|
|
Post by stevie on May 21, 2021 18:30:45 GMT
Welcome to Fanaticus Elviro.  I see what you’re saying…the army list error is II/70a is the enemy of both II/78a and II/82a, but II/82a does not mention II/70a (and from your sources they should). As for allowing II/70a to have II/78a or II/82a as allies, we have to be careful. Mr Barker has strict guidelines as to who can and can’t be allies. Just being good friends is not enough…there has to be written evidence saying that they both fought side-by-side on the very same battlefield. And Roman armies II/78a and II/82a already have the II/70a Burgundi as allies. (By the way, I said the new updated version of the “Army List Corrections” would
be ready by Christmas…but I never said which Christmas did I…  ) |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 21, 2021 19:48:49 GMT
II/70 Burgundi 250 – 539 AD & Limigantes 334 – 359 AD, A general observation about the barbarian migrations, this should not be viewed as a single event but an on-going process that has been noted since the early writings of Roman historians (Tacitus). During the late 4th century, Vandal attacks had split the Burgundi into two groups, one migrating westward to eventually settle in the Savoy region and a second group which remained on the right bank of the middle Rhine River. The latter were swept into Attila’s Empire to find themselves on opposite sides with their brethren, the Burgundi of King Gundioc. Referencing H. Wolfram’s ‘The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples’, the Burgundi were the first of the migrating tribes that assimilated quickly into the Roman Empire by maintaining Gallic administration and policies but eventually creating laws placing Burgundi and Romans on an equal footing. The Burgundi still acknowledged (feodus) their obligations to defend the Empire. I found many references to battles against the Alamanni, Goths and Franks with one mention of a sub-king of Geneva (Burgundi) switching sides in the Battle of Dijon, fought between the Franks (Clovis) and the Burgundi (King Gundobad). This victorious Franks departed leaving the sub-king of Geneva to his own devices and later be killed by Gundobad. Action: I do not think this sufficient evidence to include themselves as an enemy, but if anyone has other information, please share. Since Mar. 2017, I have found the following: The Burgundi did raid one of the Belgic provinces leading to a campaign in 435 AD which did not subdue them. Continuing with the campaign, Aetius finally crushed the Burgundi forcing King Gundichar to sign a treaty. This did not temper their warlike spirit, a subsequent rebellion in 437 AD was suppressed by Hun foederati slaughtering 20,000 including their king. Aetius, Attila’s Nemesis, Ian Hughes, 2012 Action:
II/82a Western Patrician Roman Army should add II/70a Burgundi as an enemy. |
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Mar 23, 2022 16:20:20 GMT
Here's another possible oversight in DBA-3's listing of historical opponents: IV/42 Islamic Persian vs. IV/55b OttomanEvidence: The Battle of Chaldiran, AD 1514. Big win for the Ottomans, who would go on to sack the Persian capital. This was prompted by Khurasan's release of their Safavid Persian range. I thought surely they would fight the later Ottomans. Nope. Not listed. But they should be. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 23, 2022 16:37:57 GMT
Here's another possible oversight in DBA-3's listing of historical opponents: IV/42 Islamic Persian vs. IV/55b OttomanEvidence: The Battle of Chaldiran, AD 1514. Big win for the Ottomans, who would go on to sack the Persian capital. This was prompted by Khurasan's release of their Safavid Persian range. I thought surely they would fight the later Ottomans. Nope. Not listed. But they should be. Indeed strange. DBA3, page 3, second to the last paragraph; “The period has been extended up to 1520 to take in the early part of the Italian Wars and the Ottoman-Mameluke wars. Only the Ottoman ‘a; sub-list have the Islamic Persians listed as opponents. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Mar 23, 2022 17:11:08 GMT
Here's another possible oversight in DBA-3's listing of historical opponents: IV/42 Islamic Persian vs. IV/55b OttomanEvidence: The Battle of Chaldiran, AD 1514. Big win for the Ottomans, who would go on to sack the Persian capital. This was prompted by Khurasan's release of their Safavid Persian range. I thought surely they would fight the later Ottomans. Nope. Not listed. But they should be. Reality always trumps an army's listed enemies. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 7, 2022 10:28:53 GMT
I have just found another Historical oversite....the army II/79a Northern (Wei) Dynasty did fight army II/38b Southern Hsuing nu (Hu Xia or Helian Xia or formerly Teifu) during the Northern Wei unification of Northern China 426-430AD resulting in the Wei conquering the state.
