|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 9, 2018 13:58:38 GMT
ok right, it's true that II/12 represent differents armies, with differents leaders and differents ennemies in a troubled period! perhaps the name "Alexander Macedonians" is not fair for Philippe II "work" but... thx for the idea of the "local" later Macedonians!
|
|
|
Post by edonaldson on Jan 9, 2018 16:13:29 GMT
I like the second option best. Amazing work.
|
|
|
Post by gaelyann on Jan 9, 2018 16:43:59 GMT
to complete my answer about the macedonian army :
in autumn 358BC he was called by the city of Larissa to fight against the city of Pherae. Source : french Wikipedia. But did it end up in battle ?
Then Philip was involved in the Third Sacred War which had begun in Greece in 356. In summer 353 he invaded Thessaly. Source : english wiki. But did he fight against a Thessalian army during that war ?
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 9, 2018 18:28:14 GMT
no it seem not (the book is very complete, all political/religious/alliance events until the Cheronee Battle... Very interesting book, maybe "dense" but it's worth reading! since Philippe II begining, i think there was no real battle against Thessalians a small "police expedition" in -358 after he helps Thessalian against Phocidians during the 3rd Sacred war.. (In the Thessalian territory but against Phocidians) and then he was elected Tagos by them.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 9, 2018 21:30:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 9, 2018 22:47:23 GMT
very interesting texts thanks!
Thessalian revolt yes, in 323.. so after the Death of Alexander...
the problem is that in DBA 3, there is 2 armies with a period in common : II/12 -359>-319 (why -319 and not -321?) or maybe -319 was a typing error? (right one could be -329?) and II/15 -328> -321
btw, as Philippe II death was in -336, and Alexander reign and conquest began between -336 and -334 (destruction of Thebes in -335) why we don't have Philippe II army (-359>-336) and Alexander Army (-336>-321) ?
i suppose it is a "a thoughtful choice" (lead by the Macedonian army evolution?) but it didn't bring an easy understanding of this period!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 9, 2018 23:52:32 GMT
Perhaps we shouldn't think of the Thessalians as a 'nation' that Philip declared war on. They were a loose group of independent cities...some loyal to Philip, some he had to bully, some he had to buy, and some he had to conquer. But you are quite right bluestone28…army II/15 shouldn’t be an enemy of the II/5d Thessalians… …or these armies either: I/47 Illyrians, I/48 Thracians, II/5b Athenians, II/5e Aitolians, II/5i Other Greeks, II/6 Bithynians. Army II/15 represents the imperial army Alexander led into India, and commanded after his death by the new regent Perdiccas. And this 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, Hypaspist-Argyraspids, elephants, or Indian allies. (After all, Alexander is hardly likely to have marched all the way back from the Indian frontier to deal with these local peoples, then tramped all the way back again to continue the Indian campaign! That’s why he left his Macedonian commanders behind him in the newly conquered satrapies…to deal with these local issues)
So basically there are two Macedonian armies coexisting before 320 BC:- II/12 Alexandrian Macedonians (359– 319 BC) add the following to the historical text:- [information] "This army represents that of Philip II 359-336 BC, Alexander 336-328 BC, Antipater 342-321 BC, and all of Alexander’s lieutenants, governors, and newly appointed satraps including Leonnatus, Craterus, Eumenes, Antigonos, Alketas, Lysimachos, Seleukos, Ptolemy and other successors until the start of their own armies in 320 BC. Only Philip and Alexander would have hypaspists, the others using instead local 4Ax troops such as mercenary peltasts, Illyrians, Thracians, or Asiatics." II/15 Alexandrian Imperial (328–323 BC) & Regent Perdikkas (323–321 BC) add the following to the historical text:- [information] “This represents the new army Alexander created solely for his Indian campaigns, and after his death in 323 BC commanded by the newly appointed regent Perdikkas until his own murder during a mutiny when he attempted to invade Ptolemaic Egypt in 321 BC. There is no record of Alexander using elephants or bolt-shooters in India, so these elements can be replaced with local mercenary 4Ax javelinmen.” (Fear not…I’m still updating and working on the “Army List Corrections”…) (And I'll add a flowchart similar to this in the appendix at the back of the final document: see fanaticus.boards.net/post/4860/ ) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:- fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 10, 2018 8:29:34 GMT
