|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 24, 2020 22:10:50 GMT
Ha! I’ll give you that one Haardrada ...Sassanid King Peroz I, younger son of Yazdegerd II and brother of Hormizd III, certainly appears to have fought with Hephthalite allies in his army.  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is another one:- DBMM has the I/7 Early Libyans and the II/32 Later Carthaginians as mutual enemies. DBA 3.0 does not. The DBMM army list does make sense...not all Libyan tribes were subdued by Carthage, and many survived to fight the later II/49 Marian and II/56 Imperial Romans, long after Carthage was no more. But this simple addition has revealed another gap. I/61a Early Carthage (550-341 BC) fights the I/7c Early Libyans (665-476 BC) ...according to DBMM & DBA. I/61b Early Carthage (340-275 BC) ...where are the Libyans? All on holiday?...II/32a Later Carthage (275-202 BC) fights the I/7d Early Libyans (475 BC-70 AD) ...according to DBMM. Therefore I think that:- I/7c Early Libyans (665-476 BC) and I/61a Early Carthage (550-341 BC) are already mutual enemies. I/7d Early Libyans (475 BC-70 AD) and I/61b Early Carthage (340-275 BC) should be mutual enemies. I/7d Early Libyans (475 BC-70 AD) and II/32a Later Carthage (275-202 BC) should also be mutual enemies. (II/32b Later Carthage, 201-146 BC, was much reduced by Rome after losing the 2nd Punic War, and may not have had contact with the Libyan tribes...or maybe we should add the I/7d Libyans to them too)Looks like some Libyan-Carthaginian conflicts have fallen through the cracks when the sub-lists were expanded. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 25, 2020 14:42:21 GMT
II/54b Later Scots-Irish (433-841 AD) and the II/81a Dux Britannia to Arthur (407-470 AD) should be mutual enemies.
Stevie,
One might conclude that the omission of 54a as enemy reflects Christianity’s influence to temper their rapacious nature, yet we find Scots listed as enemies on the other three lists. Looking at the history of the last emperors of the West, between 433 and 470 AD, we find scant evidence as …
“Honorius (ruled from 395-423 AD), having sent letters to the cities of Britain, counselling them to be watchful of their own security, and having rewarded his soldiers with the money sent by Heraclianus, lived with all imaginable ease, since he had acquired the attachment of the soldiers in all places.”
Zosimus, Book 6.
This leaves the church chroniclers as the sole source of information in that 37 year period.
Picts and Scots. De duabus gentibus vastatricibus
“After this, Britain is robbed of all her armed soldiery, of her military supplies, of her rulers, cruel though they were, and of her vigorous youth who followed the footsteps of the above-mentioned tyrant and never returned. Completely ignorant of the practice of war, she is, for the first time, open to be trampled upon by two foreign tribes of extreme cruelty, the Scots from the north-west, the Picts from the north; and for many years continues stunned and groaning.”
Gildas, part 1, para. 14
The above passage was written just before the period of Aetius. We find later a letter to Aetius describing the victory over the Picts and Scot, ca. 446 AD.
The victory over Picts and Scots. De victoria.
“Then for the first time, they inflicted upon the enemy, which for many years was pillaging in the land, a severe slaughter: their trust was not in man but in God, as |49 that saying of Philo goes: we must have recourse to divine aid where human fails.31 The boldness of the enemy quieted for a time, but not the wickedness of our people; the enemy withdrew from our countrymen, but our countrymen withdrew not from their sins.
21. It was the invariable habit of the race, as it is also now, to be weak in repelling the missiles of enemies, though strong to bear civil strife and the burdens of sins; weak, I say, to follow ensigns of peace and truth, yet strong for crimes and falsehood. The shameless Irish assassins, therefore, went back to their homes, to return again before long. It was then, for the first time, in the furthermost part of the island, that the Picts commenced their successive settlements, with frequent pillaging and devastation.”
Gildas, part 1, para. 21
Sources:
Historia Nova, Zosimus
History of the Later Roman Empire, J. Bury
The Ruin of Britain, Gildas the Wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 25, 2020 15:11:16 GMT
Further
The argument for not listing them as enemies (II/81a) can be surmised from its title.
“Armies of Dux Britanniarum, Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam, Britannia Prima, Ambrosius, Riothamus, or Arthur 407 – 470 AD”
For administration and military purposes Britain consisted of two provinces, Britannia Prima and Britannia Secundae. Modern scholars place Britannia Secundae as Northern England with its capital at Eboracum (York) and essentially it ceased to exist following the tide of barbarian (Picts and Scots) invasions of the north and Wales. Further resistance of subsequent incursions became the responsibility of the local settlements led by their chieftains or warlords. This being the case, a revision of the start date II/81c British armies might be another option.