Thus both armies should be regarded as mutual enemies.😉
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jun 7, 2022 18:22:53 GMT
I have just found another Historical oversite....the army II/79a Northern (Wei) Dynasty did fight army II/38b Southern Hsuing nu (Hu Xia or Helian Xia or formerly Teifu) during the Northern Wei unification of Northern China 426-430AD resulting in the Wei conquering the state. Thus both armies should be regarded as mutual enemies.😉
Can you point the way to the sources? Cheers, |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jun 7, 2022 21:07:28 GMT
I have just found another Historical oversite....the army II/79a Northern (Wei) Dynasty did fight army II/38b Southern Hsuing nu (Hu Xia or Helian Xia or formerly Teifu) during the Northern Wei unification of Northern China 426-430AD resulting in the Wei conquering the state. Thus both armies should be regarded as mutual enemies.😉
Can you point the way to the sources? Cheers, In 426 the Northern Wei attacked the Hu Xia state and had conquered it by 430AD. Then they attacked the Northern Liang in 439AD and had taken that too by 441AD. Both were ruled by ethnic(Southern) Hsuing nu ruling families. Unification of Northern China... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_WeiLater Xiongnu states in Northern China... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 18, 2022 10:56:38 GMT
The list of enemies for the I/8a,b and c could be considered for changing.... I/8a list. I/21a Kassite Babylonians controlled Dilmun during the reign of Kirigazu II 1332-1308BC and possibly earlier under Kirigazu I who ruled until 1375BC. I/8b list. Makkan was also periodically controlled by Neo Babylonian Kingdoms(I/44ab) and later by the Achaemenid Persians (I/60ac). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maka_(satrapy)youtu.be/JO87G94z614I8/c list. Dilmun was occupied by several successive Kingdoms... I/25a Middle Assyrians ruled 1365BC-1050BC. I/25b Neo-Assyrians ruled 911BC-605AD. I/44b Neo-Babylonians evidence of rule 567BC. I/60a&c Achaemenid rule from the 6th-3rd Century(Tylos). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilmunyoutu.be/ESP2f4X70ykThus these lists should be considered mutual enemies with armies I/8a,b&c respectively. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Sept 4, 2022 10:18:47 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. On further reading the II/42b Tamil army 301-1370AD list should also be mutual enemies with both the Muslim Indian armies (1206AD-1315AD and 1316-1526AD lists).The Delhi Sultinate invaded Southern India in 1310AD,1314AD and again in 1323AD seriously damaging the Pandaya Kingdom and effectively leaving almost all of the Indian sub-continent dominated by the Delhi Sultinate. The Sambuvaraya and Madurai Dynasties(II/42b) although gaining indepence, were still vassals of the Delhi Sultinate until their conquest by the Vijanagar Empire....thus making them allies of the Delhi Sultinate(IV/36b list). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandya_dynastyen.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanateyoutu.be/9Q1injpHPs0 |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Dec 26, 2022 11:20:13 GMT
I found another possible change which may just have been overlooked... List IV/79b Later Swiss should be allowed IV/13c Medieval German allies. During the Old Zurich wars the Hapsburg supplied contingents that fought for Zurich against the Confederacy at the Battle of Jakob un Der Sihl 1446AD and the Battle of Ragaz in 1446AD.Zurich had been a full member of the Confederation since 1351 and remained so after the conflict. Fribourg however,although involved in several conflicts with the Swiss and as allies (including the IV/41 Earl Swiss) should be considered as being under the Medieval German Lists until the Burgundian wars 1474-1477 or 1481 when the city joined the Confederacy. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_of_the_Old_Swiss_Confederacy#:~:text=Most%20notable%20among%20these%20are,Confederacy%20stopped%20its%20aggressive%20expansion. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 26, 2022 13:49:08 GMT
