|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 21, 2017 7:47:08 GMT
I/6c Early Aramaean Army (2000 BC – 1101 BC) remove II/16a Antigonos’ Army (320 BC – 301 BC) (Not only is I/6c out by 780 years, but II/16a makes no mention of them.) I think this is a mistake caused by the changes from 2.2 to 3 in the Early Bedouin lists. I/6c used to be Early Bedouin 999-312BC which I think should be an enemy of Antigonas. One of his generals (possibly Demetrios) started a fight with some arab tribes over control of some Asphalt beds IIRC. These tribes would now be covered by I/6b. I think you’re right. Therefore:- I/6c Early Aramaean Army (2000 BC – 1101 BC) remove II/16a Antigonos’ Army (320 BC – 301 BC) (Not only is I/6c out by 780 years, but II/16a makes no mention of them.) I/6b Early Arab Army (1000 BC – 312 BC) add II/16a Antigonos’ Army (320 BC – 301 BC) II/16a Antigonos’ Army (320 BC – 301 BC) add I/6b Early Arab Army (1000 BC – 312 BC) (These two should be mutual enemies, to cover Antigonos’/Demetrios’ raid into Arabia...I think it was to capture a caravan/camp) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 21, 2017 8:34:27 GMT
DBA3 Historical opponents
IV/41 Early Swiss 1240 AD – 1400 AD add IV/74 Free Company 1357 AD – 1410 AD and 1444 AD.
IV/74 Free Company 1357 AD – 1410 AD and 1444 AD add IV/41 Early Swiss 1240 AD – 1400 AD.
The IV/79b Later Swiss 1400 AD – 1522 AD are mentioned as having fought the Free Company hired by Charles VII, but nothing in the text would indicate the Early Swiss did as well.
Action:
Unless anyone has information to the contrary, the IV/79b Later Swiss 1425 AD – 1477 AD are the correct Swiss opponents for the Free Company.
Is the Gugglerkreig of 1375 not being considered as evidence of conflict between Early Swiss and English Mercenaries (Free Company)? Haardrada,
Searching the internet for information about the Gugglerkreig of 1375, I found the following, but in German:
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gugler
This describes the expedition of English and French mercenaries as being led by Enguerrand VII de Coucy (Habsburg lineage). During the armistice he employed 22,000 English and French mercenaries to reclaim his inheritance of a number of cities in Aargau (Aarau, Bremgarten, Lenzburg, Sempach, Sursee and Willisau).
Dividing themselves into three separate columns they continued their raids between the western Aargau and the Zeeland. The inhabitants of the affected towns organized a resistance and inflicted losses during their nightly battles; 26 December at Buttisholz and 27 December at Fraubrunnen.
The winter cold and the counter attacks by the inhabitants prompted Coucy to retreat without accomplishing his war aims.
This would make a fine historical campaign between the Early Swiss and Free Company and thanks for bringing this up.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 21, 2017 9:05:39 GMT
DBA3 Historical opponents
II/19c Seleucid Army (204 BC – 167 BC) add II/2 Mountain Indians (500 BC – 170 BC)
II/19c Seleucid Army (204 BC – 167 BC) add II/3a Classical Indians (500 BC – 178 AD)
II/19d Seleucid Army (166 BC – 64 BC) remove II/2 Mountain Indians (500 BC – 170 BC)
II/19d Seleucid Army (166 BC – 64 BC) remove II/3a Classical Indians (500 BC – 178 AD)
(In the case of the Mountain Indians the dates don’t match. And anyway, Mithridates I king of Parthia 165-132 BC, had already taken over Sogdia and would soon take control of Bactria, so the Seleucids of the 166-64 BC period couldn’t have marched through both Parthia and the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom to reach India.)
Looking at all four sub-lists for II/19, the II/2 Mountain Indians (500 BC – 170 BC) and II/3a Classical Indians (500 BC – 178 AD) appear as enemies on sub-lists II/19a (320 – 280 BC) and II/19b (279 – 205 BC). The Greco-Bactrian also make their appearance as an enemy of II/19b (279 – 205 BC).
The list for II/19c (204 – 167 BC) marks the rise of II/37 Parthia and the disappearance of II/2 Mountain Indians, II/3a Classical Indians and the Greco-Bactrian from the list of enemies for the same period.
Action:
The re-appearance of II/2 Mountain Indians and II/3a Classical Indians on the II/19d (166 – 64 BC) is clearly an error and should be removed, but does anyone have any information to see these added to the II/19c (204 – 167 BC) sub-list?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 21, 2017 10:56:36 GMT
II/23c Yemeni Army (312 BC -633 AD) change II/69 to II/69c Sassanid Persians (494 AD – 651 AD)
II/69c Sassanid Persians (494 AD – 651 AD) add II/23c Yemeni Army (312 BC -633 AD)
(This is a bit of a mess. II/23c lists II/69a to II/69c as enemies, but II/69c does not mention II/23c as an enemy, although II/23c does list II/69c as allies. It looks like the 'c' got missed out of the II/69 entry.)
