|
|
Post by Haardrada on Feb 7, 2020 11:09:19 GMT
I like it Stevie, good work. đ
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 9, 2020 12:38:58 GMT
My attempts to provide âpreceded byâ and âfollowed byâ information is coming along well, although it has led to the discovery of a few more date anomalies. In ancient Syria, army I/9 Early Syrians date ends in 2200 BC, but the army that follows them, that of the I/15 Later Amorites, doesnât begin until 1894 BC. Thus there is a 300 year gap where no-one occupies or controls the land of Syria! Fortunately the DBA and DBMM dialogues that accompanies army I/9 is aware of this, and thatâs why it says âThis list represents the culturally Sumerian early Syrian states such as Mari and Ebla before they were over-run by the Amurru, and also Syrian subject allies of the Amurru 2200 to 1894 BCâ. Therefore the correct titles should be:- I/6a Early Bedouin (3000 - 1001 BC) prehistory...becomes I/15 in Syria.
I/9 Early Syrian (2700 - 2200 BC) preceded by I/Ib...dominated by I/6a.
I/15 Later Amorite-Amurru (1894 - 1595 BC) preceded by I/6a...replaced by I/16.(Note that the Amorites and Amurru are the same people, depending on if you wish to use the
Sumerian or Akkadian name for them) A similar situation occurs in Egypt. I/22b New-Kingdom Egypt ends in 1069 BC, but the following army, that of the I/38 Libyan Egyptians, doesnât start until 946 BC. So the entire 21st Dynasty (a time of anarchy known as the 3rd Intermediate Period, where the Nubian-Kushites regained their former independence and Middle & Southern Egypt was effectively under the control of the High Priests of Thebes), some 123 years, is completely missing. (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Priest_of_Amun and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt )I suggest redressing this with the following new title:- I/22b New Kingdom Egyptian (1199 - 1069 BC) preceded by I/22a...becomes I/38. I/38 Libyan Egyptian (1069 - 947 BC) & (946 - 712 BC) preceded by I/22b...becomes I/46b.(Note that army I/22b does not have itself as an internal enemy...but I/38 does)Last of all is the Kush situation. The I/3 Nubians of Kush were conquered by Egypt in 1480 BC, but they regained their independence around 1070 BC when they broke away during the 3rd Intermediate Period mentioned above, and later evolved into the I/46a Kushites (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kush ). So I suggest the following new titles:- I/3 Nubian (3000 - 1480 BC) & Ethiopians (1480 - 1070 BC) prehistory...Nubia later rebels to become I/46a.
I/46a Early Kushites (1070 - 746 BC) & (745 - 728 BC) preceded by I/3...followed by I/46b.(The Egyptians may have conquered Kush in 1480 BC, but other Nubian-like tribes remained independent
further south in Ethiopia) |
|
|
|
Post by zendor on May 25, 2020 7:36:52 GMT
Where can I find the last version of Army List Corrections document? Thanks!)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 25, 2020 8:05:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 25, 2020 9:36:12 GMT
The current version (created in January 2018) can be found here Zendor:- vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/c/c3/Army_List_Corrections_for_DBA_3.0.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20180124064046(If you get a â404 Error Messageâ itâs because youâre using a mobile device.
The Fanaticus Wiki can only be accessed via a computer)Iâm still working on an updated version, with extra ally data taken from the DBMM army lists (in green so that players can ignore it if they wish) and added âproceeded-by and followed-byâ information, which Iâll send to Timurilank and Haardrada for final editing and revising before posting...so it wonât be ready until probably about Christmas. |
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Aug 29, 2020 23:54:38 GMT
The III/55 Early Samurai are listed as opponents of III/62a Northern Sung (and III/62b Southern Sung).
I'm not saying they shouldn't be listed as opponents. Just the opposite, in fact...I'm looking for info (any info) about some historical battle between the two. Why? --So I can create an historical scenario between the two armies. Just imagine the sight of all those double-deep, Samurai 6Cv Bushi cavalry charging into the Northern Sung's double-deep, 8Cb elements. Exciting, no?
I don't see mention of any such battles in Greer or the Chris Peers books, etc. But, of course, the absence of evidence doesn't prove a negative.
