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… )
Last Edit: May 21, 2021 18:39:01 GMT by stevie: ...I need to be cloned...
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
II/82a Western Patrician Roman Army should add II/70a Burgundi as an enemy.
Last Edit: May 21, 2021 19:52:00 GMT by timurilank