Recommend viewing History Time’s video of Britain After Rome for useful insight to the transition from Roman rule to early medieval system. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 25, 2020 17:27:28 GMT
Possibly Timurilank, possibly...but as you can imagine, there are counter arguments.  II/54a Irish (55 BC-432 AD) and the II/54b Irish (433 AD-861 AD), compared to II/81a Romo-British (407 AD-470 AD). *Are we to believe that it took the Irish nearly 400 years before they got the idea of raiding Roman Briton? (no Irish jokes please) * Do we have to split army II/81a into two sub-lists just to be able to fit the early Irish in? (seems a bit unnecessary). * Was the Roman fleet in the west so successful that they prevented any Irish raiders? (If so, then why did the Romans have to maintain an expensive fleet to hunt for Irish coastal raiders if the Irish weren’t even raiding?) * Isn’t it a bit odd that the early pagan Irish didn’t raid Britain, but the later Christianized Irish did? ...or is the explanation far far simpler...it’s nothing more than a mistake and oversight in the Army Lists. Anyway, the original Army Lists already have II/54a and II/81a as mutual enemies. And II/54b are listed as the enemies of II/81b, but II/81b lists II/54a instead of II/54b. Likewise, II/54b lists II/81c as an enemy, but II/81c makes no mention of II/54b. There’s a bunch of errors right there. Surely the easiest solution is to have both II/54a & b as mutual enemies of II/81a & b,  and also add II/54b to II/81c. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More DBMM Army List InconsistenciesI/14 Early Northern Barbarians (2000-315 BC) fight the I/24 Hittites (1380-1180 BC) ...but I/24 doesn’t mention I/14.
(Should DBA have 1/14b as mutual enemies of I/16 plus I/24a & b? The I/26a Achaians (1250-1190 BC) have I/14b
as a mutual enemy. Northern Barbarians raiding south over the Caucasus Mountains sounds plausible, and it is how
the Hittites themselves arrived in eastern Anatolia around 2000 BC. However I’m not so sure about the Hittites making
retaliatory raids north over the same route, but it might make the I/14b Early Northern Barbarians a bit more popular)
I/15 Later Amorites (1894-1595 BC) has the I/15 Mari as allies (if Babylon in 1764 BC only) ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA?)
I/41 Medes, Zirkirtu, Andia & Parsula (835-550 BC) --> the DBMM Army Lists makes a right mess of this, and has
I/25, I/30, I/31, I/37, I/39, I/43, I/45, I/48, I/50, and I/51 as enemies.
But the I/30 Dark-Age Greeks, I/31 Neo-Hittites/Later Aramaeans, and the I/48 Thracians are far too far to the
west so are probably wrong...which is why DBA does not have them as enemies.
The DBMM I/41 army does not include the I/35 Phoenicians, I/41 Medes, I/42 Neo-Elamites, I/44 Neo-Babylon,
or the I/60 Early Persians as enemies...but the DBA army does.
(In short, I think the DBA army list for I/41 is correct and the DBMM list is wrong, so no changes are necessary)
I/43 Kimmerians-Scythians (750 BC-70 AD) and the I/39 Urartians (880-585 BC) are mutual enemies ...but not in DBA.
(The I/39 Urartians, being centred around Lake Van just south of the Caucasus Mountains, would have been the first
target of any raiders from the north, so should be included as a mutual enemy of I/43a)
I/44 Neo-Babylonians (746-482 BC) fight the I/41 Medes etc (835-550 BC) ...but I/41 doesn’t mention I/44.
