|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jan 21, 2021 13:37:58 GMT
I'd like to bring attention to the end date of the III/10c Rajput list as I believe it is incorrect. The Rajputs in one form or another continued to be a potent force in Medieval India,although subdued in part by the Delhi Sultinate they did continue to resist after the date of 1303AD.What May be confusing is that there are several Rajput clans and some had become semi-independent vassels of the Delhi Sultanate, while others continued to fight. The classification of these armies as being covered by the III/10C Other Hindu Indian armies would be also incorrect as the Rajput clans still maintained their ferosity and exceptional Cavalry.
To support this I can provide the following information....
Rana Hamir(1314-78)continued redistance and formed his own state in Mewar defeating the Tughlaq army at the Battles of Jalore 1311,Chitior 1321 and Singoli 1336 (Liberating Rajputana).
In the DBM army notes for the Later Muslim Indian army it was noted that the Rathors at least had regained de facto independence after the death of Feruz Shah in 1388.
Lakha Singh regained the remaining territories taken by the Delhi Sultinate in 1421AD.
Mokal Singh repelled Muslim invasions 1421-1433AD.
Rana Khmbha again defeated an invasion at the Battle of Mandalgharh 1342AD.
A description of the Battle of Khatou 1518 quoted "the Muslim army could not withstand onslaught of the Rajput army".
And at the Battle of Dholpur 1519 "the defeated army scattered like dead leaves caught in a gale".
After the Battle of Panpat 1526 and the fall of the Delhi Sultinate left the Rajputs as the only opposition to the Moghul Dynasty. It was at the Battle of Khanwa 1527 where Moghul cannon were decisive against Rajput Cavalry that the Rajputs knew that continued opposition would be suicidal.
To conclude I must admit I found most of this information readily available and wonder how it could have been missed, especially when the information on the Rathors establishing independence was printed in the DBM lists? There was never more than 8 years between documented resistance by the Rajput clans to the Muslim invasions and they at no time seem to have lost their elan.
I propose that the III/10b lost end date be extended to 1527AD.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 21, 2021 15:41:24 GMT
I'd like to bring attention to the end date of the III/10c Rajput list as I believe it is incorrect. The Rajputs in one form or another continued to be a potent force in Medieval India,although subdued in part by the Delhi Sultinate they did continue to resist after the date of 1303AD.What May be confusing is that there are several Rajput clans and some had become semi-independent vassels of the Delhi Sultanate, while others continued to fight. The classification of these armies as being covered by the III/10C Other Hindu Indian armies would be also incorrect as the Rajput clans still maintained their ferosity and exceptional Cavalry. To support this I can provide the following information.... Rana Hamir(1314-78)continued redistance and formed his own state in Mewar defeating the Tughlaq army at the Battles of Jalore 1311,Chitior 1321 and Singoli 1336 (Liberating Rajputana). In the DBM army notes for the Later Muslim Indian army it was noted that the Rathors at least had regained de facto independence after the death of Feruz Shah in 1388. Lakha Singh regained the remaining territories taken by the Delhi Sultinate in 1421AD. Mokal Singh repelled Muslim invasions 1421-1433AD. Rana Khmbha again defeated an invasion at the Battle of Mandalgharh 1342AD. A description of the Battle of Khatou 1518 quoted "the Muslim army could not withstand onslaught of the Rajput army". And at the Battle of Dholpur 1519 "the defeated army scattered like dead leaves caught in a gale". After the Battle of Panpat 1526 and the fall of the Delhi Sultinate left the Rajputs as the only opposition to the Moghul Dynasty. It was at the Battle of Khanwa 1527 where Moghul cannon were decisive against Rajput Cavalry that the Rajputs knew that continued opposition would be suicidal. To conclude I must admit I found most of this information readily available and wonder how it could have been missed, especially when the information on the Rathors establishing independence was printed in the DBM lists? There was never more than 8 years between documented resistance by the Rajput clans to the Muslim invasions and they at no time seem to have lost their elan. I propose that the III/10b lost end date be extended to 1527AD.