ok! btw it's an interesting discussion! "This army represents that of Philip II 359-336 BC, Alexander 336-328 BC, Antipater 342-321 BC, and all of Alexander’s lieutenants, governors, and newly appointed satraps including Leonnatus, Craterus, Eumenes, Antigonos, Alketas, Lysimachos, Seleukos, Ptolemy and other successors until the start of their own armies in 320 BC. Only Philip and Alexander would have hypaspists, the others using instead local 4Ax troops such as mercenary peltasts, Illyrians, Thracians, or Asiatics." so why keeping II/12 Alexandrian Macedonians (359– 319 BC) and not -321, as the "...start of their own armies in 320 BC." ?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 10, 2018 11:18:15 GMT
Well bluestone28, I must admit that the II/12 end date of 319 BC is certainly a bit of a complication. It has come about because originally Phil Barker wanted Antipatros’ death in 319 BC to be the end date of army II/12. Indeed, the historical text of army II/12 specifically states “…and those (forces) of the regent Antipatros from 334-319 BC.” (Although Philip had in fact left Antipatros as his regent to guard Macedon with a small army beginning in 342 BC. The year 334 BC was when Alexander left for the Persian war, and he too left Antipatros in charge of Macedon)But Antipatros was later given his own II/18a army dated 320-319 BC…and the end date of army II/12 was not changed. (Army II/18a covers the brief period where Antipatros was made the new regent of the empire following the murder of Perdikkas)So Antipatros has ended up with two armies and two end dates; that of II/12 and that of II/18a! Confused yet? Now if it was up to me I would end army II/12 in 321 BC so that it coincided with the start of army II/18a (as well as the start dates of armies II/16a, II/17a, II/19a, and II/20a). But Timurilank won’t let me (he's a bit strict when it comes to dates). But there is a way out. When Antipatros temporarily left Macedon in 321 BC with his army to attend the treaty of Triparadisus in Syria (a meeting of all the Macedonian generals to decide who was to be the new regent after the death of Perdikkas), Polyperchon was left in charge of Macedon until Antipatros’ return as the new regent in 320 BC, only to die of old age (he was nearly 80) the following year in 319 BC. You must be confused by now! Soooo…cutting a long story short, Antipatros has army II/12, but in 320-319 BC he upgrades to army II/18a. And Polyperchon has army II/12 and upgrades to army II/18b in 319 BC. So army II/12 does have an end date of 319 BC…sort of. (I’ll put all this in that flowchart that I’m making for the appendix) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:- fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jan 10, 2018 12:41:49 GMT
well! ok, i'm now a little less idiot this day, that is not so bad as we're only the 10th of january! thanks for all these explanations!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 18, 2018 12:43:23 GMT
Nearly done. But I wonder if people could do me another favour. Could you have a look through to see if everything coloured is consistent, and I haven’t missed anything. Remember:- Items in blue players can check for themselves by merely cross-referencing through the lists. (date mismatches, non-mutual errors, geographical errors, and sub-list clarifications) Items in red are historical errors, and have one of Timurilank’s footnotes to explain the correction. (these will need checking with the history books and other historical sources)
---Later Edit: attachment deleted in order to free-up Fanaticus for more photos---While that’s going on I can concentrate on adding the finishing touches and tidying-up:- Such as filling in the page 1 introduction. (causes of the errors, acknowledgements for all those who have helped, and so forth) And preparing the three flowcharts for the appendixes. (evolution of the early Arab armies, the early Italian enemies of Rome, and the Diadochi Successor armies)And while you’re at it, is everyone happy with the font size, the general layout, the footnotes, etc. Timurilank, do you have anything else you want added, either to the appendix or to the footnotes? Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:- fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
Post by ammianus on Jan 18, 2018 15:57:56 GMT
Incredible work for which we all can be grateful for, well done gentlemen!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 19, 2018 0:19:42 GMT
Kudos to Stevie. Fantastic work, mate.
Now if I can just get him to share some Mead around his army, and have them charge repeatedly into my deathtraps, he'd be the perfect wargame opponent!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 19, 2018 13:31:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 19, 2018 14:36:10 GMT
I prefer "Army List Edits". Corrections sounds so, well, penal? "Go and join the Amry List Corrections Battalion, young man, and learn yourself some discipline!"... Sounds lile something Sgt. Maj Sixta would say...
Just my $0.02...
|
|