Historical Opponents?

I think I've spotted another mistake. I've checked both my hardback copy and my Lulu copy, and III/57 Koryo Dynasty Korean doesn't list itself as a valid enemy, although there were several civil wars during the period, including the one following the failed coup and subsequent rebellion by Yi Ja-gyeom in 1126, the military suppression of the state of Daewi proclaimed by Myo Cheong in 1135, and the protracted wars during the Mongol conquest 1231-1270 during which warlords and the King often took opposite sides, either with the Mongols or with the Righteous Army guerrillas.

I've checked with the DBMM book and it does list 3/57 as a valid enemy of 3/57.

Very well...yes, it’s about time we had an updated version of the “Army List Correction File”...
...if only to correct the spelling mistakes and bad grammar!

I’m a bit busy with fixing the Wiki at the moment, as all the files in the “Reference_sheets_and_epitomes”
can’t be opened as it just loops back to the “Helpful/Useful Downloads” page...but I should have that sorted
in a couple of hours.

So then...what would you like to see added?
Once the Wiki is fixed I plan to go back over the last dozen or so pages in this looong thread in order to
compile a list. I’m thinking of additions along these lines:-
　　* Things that should be there (in blue, that players can cross-reference and check for themselves).
　　* Things that could be there (historical stuff in red, a bit more controversial, such as "The Tibetan
　　   Era of Fragmentation" sublist, the "Bagaudae Peasant Uprisings Against Rome" sublist, a "Hannibal's
         Army" Carthaginian sublist, and the missing "Epirus" army list...although these could be in a separate
         appendix at the back for those that object to adding stuff that Phil Barker has not sanctified).
　　
What sayest you all?

Fair ‘nuff...I wouldn’t mind creating a whole new separate file called “Missing Army Lists” if necessary,
just to preserve the purity of the original Army Lists.

(By the way, I’ve managed to fix fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
so they CAN now be opened and read)

Let’s split the task into two sections and just concentrate on the oversights/mistakes/typos for now, and leave any
‘Missing Army Lists’ for later discussion.

Here is that list of possible new additions that I mentioned:-
(All these are “Historical Omission Errors”, and would be in red)
        II/50 Hasmonean Jews (103-63 BC) and II/20c Ptolemaic Egypt (166-54 BC) should be mutual enemies.
        II/54b Later Scots-Irish (433-841 AD) and the II/81a Dux Britannia to Arthur (407-470 AD) should be mutual enemies.
        II/61b Mu-jung Hsien-pi (300-431 AD) and the II/79b Chinese Southern Dynasty (317-589 AD) should be mutual enemies.
        II/69b and II/69c Sassanids (225-651 AD) and the II/80c Chionite/Hephthalite Huns (356-570 AD) should be mutual enemies?
        III/5b Neustrians (496-639 AD) and the II/81c Armoricans (429-580 AD) should be mutual enemies.
        III/24b Middle Anglo-Saxons (701-1016 AD) should have the III/19a Welsh (580-1149 AD) as allies.  
        III/57 Koryo Dynasty Koreans (918-1392 AD) should have themselves as an enemy (but see the note below).*

*(Note: If it was up to me, I’d have EVERY army with itself as an enemy.
   You have to look very hard to find a nation that didn’t have some sort of uprising, rebellion, dynastic conflict or
   civil war at some time or other in their history...even if the actual accounts have not survived and have been lost)

Hi Stevie I'll add what I know now. Lol

The II/61b Murong Hsien-pi(300-431AD) and the II/79b Chinese Southern Dynasty(317-589 AD) ARE mutual enemies from 353AD to 358AD at least as both fought over territory after the collapse of the Later Zhao Kingdom (II/38b Hsuing Nu).The Hsien-pi had been vassels of the Jin since 282AD but became Independent in 353AD.For further reference some Chinese Southern Dynasty enemies are II/21c(Former Ch'in), II/38b(Later Zhao) and III/61b(Former Yan).

II/69b(225-493AD) and II/69c(494-651AD) Are mutual enemies of II/80c Chionites/Hephalite Huns(356-570AD). The Chionites(Kidarites) attacked the Sassanids from around 360-455AD at that time the Hephalites made an appearance. The Hephalites were at first hired by the Sassanids to fight the Chionites and later became Allies of the Sassanids (Peroz I) and assisted in fighting off the Chionites... up until 466AD...the Hephalites pushed the Chionites South towards India and had crushed them by 467AD. The Hephalites then fought the Sassanids until defeated. The II/80d Huns listed are the Alchon Huns.

To summuerize II/80c Chionites and Hephalites should be enemies of II/69b & c. II/80c(Hephalites) should be an ally in both lists.
Additional to this list II/80c is effected as both the Chionites and Hephalites are mutual enemies.

I hope this helps.😊

The linked video below may help understand the Sassanid/Hun relations over this period.
youtu.be/JJWddbCUZLQ

DBMM Army List Errors
I/5 Susiana & Elam (3000-800 BC) against I/41 Medes (835-550 BC) ...probably an error, as I/41 doesn’t mention I/5.

(Susa was the capital of the Elamnites, and was sacked by the I/21 Babylonians about 1125 BC, then again by the
I/51 Assyrians in 647 BC, but was captured by the I/41 Medes in 617 BC and seems to have been under the control
of the I/44 Babylonians when captured by I/60 Cyrus the Great of Persia in 539 BC)

Oh, wait a minute...there is already an I/42 Neo-Elamite army in DBA.

Nonetheless, DBMM having I/5 and I/41 as enemies is either wrong, or DBA 3.0 should also have it.

Well Paul, have a quick read of these:-

fanaticus.boards.net/thread/603/historical-opponents?page=42 (scroll down for the Tibetan info)
and fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1416/bagaudae

...they should get your painting fingers twitching.