(From what I posted earlier, it looks like I/44 and I/41 should be mutual enemies in DBA)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 25, 2020 18:48:09 GMT
Possibly Timurilank, possibly...but as you can imagine, there are counter arguments. II/54a Irish (55 BC-432 AD) and the II/54b Irish (433 AD-861 AD), compared to II/81a Romo-British (407 AD-470 AD). *Are we to believe that it took the Irish nearly 400 years before they got the idea of raiding Roman Briton? (no Irish jokes please) * Do we have to split army II/81a into two sub-lists just to be able to fit the early Irish in? (seems a bit unnecessary). * Was the Roman fleet in the west so successful that they prevented any Irish raiders? (If so, then why did the Romans have to maintain an expensive fleet to hunt for Irish coastal raiders if the Irish weren’t even raiding?) * Isn’t it a bit odd that the early pagan Irish didn’t raid Britain, but the later Christianized Irish did? ...or is the explanation far far simpler...it’s nothing more than a mistake and oversight in the Army Lists. Anyway, the original Army Lists already have II/54a and II/81a as mutual enemies. And II/54b are listed as the enemies of II/81b, but II/81b lists II/54a instead of II/54b. Likewise, II/54b lists II/81c as an enemy, but II/81c makes no mention of II/54b. There’s a bunch of errors right there. Surely the easiest solution is to have both II/54a & b as mutual enemies of II/81a & b, and also add II/54b to II/81c.
Had I checked the original army list I would have reached the same conclusion and saved a few hours. Still, I discovered a few invaluable e-book links.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 26, 2020 0:11:27 GMT
Well, you could have said that the early II/54a Irish were just raiders, with small forces that in DBA terms
would be a mere handful of elements, while the later II/54b Irish after 433 AD began to launch whole armies
that set up permanent settlements in Wales...but that doesn’t fit with the other Roman Army Lists:-
II/56 Early Imperial Romans(25 BC-197 AD) and the II/54a Irish are mutual enemies...
II/64a Western Middle Romans (193-324 AD) and the II/54a Irish are mutual enemies...
II/78a Western Late Romans (307-408 AD) and the II/54a Irish are mutual enemies...
More DBMM Army List Inconsistencies
I/61 Early Carthage (550-341 BC) fights II/15 Alexander Imperial (338-321 BC) ...but II/15 doesn’t mention I/61.
(Obviously an error...probably some confusion with II/12 Alexander fighting the I/35 Phoenicians of Tyre)
That’s DBMM Book I covered. Book II is next...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 26, 2020 16:09:52 GMT
All this talk about the Early Irish conducting raids has got me thinking. See the following “House Rule”: fanaticus.boards.net/post/28431/Anyway, here are some DBMM Army List Inconsistencies from Book IIII/3 Classical Indians (590 BC-545 AD) allows II/1 Republican and II/2 Mountain Indians as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA?)
II/5a Spartans (448-276 BC) allows the I/54 Early Macedonians as allies (in 382-381 BC) ...but DBA does not.
II/5i Ionian Greeks (in Asia Minor) allows the II/7 Later Persians as allies (in 409 BC) ...but DBA does not.
II/5g Tarentum Italiot Greeks (448-280 BC) allows II/8a & c Italian Oscans as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA?
DBMM also allows Overseas Spartans to have II/7 Persian allies in 408 BC, but this date doesn’t match DBA dates)
II/6 Bithynia (435-74 BC) allows allies from the Greek coastal city of Heraclea (in 280-253 BC) ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA as II/5i Other Hoplite allies, as DBMM suggests?) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 28, 2020 12:46:30 GMT
Some more DBMM Army List Inconsistencies from Book II (2007 edition)
I should point out that I’m using the 2007 Army Lists and not the later 2016 revised editions,
which I don’t have nor intend buying as I’m not really a big fan of the DBMM rules.
II/8 Bruttians & Lucanians (420-203 BC) allows II/8 (420-203 BC) as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA?)
II/9 Syracuse (410-210 BC) allows II/27 Pyrrhus (300-272 BC) as an ally ...but DBA does not.
(NOT worth adding to DBA...Pyrrhus was in charge, not a mere ally)
II/11 Gallic (400-50 BC) allows a sub-general commanding only Gaesati (before 174 BC)
(Worth adding II/11 ally (all 3Wb before 174 BC) to DBA?)
II/13 Samnites (355-272 BC) has an ally error...I/5 Elam when it should be I/57 Etruscan League...
...and we also have an ally error with II/18c Cassander when it should be II/8c Apulians...
(Whoops! Well, nobody’s perfect. To be fixed)
(I’ve not included the following...)
II/7 Later Persians (420-329 BC) allows I/43 Scythians as allies (in 329 BC only) ...but DBA does not.
(...as DBA already has Saka horse archers in 329 BC to represent the usurper Bessus and the last year of the Persian Empire)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 28, 2020 20:22:41 GMT
Even more DBMM Army List Inconsistencies from Book II (2007 edition)II/21 Ch’iang & Ti Chinese (315 BC-350 AD) has the II/38 Hsiung-Nu (250 BC-555 AD) as allies...