The Bhatti Rajputs of Jaisalmer: DBM on the Northwest Frontier, Adrian Clarke, Slingshot 248 p.1-8 (September 2006). This well-documented article is noted as a source under III/10 army list. Clarke also adds entries for the DBM list, which can easily translate to DBA. The date given for the list is from 731 AD to 1510 AD. Below are the references used and the website should prove useful. References
Tod, James; Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan. Munishiram Manaharial (2 vols.) 2001 Keay, John; India – A History. Harper Collins 2000 Sandhu, Gurcham Singh; A Military History of Medieval India. Vision Books. Bhakari, S.K; Indian Warfare – An Appraisal of Strategy and Tactics in the Early Medieval Period. Munshiram Manoharlal. 1980 Gommans J.L. & Kolff H.A. (ed); Warfare and Weaponry in South Asia 1000-1800. Oxford University Press. 2001 Note: Annals and Antiquities, India; A History and A Military History of Medieval India can be found online (archive.org). Warfare and Weaponry in South Asia (available as pdf.) Website
www.mapsofindia.com/history |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jan 21, 2021 17:06:03 GMT
I'd like to bring attention to the end date of the III/10c Rajput list as I believe it is incorrect. The Rajputs in one form or another continued to be a potent force in Medieval India,although subdued in part by the Delhi Sultinate they did continue to resist after the date of 1303AD.What May be confusing is that there are several Rajput clans and some had become semi-independent vassels of the Delhi Sultanate, while others continued to fight. The classification of these armies as being covered by the III/10C Other Hindu Indian armies would be also incorrect as the Rajput clans still maintained their ferosity and exceptional Cavalry. To support this I can provide the following information.... Rana Hamir(1314-78)continued redistance and formed his own state in Mewar defeating the Tughlaq army at the Battles of Jalore 1311,Chitior 1321 and Singoli 1336 (Liberating Rajputana). In the DBM army notes for the Later Muslim Indian army it was noted that the Rathors at least had regained de facto independence after the death of Feruz Shah in 1388. Lakha Singh regained the remaining territories taken by the Delhi Sultinate in 1421AD. Mokal Singh repelled Muslim invasions 1421-1433AD. Rana Khmbha again defeated an invasion at the Battle of Mandalgharh 1342AD. A description of the Battle of Khatou 1518 quoted "the Muslim army could not withstand onslaught of the Rajput army". And at the Battle of Dholpur 1519 "the defeated army scattered like dead leaves caught in a gale". After the Battle of Panpat 1526 and the fall of the Delhi Sultinate left the Rajputs as the only opposition to the Moghul Dynasty. It was at the Battle of Khanwa 1527 where Moghul cannon were decisive against Rajput Cavalry that the Rajputs knew that continued opposition would be suicidal. To conclude I must admit I found most of this information readily available and wonder how it could have been missed, especially when the information on the Rathors establishing independence was printed in the DBM lists? There was never more than 8 years between documented resistance by the Rajput clans to the Muslim invasions and they at no time seem to have lost their elan. I propose that the III/10b lost end date be extended to 1527AD.
The Bhatti Rajputs of Jaisalmer: DBM on the Northwest Frontier, Adrian Clarke, Slingshot 248 p.1-8 (September 2006). This well-documented article is noted as a source under III/10 army list. Clarke also adds entries for the DBM list, which can easily translate to DBA. The date given for the list is from 731 AD to 1510 AD. Below are the references used and the website should prove useful. References
Tod, James; Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan. Munishiram Manaharial (2 vols.) 2001 Keay, John; India – A History. Harper Collins 2000 Sandhu, Gurcham Singh; A Military History of Medieval India. Vision Books. Bhakari, S.K; Indian Warfare – An Appraisal of Strategy and Tactics in the Early Medieval Period. Munshiram Manoharlal. 1980 Gommans J.L. & Kolff H.A. (ed); Warfare and Weaponry in South Asia 1000-1800. Oxford University Press. 2001 Note: Annals and Antiquities, India; A History and A Military History of Medieval India can be found online (archive.org). Warfare and Weaponry in South Asia (available as pdf.) Website
www.mapsofindia.com/historyThan you Timurilank that is quite informative. Does this confirm that in DBA circles that the Rajput list end date should be extended? Although the article on the Bhatti Rajputs covers the period 731AD-1510AD, other clans were certainly active beyond this period. The maps of India is a fine site for reference, but most maps cover the furthest extent of territory belonging to each Dynasty or state and does not reflect all territories held throughout their time span as several territories were un-conquered vassal kingdoms or periodically in rebellion or separated. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 21, 2021 18:17:06 GMT
Haardrada,
There are other armies which fall into a similar conundrum, the Abbasid for example did survive into the Crusade period.