I found the following links useful as the Sassanid did conquer and occupy Yemen in the 6th century placing them as enemies in the period of sub-list II/69c (494 – 651 AD).
www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abna-term
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanid_reconquest_of_Yemen
Very descriptive passages of the conquest period:
books.google.nl/books?id=p2UHIQ9WyJ4C&pg=PA240&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Action:
II/23c is clearly omitted from the Sassanid sub-list II/69c.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 21, 2017 11:06:05 GMT
DBA3 Historical opponents
II/28d Gordyene Army (147 BC – 225 AD) remove II/69c Sassanid Persians (494 AD – 651 AD)
(An easier one this time...the dates don’t match)
The Gordyene army is correctly listed as an enemy of II/69a (220 – 224 AD) and II/69b (225 – 493 AD).
In the text, the Gordyene are subjugated by the Sassanid in 225 AD.
Action:
II/69c should be omitted.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 21, 2017 12:52:23 GMT
DBA3 Historical opponents
II/33 Polybian Roman (275 BC -105 BC) remove II/19d Seleucid Army (166 BC – 64 BC).
(II/19d does not list II/33 as an enemy, nor can I find any records of the two fighting each other. By 100 BC the once mighty Seleucid Empire had destroyed itself through almost continuous civil wars and consisted of little more than Antioch and a few Syrian cities. It only continued to exist because the major powers of the region couldn’t be bothered to conquer it until Pompey annexed Syria to Rome in 63 BC. So if II/19d and II/33 are to be enemies, then technically so should II/49 Marian Rome...but it’s probably not worth it.)
Action:
The Polybian Roman are listed as enemy of the II/19c list which is correct for the Rome-Syrian war of 192 – 188 BC. Checking further the Seleucid dynastic wars which continued into the ‘d ’ sub-list, I find no mention of Roman involvement, so concur with its removal from II/19d list of enemies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Feb 21, 2017 21:09:05 GMT
Is the Gugglerkreig of 1375 not being considered as evidence of conflict between Early Swiss and English Mercenaries (Free Company)? Haardrada,
Searching the internet for information about the Gugglerkreig of 1375, I found the following, but in German:
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gugler
This describes the expedition of English and French mercenaries as being led by Enguerrand VII de Coucy (Habsburg lineage). During the armistice he employed 22,000 English and French mercenaries to reclaim his inheritance of a number of cities in Aargau (Aarau, Bremgarten, Lenzburg, Sempach, Sursee and Willisau).
Dividing themselves into three separate columns they continued their raids between the western Aargau and the Zeeland. The inhabitants of the affected towns organized a resistance and inflicted losses during their nightly battles; 26 December at Buttisholz and 27 December at Fraubrunnen.
The winter cold and the counter attacks by the inhabitants prompted Coucy to retreat without accomplishing his war aims.
This would make a fine historical campaign between the Early Swiss and Free Company and thanks for bringing this up.
There is an account in English here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_Old_Swiss_Confederacy under the section on the era covered by the Eight Cantons. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 21, 2017 21:58:56 GMT
Haardrada,
That is a very useful link for battles outside the medieval period. Thanks for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Feb 21, 2017 22:17:19 GMT
Your Welcome.😊
Its also very useful to a small degree if you click on the highlighted place names as it not only gives the location of the town/city, but also a brief History and pictures.
For example, I've added the Chateaux Grandson page to my facebook.😊
Regards
Eddie
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 21, 2017 22:46:52 GMT
DBA3 Historical opponents
II/19c Seleucid Army (204 BC – 167 BC) add II/2 Mountain Indians (500 BC – 170 BC)
II/19c Seleucid Army (204 BC – 167 BC) add II/3a Classical Indians (500 BC – 178 AD)
II/19d Seleucid Army (166 BC – 64 BC) remove II/2 Mountain Indians (500 BC – 170 BC)
II/19d Seleucid Army (166 BC – 64 BC) remove II/3a Classical Indians (500 BC – 178 AD)
Action:
The re-appearance of II/2 Mountain Indians and II/3a Classical Indians on the II/19d (166 – 64 BC) is clearly an error and should be removed, but does anyone have any information to see these added to the II/19c (204 – 167 BC) sub-list?
Well, I only added II/2 & II/3a Indians to the II/19c Seleucids because I thought that had been given to II/19d instead by mistake, and both II/2 & II/3a Indians do list II/19c Seleucids as enemies. But thinking about it now perhaps they shouldn’t be given to either II/19c or II/19d and removed from both II/2 & II/3a Indians.
II/37 Parthia (250 BC – 250 AD) and II/36 Graeco-Bactria (250 BC – 130 BC) would have blocked their path to India.
As we are on the subject of the Seleucids:-
II/19c Seleucid Army (204 BC – 167 BC) to add or not to add...er...II/19c Seleucid Army (204 BC – 167 BC)?
(The lists for II/19b and II/19d allow for internal dynastic civil wars, but II/19c does not.
Was this an unusually stable period for the Seleucids, or is it an omission?
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king from 175 to 164 BC, was apparently “a strong and energetic ruler”, but there were still a lot of palace intrigues, usurpations and murders both before and after him...but then again, perhaps intrigues, usurpations and murders was ‘stability’ in the Seleucid Empire....)
