|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 24, 2017 10:36:29 GMT
IV/6c Arab Dynasties (1092 – 1172 AD) remove IV/35 Mongol Conquest Army (1206 – 1266 AD)
IV/6c Arab Dynasties (1092 – 1172 AD) remove IV/46 Ilkhanid Army (1251 – 1355 AD)
(Neither IV/35 nor IV/46 lists IV/6c as an enemy, and the dates don’t match)
Both IV/Mongol Conquest and IV/46 Ilkhanid appear as enemies of IV/6a Turkish ruled and Ayyubid remnant Syrian states which fall in the correct time period of 1092 – 1286 AD.
The DBA 2.2 army list for IV/6 did not have any sub-lists for the Syrian armies.
Action:
Remove.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 24, 2017 10:37:33 GMT
IV/13a Medieval German Army (1106 – 1150 AD) add IV/4a Feudal French Army (1072 – 1199 AD)
(Army IV/4a lists IV/13a as an enemy, but IV/13a does not mention IV/4a)
These two were listed as mutual enemies in DBA2.2. This is a clear omission.
Action:
Add IV/4a Feudal French to the enemy list of IV/13a Medieval German Army.
|
|
|
|
Post by panthros on Feb 24, 2017 10:50:58 GMT
Anything listed should be stated as opinion. Nowhere do I see references with authoritative sources and a wiki is not authoritative lol! I love how on the Internet, everyone is a critic. With multiple books published, Phil is correct until proven wrong. He even lists sources in his rules. Perhaps a newer book is published with new scholarly information, then list it. This post is already getting long with personal opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 24, 2017 12:02:42 GMT
Anything listed should be stated as opinion. Nowhere do I see references with authoritative sources and a wiki is not authoritative lol! I love how on the Internet, everyone is a critic. With multiple books published, Phil is correct until proven wrong. He even lists sources in his rules. Perhaps a newer book is published with new scholarly information, then list it. This post is already getting long with personal opinions. You make a good point panthros, but I think you may be being a little harsh. We are dealing after all with what are clearly errors, and how they could be reconciled. Take one of timurilank’s more recent posts for example:- IV/6c Arab Dynasties (1092 – 1172 AD) remove IV/35 Mongol Conquest Army (1206 – 1266 AD) IV/6c Arab Dynasties (1092 – 1172 AD) remove IV/46 Ilkhanid Army (1251 – 1355 AD) (Neither IV/35 nor IV/46 lists IV/6c as an enemy, and the dates don’t match) Action: Remove them. What would you have us do? a) Leave it as it is, even though IV/35 and IV/46 does not mention IV/6c as an enemy? b) Add IV/6c as an enemy to IV/35 and IV/46, even though the dates are clearly wrong? c) Or remove IV/35 and IV/46 as enemies from the IV/6c list as an error? Surely we have to do something. As for Wikipedia, I think you’ll find that timurilink has not mentioned it once, and I only did so in a single case concerning the Antigonid raid into Arabia (you are of course right in saying Wikipedia is not authoritative, heaven forbid!, but it does quote sources at the bottom. Not everyone can afford all the many scholarly books that have been published, and Wikipedia is better than nothing at all. But you do have to check the original sources for yourselves where possible). Nonetheless, you are correct that no one’s opinion should be taken as sacrosanct. Timurilank has already rejected several of my more, shall we say, ‘wilder’ suggestions...and will no doubt do so again. But if you think that any of our conclusions are incorrect please do say so. The more people that contribute and help this project better it will be for everyone. Which conclusions specifically do you have in mind that may be incorrect? Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Feb 25, 2017 7:08:51 GMT
With multiple books published, Phil is correct until proven wrong. This makes no sense at all. Not only is it internally illogical, but Phil didn't write all the army lists. Furthermore, history, like many fields of inquiry, is an iterative process of integrating new facts and improving logic. So even if there was only one Phil - which there isn't - he wouldn't know everything as obviously demonstrated by this thread. This is not about competing opinions, it is about competing arguments. If you can build a compelling argument from good sources, your work may well be better than Phil's. Try it. The army lists could be vastly improved if they provided some underlying sources, especially for the less well attested army lists, because the assumptions to go from history to army list are so much more significant. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Feb 25, 2017 8:27:24 GMT
II/68b Pictish Army (500 AD – 842 AD) remove III/40b Viking Army (850 – 1280 AD)?