Although not mentioned as such, a 15th century Low Countries do survive but are hidden under the Burgundian Ordonnance list IV/83b, so Duncan Head’s Slingshot article did make a difference.
Based on the article by Adrian Clarke, I would say yes – the date can be extended.
The Rajput are also mentioned as allies for the Hindu and Muslim Indian, but with specific dating.
Ian Heath also adds in Armies of the Middle Ages, vol. 2, the Rajputs using elephants during the latter part of the 15th century, though he mentions nothing of other troops.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 22, 2021 0:42:56 GMT
Thanks guys! Good debate! Good discussion! Regret I can’t add anything to but am glad that experts like you discuss stuff like this so idiots like me can benefit from your knowledge and research. Bravo! ...and thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jan 22, 2021 2:53:56 GMT
Haardrada,
There are other armies which fall into a similar conundrum, the Abbasid for example did survive into the Crusade period. Although not mentioned as such, a 15th century Low Countries do survive but are hidden under the Burgundian Ordonnance list IV/83b, so Duncan Head’s Slingshot article did make a difference. Based on the article by Adrian Clarke, I would say yes – the date can be extended. The Rajput are also mentioned as allies for the Hindu and Muslim Indian, but with specific dating. Ian Heath also adds in Armies of the Middle Ages, vol. 2, the Rajputs using elephants during the latter part of the 15th century, though he mentions nothing of other troops. The search for Rajput information has been quite an eye opener, as even contingents fought for the invading Ghaznavids in the 11th century. The Rajput army at the final battle of Khanwa consisted of 100,000 Cavalry and 500 Elephants if sources are to be believed. This also included allied Afghan horse and remnant Hindu Lodi contingents. No other troops are mentioned but I find it hard to believe other supporting troops were not present. It was also noted that the Rajput weaponry was inferior as they had no cannon or muskets and could not close with the Moghuls, especially their center which was partially behind trenches and defensive wagons and mantles forcing them to attack the flanks, which failed. Even the Moghuls are reported to have attempted a flank envelopement which also failed. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 22, 2021 8:51:06 GMT
Haardrada,
I do not read Adrian Clarke among the list of DBA3 acknowledgements.
Strange, though the article is listed as a source it is not fully worked into the Rajputs DBA army list.
Elephants are increased and camel riders are included to make use of the Dry terrain option, so the date change may be an oversight?
III/10b Rajputs 747 – 1300 AD (DBA2.2)
1 x El or 3Kn (Gen), 3 x 3Kn, 2 x 3Bd, 4 x 3Bw, 2 x Ps.