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 21, 2017 23:01:58 GMT
Here are some more Book II anomalies that I don’t think have been raised yet:- II/65c Alaric & successors (408 AD – 419 AD) remove II/81c Armorican Army (429 AD – 580 AD) (The dates don’t quite match, and I’m not sure that the Visgoths got as far as northern Gaul that early. Anyway, II/81c makes no mention of II/65c. One for timurilank I think.) II/69b Sassanid Persian Army (225 AD – 493 AD) remove III/11b Other Turkish Armies (500 AD – 1330 AD) (Army II/69b lists III/11b as an enemy, but III/11b does not mention II/69b only II/69c, and the dates don’t quite match.) II/68b Pictish Army (500 AD – 842 AD) remove III/40b Viking Army (850 – 1280 AD) ?(Army II/68b lists II/40b as an enemy, but III/40b does not list II/68b, and the dates don’t quite match. Or, add II/68b as an enemy to III/40b and shuffle the end date of II/68b up a bit. I’ll leave it with you to decide.) II/81b Vortigern’s Army (429 AD – 441 AD) add II/54b Scots-Irish Army (433 AD – 841 AD) II/81c British Armies (471 AD – 580 AD) add II/54b Scots-Irish Army (433 AD – 841 AD) (Another messy one I’m afraid. Army II/54b lists II/81bcd as enemies, but only II/81d mentions II/54b, II/81b and II/81c do not. If added the dates will match, although in this period that doesn’t mean much.) II/81c British Armies (471 AD – 580 AD) add both II/68a and II/68b Pictish Armies (211 AD – 842 AD) (No wonder this period was called the ‘Dark Ages’! Army II/68a lists II/81abc, and II/68b lists II/81cd, but II/81c makes no mention of either II/68a or II/68b. Also, I doubt if the Picts reached as far as the Armorican’s in Brittany.) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 21, 2017 23:26:43 GMT
"II/19c Seleucid Army (204 BC – 167 BC) to add or not to add...er...II/19c Seleucid Army (204 BC – 167 BC)?
(The lists for II/19b and II/19d allow for internal dynastic civil wars, but II/19c does not.
Was this an unusually stable period for the Seleucids, or is it an omission?
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king from 175 to 164 BC, was apparently “a strong and energetic ruler”, but there were still a lot of palace intrigues, usurpations and murders both before and after him...but then again, perhaps intrigues, usurpations and murders was ‘stability’ in the Seleucid Empire....)"
After the death of Antiochus III in 187 BC, there were only two kings that spanned the 20 year period ending in 167 BC; Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV. The murder of Seleucus IV by Heliodorus, his general, did not incite a civil war as Heliodorus met a quick end. The reign of Antiochus IV contained a revolt in Cilicia (171 BC) and experienced a failed attempt to reconquer Parthia and Aria (167 BC). |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 21, 2017 23:40:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Feb 22, 2017 1:43:42 GMT
It’s interesting. Will this ever be compiled, or used? We are doing our best.  (And the more people that help, the quicker it will be done)
There are three different issues though. 1. The internal consistency problem of enemies, allies and start dates, can be fixed fairly quickly. And should be fixed... should have been fixed. While a recently launched game might be a taboo topic - the idea of storing the lists on an accessible database is an excellent way of avoiding inconsistencies and facilitating updates. 2. Fixing historical problems within arm lists quickly involve a lot of work. This cannot be done quickly. And this is why so much of the value of 3.0 sits in the army lists. To be clear... I am a BIG FAN of the army lists. For example, many of the Asia lists have start dates off by centuries. 3. Historical abstractions within army lists involve a lot of judgement. Why is this aggression 0 and not 4? Someone has to mount an argument. If you really wanted to address problems 2 and 3, ideally you'd need some log, more content in the army list describing and justifying decisions, more references. Oh and special request, please, PLEASE get rid of the phrase oriental/orient its a strange mix of Victorian and offensive. |
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 22, 2017 2:06:07 GMT
Guess what...I’ve got even more:- II/80a Attila’s Army (433 AD – 453 AD) remove II/69b Sassanid Persians (225 AD – 493 AD) (Army II/80a lists II/69b as enemies, but II/69b lists II/80b & II/80d as enemies. I don’t think that Attila did attack the Sassanids, being based as he was north of the Danube in the old Roman province of Dacia, although the other Hunnic groups apparently did. ) II/81c British Armies (471 AD – 580 AD) add II/81b Vortigern’s Army (429 AD – 441 AD) (Army II/81b lists II/81c as an enemy, but II/81c does not mention II/81b. Now I know that the dates don’t match each other, but let’s be honest, all the dates for Britannia in this period are just mere guesses anyway....so who can say what is correct?) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
In between visits to the Eastern Roman Empire in 435 & 450 Atilla found time for a jaunt around the northern shore of the Black Sea to attack the Sassanids. Any reason to prefer adding II/81b to II/81c's list rather than removing II/81c from II/81b's list. Just curious about this one as its not a period I'm particularly familiar with. |
|