So, if there are any East Asian scholars here who can point me in the right direction, I would be much obliged.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 30, 2020 7:28:35 GMT
The III/55 Early Samurai are listed as opponents of III/62a Northern Sung (and III/62b Southern Sung). I'm not saying they shouldn't be listed as opponents. Just the opposite, in fact...I'm looking for info ( any info) about some historical battle between the two. Why? --So I can create an historical scenario between the two armies. Just imagine the sight of all those double-deep, Samurai 6Cv Bushi cavalry charging into the Northern Sung's double-deep, 8Cb elements. Exciting, no? I don't see mention of any such battles in Greer or the Chris Peers books, etc. But, of course, the absence of evidence doesn't prove a negative. So, if there are any East Asian scholars here who can point me in the right direction, I would be much obliged. Iâve asked on the Society of Ancients Forum, Paul....will let you know if anything is forthcoming (often a true âmine of informationâ, and a prime part of SoA membership, along with the Slingshot mag., of course). |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 30, 2020 7:47:11 GMT
Paul,
Both are listed as enemies of the other in DBA2.0.
However, back then the Song were not split into northern and southern dynasties.
Searching the emperors of Japan and military history of the Song brought no results.
Did find the Toi Invasion of Japan (1019) by Jurchen pirates â not quite Song.
Plenty of commercial contact between the two countries.
It is not improbable but listed as enemies could be based on one event.
Viewing which had the better navy (1) I would say the Song were most likely the invader.
Perhaps if someone here has the Samurai Sourcebook by Stephen Turnbull, they could search the battles he lists.
(1) see, Military History of the Song, - substantial navy (10th c.) became permanent in the 12th c.
Useful link: Ethics of Civilization, vol. 3 China, Korea & Japan to 1800, Sanderson Beck.
www.san.beck.org/EC3cover.html
As Martin suggested, the SOA forum would be a good source.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 30, 2020 12:48:01 GMT
Just imagine the sight of all those double-deep, Samurai 6Cv Bushi cavalry charging into the Northern Sung's double-deep, 8Cb elements. Exciting, no? Hmmm...doubled-based 6Cv move 4 BW, more than the Bow range of 3 BW, and they get an extra +1 when in close combat with foot. The double-based 8Cb on the other hand have no extra advantage when shooting, they do not get a âquick-killâ against Cv on an equal score, and they only get an extra +1 for Solid 4Bd side-support or being double-based when in close combat with foot. My money is on the III/55 Early Samurai Paul. (Mind you, all those double-bases would look impressive  ) |
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Aug 30, 2020 13:46:16 GMT
Don't try this at home. The problem is that the double based cavalry must move up to 4 BW to attack the next turn. The bows move 1 BW and fire. Picking on a central cavalry unit they will shoot at 4 vs 3-2-1. The odds of a kill are 15/36. A push back is almost certain. Now, to get into combat the mounted need 2 pips if they lost an element, 3 pips if they escaped with a pushback. It is likely that someone is going to be fighting overlapped at 3 vs 4.
I tried it against an Achamaenid Persian army at Historicon and turned a victory into defeat when my general was killed at 4vs2, giving up 3 elements at once (2 for the double mount and 1 for the general).
Cavalry needs to be screened by light infantry to attack bow.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 30, 2020 17:59:51 GMT
Oh, I donât know Mthrguth...the 6Cv just needs to stop when 5 BW from the Bows. * If the Bows do advance, they still wonât be in range (move 1 BW + range of 3 BW), and next bound the 6Cv can move straight into contact. * If the Bows donât advance, the 6Cv can move 4 BW so they are 1 BW from the Bows, where the Bows canât gang-up but have to shoot individually at a target within their TZ. (Bow CF 4 v Cv CF 3 is only 4 chances out of 36 of the 6Cv being doubled and destroyed) Not a 100% safe bet perhaps...but the odds still favour the 6Cv, so my money is still on them. (But as they say, âdonât gamble if you canât afford to lose the moneyâ  ) |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 31, 2020 7:39:47 GMT
The III/55 Early Samurai are listed as opponents of III/62a Northern Sung (and III/62b Southern Sung). I'm not saying they shouldn't be listed as opponents. Just the opposite, in fact...I'm looking for info ( any info) about some historical battle between the two. Why? --So I can create an historical scenario between the two armies. Just imagine the sight of all those double-deep, Samurai 6Cv Bushi cavalry charging into the Northern Sung's double-deep, 8Cb elements. Exciting, no? I don't see mention of any such battles in Greer or the Chris Peers books, etc. But, of course, the absence of evidence doesn't prove a negative. So, if there are any East Asian scholars here who can point me in the right direction, I would be much obliged. Hi Paul Three replies on the Society of Ancients forum:- Nicholas Spratt, a known âorientalistâ scholar said- âI am intrigued myself... but other than low-consequence piracy I can't think of anythingâ. Duncan Head said -âApart from, as Nicholas suggests, piracy, I can't think of anything.â. Nik Gaukroger said - âLikewise; been reading a reasonable amount on the Song recently and cannot think of anything - I suspect this is an error.â ....so maybe they shouldnât have been listed as enemies anyway (?). Sorry no âpositiveâ information forthcoming, but you may have discovered an error in the lists . |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 31, 2020 11:37:05 GMT
You and those SOA commentators could be right Martin...it may well be a mistake.