III/10b Rajputs 747 – 1303 AD (DBA3.0)
1 x General on elephant (El) or horseback (3Kn), 2 x cavalry (3Kn), 1 x elephants (El) or cavalry (3Kn), 2 x swordsmen (3Bd),
3 x archers (3Bw), 1 x camel riders (Cm) or archers (3Bw), 1 x javelinmen (Ps), 1 x javelinmen (Ps) or camp followers (7Hd).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 22, 2021 13:20:29 GMT
Excellent bit of detective work there Haardrada and Timurilank. 👍 For those interested, see the link below for a description of the 1527 Battle of Khanwa:- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khanwa(Wikipedia is not always accurate I know, but it does make a good starting point, and it also gives many sources for independent cross-referencing) May I make the following suggestions? III/10 HINDU INDIAN 545 AD - 1527 ADIII/10a Kanauj Army 606-647 AD III/10b Rajput Army 747-1303 AD & 1304-1527 ADIII/10c Other Hindu Indian Armies (Adding 1304-1527 as a separate entry like this allows players to
ignore it if they wish, and it also emphasizes that Rajputs still existed,
even if they were no longer the dominating power during that period)IV/36 LATER MUSLIM INDIAN 1206 AD - 1527 ADIV/36a Muslim Indian Army 1206-1315 AD IV/36b Muslim Indian Army 1316- 1527 AD(If III/10b is going to extend to 1527 AD, who will they fight?So IV/36b also needs to end at the battle of Khanwa)The III/10b Rajputs and the IV/36b Muslim Indians will need to be made mutual enemies of each other as well. It looks as if the effects of expanding armies III/10 and IV/36 into new sub-lists was not taken fully into account. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jan 23, 2021 7:12:57 GMT
Excellent bit of detective work there Haardrada and Timurilank. 👍 For those interested, see the link below for a description of the 1527 Battle of Khanwa:- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khanwa(Wikipedia is not always accurate I know, but it does make a good starting point, and it also gives many sources for independent cross-referencing) May I make the following suggestions? III/10 HINDU INDIAN 545 AD - 1527 ADIII/10a Kanauj Army 606-647 AD III/10b Rajput Army 747-1303 AD & 1304-1527 ADIII/10c Other Hindu Indian Armies (Adding 1304-1527 as a separate entry like this allows players to
ignore it if they wish, and it also emphasizes that Rajputs still existed,
even if they were no longer the dominating power during that period)IV/36 LATER MUSLIM INDIAN 1206 AD - 1527 ADIV/36a Muslim Indian Army 1206-1315 AD IV/36b Muslim Indian Army 1316- 1527 AD(If III/10b is going to extend to 1527 AD, who will they fight?So IV/36b also needs to end at the battle of Khanwa)The III/10b Rajputs and the IV/36b Muslim Indians will need to be made mutual enemies of each other as well. It looks as if the effects of expanding armies III/10 and IV/36 into new sub-lists was not taken fully into account. That all seems reasonable Stevie, but what may be of note that the III/10b Rajputs never had access to Artillery as far as I can find and they as well as their Hindu Allies suffered defeat as a consequence. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 23, 2021 10:12:32 GMT
I think that is already adequately covered in the DBA army lists Haardrada. III/10b Rajputs don’t have access to Artillery, and the III/10c Hindus only have it if they are Vijayanagars in the south of India after 1336 AD. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayanagara_EmpireAh, but I see what you're saying... ...the Rajputs could potentially have III/10c allied Art, and they shouldn't. We'll just have to adjust the III/10b Ally to read → Allies: III/10c (not Art). (Or leave things just as they are and leave it up to players not to use Artillery
for the Rajputs when re-creating the 1527 Battle of Khanwa...) |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 27, 2021 15:09:36 GMT
IV/54d Other Medieval Scandinavian armies 1280 – 1523 AD
Further research into later 15th century conflicts I found Russia and Sweden are omitted as enemies of each other.
The first event occurs before the establishment of the Swedish kingdom, but the ‘d’ sub-list serves well for this and for the wars mentioned further below.
The Republic of Novgorod invaded Eastland (Finland), then colony of the Kingdom of Sweden, as part of the Swedish-Novgorodian Wars.
Historians place the conquest of Karelia (1293) and subsequent construction of the fortress at Landskrona as part of the Third Crusade.
Novgorod later destroyed Landskrona as the war continued until the signing of the Treaty of Nöteborg of 1323, which defined the Karelian frontier between the two realms.
Subsequent decades, Swedish sovereignty over Eastland diminished during the early 15th century, as internal conflicts within the kingdom of Sweden became problematic.
The state of affairs in Sweden did not leave Eastland idle as local frälse (nobles) and the clergy were still responsible for the governance of the major districts.
As the population began to spread, border disputes and fights became endemic, however, this was about to change. In 1478,
Novgorod was annexed to Moscow who now viewed the Eastland incursions as a breach of the border treaty of 1323.