(Army II/68b lists II/40b as an enemy, but III/40b does not list II/68b, and the dates don’t quite match.
Or, add II/68b as an enemy to III/40b and shuffle the end date of II/68b up a bit. I’ll leave it with you to decide.)
Action:
Suggest omitting III/40b as an enemy of the II/86b as after 842 AD we find the Picts are replaced by the III/45 Pre-Feudal Scots 842 – 1124 AD. The Pre-Feudal Scots have both III/40a and 40b as enemies and III/40b may be ‘allies’.
I've been doing some checking on this one and found the Vikings are recorded holding territory in the Orkneys,Hebrides,Forth of Clyde,Caithness and Sutherland as early as the 8th century so undoubtably came into conflict with the Picts.The Orkney Sagas are the strongest source which is now being backed by archeological evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 25, 2017 9:00:57 GMT
II/68b Pictish Army (500 AD – 842 AD) remove III/40b Viking Army (850 – 1280 AD)?
(Army II/68b lists II/40b as an enemy, but III/40b does not list II/68b, and the dates don’t quite match.
Or, add II/68b as an enemy to III/40b and shuffle the end date of II/68b up a bit. I’ll leave it with you to decide.)
Action:
Suggest omitting III/40b as an enemy of the II/86b as after 842 AD we find the Picts are replaced by the III/45 Pre-Feudal Scots 842 – 1124 AD. The Pre-Feudal Scots have both III/40a and 40b as enemies and III/40b may be ‘allies’.
I've been doing some checking on this one and found the Vikings are recorded holding territory in the Orkneys,Hebrides,Forth of Clyde,Caithness and Sutherland as early as the 8th century so undoubtably came into conflict with the Picts.The Orkney Sagas are the strongest source which is now being backed by archeological evidence. Thanks for the note. Looking at this analysis of the Orkney Saga it is difficult to place specific dates. oaks.nvg.org/orkneyingers.html
The III/40a Viking Army (790 - 849 AD) and II/68b Pictish Army (500 - 842 AD) are listed as mutual enemies.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 25, 2017 9:24:35 GMT
With multiple books published, Phil is correct until proven wrong. This makes no sense at all. Not only is it internally illogical, but Phil didn't write all the army lists. Furthermore, history, like many fields of inquiry, is an iterative process of integrating new facts and improving logic. So even if there was only one Phil - which there isn't - he wouldn't know everything as obviously demonstrated by this thread. This is not about competing opinions, it is about competing arguments. If you can build a compelling argument from good sources, your work may well be better than Phil's. Try it. The army lists could be vastly improved if they provided some underlying sources, especially for the less well attested army lists, because the assumptions to go from history to army list are so much more significant.
In addition to what Dangun posted above you must also remember that we are not so much questioning Phil Barker’s undoubtedly immense knowledge and judgment when it comes to matters of ancient history...
...but we are questioning the judgment of the person whose job it was to proofread the Army Lists prior to publication. 
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 25, 2017 9:25:52 GMT
II/68b Pictish Army (500 AD – 842 AD) remove III/40b Viking Army (850 – 1280 AD)?
(Army II/68b lists II/40b as an enemy, but III/40b does not list II/68b, and the dates don’t quite match.
Or, add II/68b as an enemy to III/40b and shuffle the end date of II/68b up a bit. I’ll leave it with you to decide.)
Action:
Suggest omitting III/40b as an enemy of the II/86b as after 842 AD we find the Picts are replaced by the III/45 Pre-Feudal Scots 842 – 1124 AD. The Pre-Feudal Scots have both III/40a and 40b as enemies and III/40b may be ‘allies’.
