such as wrong dates and non-mutual enemies - while others would like more ‘historical accuracy’ as well.
In order to cater for both needs the best solution is to have some separate optional appendixes so that players are free to choose for themselves) |
|