This resulted in open war until an interim peace could be reached in 1482. Hostilities resumed in 1495 with Moscow besieging
the castle of Vyborg and other military columns reaching the provinces of Karelia, Ostrobothnia, Savonia and Tavastia.
The war concluded with the peace treaty of 1497.
History of Finland (Wiki)
Castles of Finland (Wiki)
Swedish-Novgorodian Wars (Wiki)
Armour Force/Panssaroitu Voima, Early Finnish Saga 5. 24.08.2017
Add IV/54d Other Medieval Scandinavian armies as enemy of IV/44 Post-Mongol Russian.
Add IV/44 Post-Mongol Russian as an enemy of IV/54d Other Medieval Scandinavian army.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on May 5, 2021 18:50:06 GMT
...take a look at the I/14 European Bronze Age armies, the I/7 Early Libyan armies, the I/10 Pre-Vedic Indian army, in fact most of the armies of Book 1 that cover periods where there are no actual written records are pure conjecture. This is inevitable without hard historical proof. Seems a little odd that I/10 Pre-Vedic Indian army is listed as an historical opponent of the I/23a Early Vedic Indian army. Their timelines overlap for exactly one year, 1500 BCE. But as Stevie says, it's pure conjecture anyway, so, yeah, let it stand, I guess. And I won't even raise the more existential question as to whether Pre-Vedic Indians knew that they were Pre-Vedic. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 5, 2021 21:46:25 GMT
Having only scant archaeological clues (and in many cases not even that) rather than hard written translated historical texts can be an advantage as well as a disadvantage. After all, without written evidence nobody can say whether it’s right or wrong can they.  All we have left is our own imaginations... |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 6, 2021 17:06:49 GMT
Having only scant archaeological clues (and in many cases not even that) rather than hard written translated historical texts can be an advantage as well as a disadvantage. After all, without written evidence nobody can say whether it’s right or wrong can they. All we have left is our own imaginations... I guess I will beat you to the punch and say - "We didn't write the army lists either!"  |
|
|
|
Post by elviro on May 21, 2021 17:41:13 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 “404 Error Message” it’s because you’re using a mobile device.
The Fanaticus Wiki can only be accessed via a computer)I’m 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 ‘proceeded-by and followed-by’ information, which I’ll send to Timurilank and Haardrada for final editing and revising before posting...so it won’t be ready until probably about Christmas. Hi, still working on that? Just found the formidable list from 2018 
And one small proposal to maybe take back a change.....
"II/70a Army of the Burgundi (250 AD – 534 AD) remove II/82a Western Patrician Romans (408 AD – 493 AD)" (The Burgundi were foederati and loyal to Rome)
I wouldn't think so. The Burgundians were as opportunistic as anyone at that time. They crossed the Rhine with other german tibes to plunder as was usual then, but setteled down after being defeated by the Romans (before the relevant time frame). After supporting a puppet emperor (Jovinus) in 411 they were settled/granted land by the Emperor Honorius in the Rhine area as foederati, which should be seen as a reward/sign of appreciation. Only a short time afterwards they moved west again to attack the province Gallia Belgica but were beaten by Aetius in 435 or 436. Then their kingdom at the Rhine was destroyed by Huns on behalf of Aetius 436 or 437. It seems not completely clear if these were two seperate wars/battles, but I believe so. I found this: "According to Prosper of Aquitaine, “Aetius crushed [Gundahar], who was king of the Burgundians and living in Gaul. In response to his entreaty, Aetius gave him peace, which the king did not enjoy for long. For the Huns destroyed him and his people root and branch...." Prosper clearly separated the two attacks upon the Burgundians” here theburgundian.blogspot.com/2009/06/aetius-and-fall-of-first-burgundian.html. And later in 456-458 they played a significant role in bringing down the last Roman emperors (with Ricimer et. al.). I think giving Burgundians and Western Patrician Romans the option of enemies (vice versa!) as well as allies best describes their difficult relationship  Anyway, thanks for all your work! |
|