A bit like how in the DBA 1.1 days, enemies had to be found for the I/55b Early Romans & I/59 Tullian Romans,
so any old Italian tribe was given the role, when actually the Samnites and II/8 armies didnât encounter Rome
until the II/10 Camillan Romans began expanding in 400 BC (the First Samnite War was in 343 BC, and the
I/36d Italian Hill Tribes had to be conquered before the II/8 armies could be reached).
Perhaps something similar was done with the III/55 Early Samurai, and the error was never corrected in all
the subsequent army lists.
Interestingly enough, the dialogue accompanying army III/55 in the DBMM army lists says this:-
âThese classifications may not appear at first sight to be consistent with the modern popular mythology of the samurai, but produce
very realistic effects against their historical opponents, who were other Japanese armies of the same period and Mongols.â
For what itâs worth (and as part of my efforts to add âpreceded-byâ and âfollowed-byâ info into the army lists),
here is a little chart showing the current DBA 3.0 situation:-
III/20ac Sui & Early Tâang (581-755 AD) â(mutual enemies)â III/7ab Pre-Samurai Japanese (500-900 AD)
â â
III/39 Late Tâang/5 Dynasties (755-979 AD) (not enemies) III/55 Early Samurai (900-1300 AD)
â â
III/62ab Sung Chinese (960-1279 AD) â(mutual enemies)â III/55 Early Samurai (900-1300 AD)
â â
IV/48 Yuan Chinese (1260-1368 AD) â(mutual enemies)â IV/59 Post-Mongol Samurai (1300-1542 AD)
(Note that the III/55 Early Samurai are also mutual enemies with the II/77b Shilla Koreans (300-935 AD)...
...but the III/62ab Sung Chinese are not, as their dates donât match.
However, the III/57 Koryo Dynasty Koreans (918-1392 AD) are mutual enemies of both III/62a AND III/55,
so perhaps the Sung Chinese and the Early Samurai may have met each other in the Korean Peninsular)
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Sept 1, 2020 20:38:10 GMT
...the III/57 Koryo Dynasty Koreans (918-1392 AD) are mutual enemies of both III/62a AND III/55,
so perhaps the Sung Chinese and the Early Samurai may have met each other in the Korean Peninsular) Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. I, for one, will hang my hat on Stevie's speculation above and just leave it at that. |
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Nov 26, 2020 16:20:53 GMT
... so perhaps the Sung Chinese and the Early Samurai may have met each other in the Korean Peninsula.)We now have conclusive (ahem) "proof" that the III/55 Early Samurai did fight the III/62a Northern Sung in Korea. Our local DBA group's battlefield archaeologist and scenario-designer, Gary Pomeroyq, traveled covertly (due to COVID restrictions) to Korea. He and his team of cartographers returned safely and have completed a two-week quarantine. Per Dr. Pomeroyq's research: Following the Zenkunen War, a Japanese army, led by Minamoto no Yoshiie invaded the Korean Peninsula in AD 1063. A Chinese army crossed the Yalu River and the two armies fought over a strategic hill at the Battle of Tonkatsu-Oka in 1064. While their research determined each army's order-of-battle and starting position, they could not determine the outcome of the battle. (Gary's scenario will be play-tested this weekend. Pics and a brief report will follow.) |
|
)
)