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!
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 ?
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.
After the assassination of Jason of Pherae, Thessaly was split into two hostile factions: the western half organised as the Thessalian League, and the eastern coastal half under the control of Lycophron, the tyrant of Pherae. The western Thessalian League called on Philip of Macedon for assistance in this civil war, while the eastern half called on the Phocians for help.
Philip eventually defeated the Phocians and took control of Pherae and the eastern half of Thessaly for himself. This annoyed the rest of the Thessalian League, who expected him to give them back control of the conquered region. So Philip stormed and destroyed the Thessalian cities of Pharcadon and Tricca, and left Macedonian garrisons in other captured cities.
Here is a link to an excellent summery of these events:-
True, most of these actions were sieges and the storming of cities, with no doubt many unmentioned skirmishes... ...but more like an invasion and a conquest followed by a rebellion and assimilation rather than a 'police action'.
And here is a link describing the Thessalian revolt and the Lamian War of 323-322 BC:-
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!
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”…)
"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." ?
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!
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)
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?
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...
Declaring a War on Terror in response to 9/11 is like declaring a War on Torpedo Bombing in response to Pearl Harbour...