I found another possible change which may just have been overlooked... List IV/79b Later Swiss should be allowed IV/13c Medieval German allies. During the Old Zurich wars the Hapsburg supplied contingents that fought for Zurich against the Confederacy at the Battle of Jakob un Der Sihl 1446AD and the Battle of Ragaz in 1446AD.Zurich had been a full member of the Confederation since 1351 and remained so after the conflict. Fribourg however,although involved in several conflicts with the Swiss and as allies (including the IV/41 Earl Swiss) should be considered as being under the Medieval German Lists until the Burgundian wars 1474-1477 or 1481 when the city joined the Confederacy. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_of_the_Old_Swiss_Confederacy#:~:text=Most%20notable%20among%20these%20are,Confederacy%20stopped%20its%20aggressive%20expansion. , IV/79b Later Swiss should have IV/79b as an enemy. Reading French and German sources for the Battle of St. Jacob, the Habsburg forces are actually 500 Austrian knights. I am not sure this would qualify as an allied contingent, however… For the Battle of Ragaz, Austrian strength is greater, 4,000 – 6,000, from Vorarlberg, the Etsch, Bishopric of Chur and from the Prättigau. Command shared by Hans von Rechberg and Wolfhard V von Brandis. Schlact bei Ragaz 1446de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlacht_bei_RagazHans von Rechberg (Swabia) de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Rechberg |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Dec 27, 2022 11:18:51 GMT
I found another possible change which may just have been overlooked... List IV/79b Later Swiss should be allowed IV/13c Medieval German allies. During the Old Zurich wars the Hapsburg supplied contingents that fought for Zurich against the Confederacy at the Battle of Jakob un Der Sihl 1446AD and the Battle of Ragaz in 1446AD.Zurich had been a full member of the Confederation since 1351 and remained so after the conflict. Fribourg however,although involved in several conflicts with the Swiss and as allies (including the IV/41 Earl Swiss) should be considered as being under the Medieval German Lists until the Burgundian wars 1474-1477 or 1481 when the city joined the Confederacy. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_of_the_Old_Swiss_Confederacy#:~:text=Most%20notable%20among%20these%20are,Confederacy%20stopped%20its%20aggressive%20expansion. , IV/79b Later Swiss should have IV/79b as an enemy. Reading French and German sources for the Battle of St. Jacob, the Habsburg forces are actually 500 Austrian knights. I am not sure this would qualify as an allied contingent, however… For the Battle of Ragaz, Austrian strength is greater, 4,000 – 6,000, from Vorarlberg, the Etsch, Bishopric of Chur and from the Prättigau. Command shared by Hans von Rechberg and Wolfhard V von Brandis. Schlact bei Ragaz 1446de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlacht_bei_RagazHans von Rechberg (Swabia) de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_RechbergWell spotted Robert,maybe now we can see how difficult a job the guys had researching the lists!The obvious omission that the Swiss enjoyed fighting amongst themselves as much as anyone else just goes to show that sometimes you can't see the wood for the trees.lol The 500 Knights at St.Jakobs could have been only recorded as only the knights being present by the chronicler as this was quite common in several battle accounts..the guglerkreig casualties only give totals of Knights killed too.Being that both the Imperial army and Free Companies were still essential of feudal organisation and pre-Ordonnance in nature, that retainers and levy would probably also be dragged along and may not have been worthy of comment by the writer. However,500 Imperial Knights alone are enough to fill out an allied contingent when the entire Norman army at the Battle of Cerami was barely 136 Knights and "only slightly more infantry".🙂 Also thank you for those links they were very valuable, by following them I found further links to the battle information I was able to translate which gave me information not readily available in English.🙂👍 |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 27, 2022 20:29:06 GMT
Also thank you for those links they were very valuable, by following them I found further links to the battle information I was able to translate which gave me information not readily available in English.🙂👍 Glad you found the links useful Haardrada. I found the same situation while researching late medieval information, some subjects were not found in English, but only in other European languages. Sources or references can also differ as you may find online books or pdf files in one but not the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Feb 7, 2023 15:38:21 GMT
|
|
) 