...and so does DBA, but only for II/21a & c, not II/21b.
Why were II/38b not allies in the period between 303 to 350 AD? Did they not buy their round of drinks?
(An error caused by the expansion of II/21 into three new sub-lists? One for the Chinese history experts I think)
II/22 Arabo-Aramaen Nabataeans (250 BC-106 AD) has the II/20 Ptolemaics (320-30 BC) as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA?...but which II/20 Ptolemaic allies? My guess is II/20b & c)
II/27 Pyrrhus (300-272 BC) allows the II/5 Aetolians (448-279 BC) as allies in Greece in 294 BC ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding II/5e allies (in Greece in 294 BC) to II/27b?)
II/28 Tigranes’ Armenians (83-69 BC) allows the II/23 Nomadic Arabs (312 BC-633 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
II/28 Other Armenians (300 BC-244 AD) allows the II/26 Later Sarmatians (in 35 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding these to DBA?)
II/30 Galatians (289-25 BC) allows II/19 Seleucid Rebels (in 241-227 BC) as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding II/19b as allies to the II/30b Galatians?)
II/32 Later Carthage (275-146 BC) and the I/7d Early Libyans (475 BC-70 AD) are listed as mutual enemies ...but not in DBA.
(This has been mentioned before...but I thought I’d repeat it here to add more weight to my argument.
DBMM also has the II/40 Numidians as allies, but DBA has these as part of the Carthaginian army)
Footnote:-
DBMM also has Hannibal with Veteran Libyan Spearmen as Reg Sp (S) in captured Roman equipment (which in DBA terms
would make them as good as 4Bd), and Spanish Celtiberian Scutarii as Irr Bb (F) (which in DBA terms would be 3Bd)...
...something I’ve been banging on about for years.
No wonder DBA can’t reproduce the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC when Hannibal hasn’t got the right tools to do the job!
Oh, and DBMM also gives Hannibal Expendable Elephants at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC.(I’m not one to say I told you so, but...  )
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 29, 2020 11:51:55 GMT
A few more DBMM Army List Inconsistencies from Book II (2007 edition)
II/37 Parthians (250 BC-250 AD) allows II/19d Captured Seleucids (in 129 BC against Scythia) as allies.
II/37 Parthians (250 BC-250 AD) allows II/37 Medians/Atropenes/Elymaians (after 127 BC) as allies.
II/37 Parthians (250 BC-250 AD) allows II/49 Civil War Marian Romans (in 40-39 BC) as allies.
(Worth adding to DBA?)
II/46 Kushans (135 BC-477 AD) allows II/37 Rebel Hyrkanians (in 40-100 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
II/46 Kushans (135 BC-477 AD) allows II/80 Chionite Huns (after 390 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding II/37 allies to II/46b and II/80c allies to II/46c?)
II/47 Early Germans (115 BC-250 AD) allows the ‘Quadi’ to have the II/26 Sarmatians (in 88-175 AD) as allies.
(Worth adding II/26 as allies to the II/47g Other Early Germans?)
II/54 Scots-Irish (55 BC-841 AD) has a large number of II/54 allied generals...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding II/54a & b as allies to II/54a & b?)
II/55 Beja Army (831-1500 AD) has III/65 Nikephorian Byzantines as an enemy, but III/65 doesn’t mention II/55.
The correct entry should be II/55 Beja and III/66 Fatamid Egyptians are mutual enemies.
(Fortunately DBA has got this one right, so no changes needed)
II/57 Later Moors (25-696 AD) allows II/84 Vandal Fugitives (in 533-548 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
II/57 Later Moors (25-696 AD) allows III/4 Byzantine Deserters (in 546-548 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
II/57 Later Moors (25-696 AD) allows III/29 Thematic Byzantines (in 681 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding these to DBA?)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 29, 2020 22:34:08 GMT
There seems to be a lot more anomalies, most of them concerning allies, than I had originally anticipated.
Now some may think that many of these are trivial and superfluous...unless they concern their own army!
But both DBMM and DBA are based upon the same history, so what one has the other should also have.
Otherwise, if some items are left out, seemingly on a completely arbitrary basis, the DBA Army Lists will be
nothing more than a dumbed down simplified set with large historical holes in it.
So I suggest a new colour-code scheme:-
* Items in BLUE are obvious internal consistency errors, and players can cross-check these for themselves.
* Items in GREEN are Phil Barker’s own assessments, and can be checked by reading the DBMM Army Lists.
