|
Post by timurilank on Jun 23, 2023 14:26:17 GMT
Asiatic Early Successor expedition against Petra of the Nabataean. Episode 15, the Nabataeans on the Fall of Civilization channel, describes in 312 BC, King Antigonus sent an expedition to raid Petra, the capital city of the Nabataeans. The Nabataean men were away and finding Petra undefended the Greeks seized as much wealth they could carry. Returning to Petra and finding its temples and houses looted, the Nabataean mounted a pursuit gathering more help from the surrounding villages eventually numbering 8,000 camel riders. The Greek defeat is recorded by Diodorus of Sicily. Several points. The army of Antigonus ( II/16a, 320 – 301 BC) does not list the Nabataean ( 250 BC – 106 AD) as an enemy as their dates do not correspond. Changing the date of the Nabataean would not help as the pursuing force are camel mounted. This leaves the Early Arabs ( I/6b, 1000 – 312 BC), the best option. This list comprise of 5 x Cm, 4 x 3Ax, 3 x Ps. Fall of Civilisations/ the Nabataeans (42 min. in) www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSfFq02pK4s&list=WL&index=5&t=3302sDiodorus of Sicily (Book XIX, 94.) penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/home.html
|
|
|
Post by diades on Feb 10, 2024 16:34:45 GMT
Has anyone picked up on I/43b Scythian or Hu having I/14b European Bronze Age as allies?
I/43b 300-19 BC and 400 BC - 70 AD I/14b 1400-701 BC
Surely an error?
Is there a confirmed list of corrections buried within this thread?
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 10, 2024 17:02:53 GMT
Has anyone picked up on I/43b Scythian or Hu having I/14b European Bronze Age as allies? I/43b 300-19 BC and 400 BC - 70 AD I/14b 1400-701 BC Surely an error? Is there a confirmed list of corrections buried within this thread? Yes, Stevie grouped the list of corrections on page 5.
|
|
|
Post by diades on Feb 10, 2024 17:17:01 GMT
Has anyone picked up on I/43b Scythian or Hu having I/14b European Bronze Age as allies? I/43b 300-19 BC and 400 BC - 70 AD I/14b 1400-701 BC Surely an error? Is there a confirmed list of corrections buried within this thread? Yes, Stevie grouped the list of corrections on page 5. Many thanks
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 24, 2024 13:17:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Apr 24, 2024 13:18:18 GMT
That's a long time ago
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 24, 2024 16:11:59 GMT
...just a little before tea time.😁🫖
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 16, 2024 10:40:34 GMT
If not already mentioned army I/1c Great Summerian Revolt has a typo error....the allied I/5a should read as I/5b due to the time period.😉
Regards
Eddie
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Nov 26, 2024 10:20:16 GMT
Hi,
about Spanish Conquistadors,
as IV/19c and IV/63 (Aztecs) are ennemies, what about for Mayas III/22d (1519-1521 and 1542 & 1546) and Incas (1532, 1536/37) adding Spanish Ennemies ?
- for Maya it seem that IV/19c is ok too? - for Incas IV/81 , don't know exactly... It seem that Spanishs Pizarro army have allies too (Canaris IV/70, Chachapoyas, Huancas, Quechuas...) so something like III/19d? (replacing Tlaxcala by Canaris)
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Nov 26, 2024 10:26:17 GMT
btw, is it a link of a more recent version of Army List Corrections document?
|
|
|
Post by kaiphranos on Nov 26, 2024 13:34:48 GMT
I agree, IV/19c should have some additional opponents among the neighbors of the Aztecs - the Lienzo de Tlaxcala includes records of expeditions against various southern tribes and cities, including some that would probably be considered as Maya. And while the Chichimeca War might be pushing the temporal limits of DBA, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have some of those northern desert groups as opponents too.
|
|