* Items in RED are historical additions discovered by the players themselves, with added footnotes.
This way, those that don’t want the extra historical accuracy can simply ignore the entries in red and green.
More DBMM Army List Inconsistencies from Book II (2007 edition)
II/58 Alans (50-1500 AD) has III/70 Tuaregs, III/73 Italians, and III/79 Russians as enemies ...but these don’t mention II/58.
Correct enemies should be III/71 Georgians, III/74 Seljuq’s, and III/80 Cumen ...which are already mutual enemies with II/58.
(Fortunately the DBA entry for II/58 is right)
I’m finding lots of these silly DBMM errors, such as II/60 having II/55 as an enemy, and II/62 listing III/65 as an enemy
when it should be III/66, and II/63 having II/65 as a foe.
So from now on, providing DBA is correct, I’ll not bother listing the DBMM errors.
II/58 Alans (50-1500 AD) allows the III/80 Cumen (in 1222 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA?)
II/59 Jewish Revolts (66-70 AD & 132-135 AD) allows for lots of fractious II/59 ally-generals ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding II/59 as an ally to II/59?... to reflect that even the zealots didn’t like each other!
And if it was up to me, I’d also have the II/59 ally as compulsory...)
II/66 Early Vandals (200-410 AD) allows the II/71 Gepids (in 291 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA?)
II/68 Picts (211-842 AD) allows III/24 Middle Anglo-Saxons (in 756 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA?)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 30, 2020 12:29:19 GMT
Yet more DBMM Army List Inconsistencies from Book II (2007 edition)II/71 Gepids (250-566 AD) allows the II/72 Rugians (in 454 AD) to be allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA?)
(Note that in 454 AD a coalition of former German vassals led by Ardaric king of the Gepids defeated the Huns led by Ellac the
son of Attila and their supporting allies at the Battle of Nedao in Pannonia. At the Battle of Bolia also in Pannonia in 469 AD another
coalition, consisting of the II/71 Gepids, the II/67 Heruls-Sciri , and the II/72 Suevi-Rugians, lost to the II/67 Ostrogoths led by Theodemir.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepids )
Question: DBA army II/71 has II/67b and/or II/73 as allies...should this be II/67b and/or II/72d as allies instead?
II/81 Strathclyde Army (580-1034 AD) and the III/19 Welsh (580-1420 AD) are mutual enemies ...but not in DBA.
(Worth having II/81d and III/19a as mutual enemies in DBA as well?)
II/82 Western Patrician Romans (408-493 AD) has the II/65 Early Visigoths (200-419 AD) as an enemy ...but DBA does not.
(II/82a and II/65c as mutual enemies has already been added to the “Army List Corrections” in red...
...it needs to be changed to green as it is confirmed by Phil Barker in the DBMM Army Lists)
II/82 Eastern Patrician Romans (408-493 AD) has the II/82 Eastern Patrician Romans as its own enemy ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA to cover eastern mutinies and civil wars in this turbulent period? II/82a is already its own enemy)That’s all of Book II covered. DBMM Book III is next...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 31, 2020 9:17:34 GMT
A correction to one of my earlier posts:-DBMM II/22 Arabo-Aramaen Nabataeans (250 BC-106 AD) has the II/20 Ptolemaics (320-30 BC) as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA?...but which II/20 Ptolemaic allies? My guess was II/20b & c, now a non-Roman II/20d in 32 BC)
“In 32 BC, during King Malichus II's reign, Herod the Great, with the support of Cleopatra, started a war against Nabataea.
The war began with Herod plundering Nabataea with a large cavalry force, and occupying Dium. After this defeat, the Nabataean
forces amassed near Canatha in Syria, but were attacked and routed. Cleopatra's general, Athenion, sent Canathans to the aid of
the Nabataeans, and this force crushed Herod's army, which then fled to Ormiza. One year later, Herod's army overran Nabataea.”
(Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans and Josephus 1:363–377, pp. 75–77)
“When in 32 BC the preparations for the final war between Mark Antony and Octavian were beginning Herod wanted to come to
Antony’s rescue with an army, but was sent back by Antony to fight against Malichus, king of the Nabataeans, instead. According
to Josephus Cleopatra is said to have been responsible for this decision of the triumvir, but the German classical scholar Christoph
Schäfer does not believe that this is true. After Herod had won the first military encounter against the Nabataeans and threatened
to also rout them in a second battle near Canatha, Cleopatra’s general Athenion is supposed to have intervened in favour of the
Nabataeans and helped them decisively to defeat the Jewish troops. Christoph Schäfer considers Athenion’s allegedly attack on
Herod is an invention of Josephus or his sources. He argues that if Athenion had really helped the Nabataeans in the battle near
Canatha it is not understandable why Cleopatra’s general did not interfere in Herodes’ later very successful battles against the
Nabataeans, which took place in summer 31 BC. Michael Grant is not so dismissive of the report of Josephus.”
(Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenion_(general) )
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 31, 2020 20:39:19 GMT
Here is the first of the DBMM Army List inconsistencies from Book III (2007 edition)
III/3 Italian Ostrogoths (493-561 AD ) allows the III/5 Middle Franks (496-639 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA?)
III/5 Middle Franks (496-639 AD) allows the II/70 Burgundi (in 507 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
(Worth adding to DBA?)
III/6 Emishi (500-878 AD) have themselves as an enemy ...but not in DBA.
(This makes sense...the Emishi consisted of many tribes. Worth adding III/6 a & b as an enemy to III/6a & b in DBA?)
III/20 Sui and Early T’ang (581-755 AD) allows III/11 Central Asian Turks (550-1330 AD) as allies...
....and so does DBA, but only for III/20a & c, not III/20b.
(Looks like III/20b has forgotten to add II/11b as an ally when it was expanded into three new sub-lists)
III/22 Maya (600-1546 AD) allows Spanish allies (after 1523 AD) without pikemen ...but DBA does not.
(Now this is a tricky one, as the IV/68f Spanish Army ends in 1515 AD in DBA.
Nonetheless, the III/22d Maya (1462-1546 AD) could still have IV/68f (after 1523 AD with 3Kn + 3Bd + 3Bd/Ps) as allies)
III/25 Khawarji (658-873 AD) are mutual enemies with III/37 Abbasid Arabs (747-945 AD) and III/43 Khurasanians (821-1073 AD).
(We already have III/25c and III/37a & b as mutual enemies in red...these need to be changed to green.
But we also need to have III/25c and III/43a & b as mutual enemies...again in green as Phil Barker’s own assessments)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 1, 2020 13:08:10 GMT
More DBMM Army List inconsistencies from Book III (2007 edition)III/29 Thematic Byzantines (650-963 AD) allows the III/21b Lombards (in Italy in 729 AD),
and the III/37 Saracens-Persians (in Anatolia in 821-823 AD) as allies ...but DBA does not.
It also allows Kurds as a ‘Persian Tourmai’ (3 x Cv in Anatolia in 834-839 AD).
(Worth adding to DBA?)
III/30 Magyars (650-1003 AD) has the III/68 Early Hungarians (997-1245 AD) as an enemy ...but not in DBA.
(Worth having III/30b (896-1003 AD) and III/68a (997-1102 AD) as mutual enemies in DBA?
Or did the all the Magyar nobles quietly and meekly evolve into III/68a Hungarians when Stephen I -no relation -
turned them into a Christian state in 1001 AD? No, they didn’t, as shown below:-)
“After succeeding his father Grand Prince Géza in 997, Stephen had to fight for the throne against his relative, Koppány,
who was supported by large numbers of pagan warriors. He defeated Koppány mainly with the assistance of foreign knights,
including Vecelin, Hont and Pázmány, but also with help from native lords. He was crowned on 25 December 1000 or 1 January
1001 with a crown sent by Pope Sylvester II. In a series of wars against semi-independent tribes and chieftains — including the
Black Hungarians and his uncle, Gyula the Younger—he unified the Carpathian Basin.”
(Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_I_of_Hungary )
III/31 Umayyad Arabs (657-750 AD) are mutual enemies of the III/20 T’ang Chinese (618-755 AD) ...but not in DBA.
(However they should be: see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aksu_(717) )
III/33 Early North African Muslims (696-1160 AD) allows III/33 Zirid allies (in Scilly in 1035 and 1063 AD) ...but DBA does not
III/33 Early North African Muslims (696-1160 AD) are mutual enemies of III/69 West Sudanese (1000-1591 AD) ...but not in DBA.
(Worth adding III/33 as allies and III/33 and III/69 as mutual enemies?)
QUESTION: should the III/35a & b Feudal Spanish (718-1200 AD) be mutual enemies with the III/40a & b Vikings (790-1280 AD)?
(See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramiro_I_of_Asturias and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings_in_Iberia )
|
|
)