I've been doing some checking on this one and found the Vikings are recorded holding territory in the Orkneys,Hebrides,Forth of Clyde,Caithness and Sutherland as early as the 8th century so undoubtably came into conflict with the Picts.The Orkney Sagas are the strongest source which is now being backed by archeological evidence.
Thanks for the input Haardrada.
Any and all additional information is always welcome.
Would the earlier III/40a Viking Army (790 AD – 849 AD) be sufficient to cover the 8th century occupation of the Orkneys, Hebrides, etc? (although according to the army list write-up they were technically raiders, not occupiers).
And the III/40a Vikings and the II/68b Picts are already listed as mutual enemies of each other.
In the mean time I’ll move the question of the II/68b Picts out of the finalized Group #1 to the still under discussion Group #2 for the moment (see page 5 of this thread for the current Group situations).
--Later edit-- Oops! I hadn't noticed that timurilank has already posted a response.
Please ignore this interruption. 
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Feb 25, 2017 9:36:28 GMT
I've been doing some checking on this one and found the Vikings are recorded holding territory in the Orkneys,Hebrides,Forth of Clyde,Caithness and Sutherland as early as the 8th century so undoubtably came into conflict with the Picts.The Orkney Sagas are the strongest source which is now being backed by archeological evidence.
Thanks for the input Haardrada.
Any and all additional information is always welcome.
Would the earlier III/40a Viking Army (790 AD – 849 AD) be sufficient to cover the 8th century occupation of the Orkneys, Hebrides, etc? (although according to the army list write-up they were technically raiders, not occupiers).
And the III/40a Vikings and the II/68b Picts are already listed as mutual enemies of each other.
In the mean time I’ll move the question of the II/68b Picts out of the finalized Group #1 to the still under discussion Group #2 for the moment (see page 5 of this thread for the current Group situations).
--Later edit-- Oops! I hadn't noticed that timurilank has already posted a response.
Please ignore this interruption.
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
In England at least the Vikings were considered as raiders until 840 AD onwards , but as Timurilank noted the Orkney Sagas are not specific on dates.The theory is that the Scots are considered to have used the weakening of the Picts by the Vikings to their(the Scots) advantage to efficiently take over from the Picts in Scotland. My point is that the Vikings were recorded raiding North East England and Scotland from 793 AD and were considered to have occupied the Scots Isles and Northern Scotland from that time.This gives a roughly 60 year period up until the replacement of the Pictish Kingdoms by the Scots in which Caithnes,Sutherland and the Isles were settled by the Vikings in numbers.If the Vikings did not begin army sized invasions of Scotland until 840AD (like in England) then this would have led to the colapse of the Picts in a short 2 year period.Therefore, for the Vikings to have made such substantial territorial gains they must have began large scale conquest at an earlier date or have had considerable success in a short period of time. So I recommend that the Viking III/40(a) list remains an enemy of the Picts in list II/68(a).😊 |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 25, 2017 10:41:55 GMT
III/40d Leidang Army (1071 – 1280 AD) add IV/13e Free Canton Army (1106 – 1518 AD)
I could only find references to a conflict between the canton of Dithmarsch and Denmark from 1218 more of course during the high medieval period. Duncan Head also did an excellent article about the Free Cantons.
Action:
Add IV/13e to the III/40d Leidang Army list of enemies.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 25, 2017 10:43:14 GMT
IV/54a, IV/54b, IV/54d Medieval Scandinavian (1280 – 1523 AD) add IV/13e Free Canton Army (1106 – 1518 AD)
(Army IV/13e lists III/40d, IV/54a, IV/54b and IV/54d as enemies, but none of these mentions IV/13e.
Looks like IV/13e was a late addition, and the above armies were not updated.)
Agreed.
This was clearly missed during editing/proof reading as this was a period of time when the Free Cantons harassed the Baltic and North Sea trade routes for their own profit or were hired by the Danes to serve as privateers to break the Hanseatic commerce.
Action:
Add IV/13e Free Canton as an enemy to the following:
IV/54a Danish Army (1350 – 1390 AD)
IV/54bThe Union Army (1391 – 1523 AD)
IV/54d Other Medieval Scandinavian Armies
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 26, 2017 9:55:37 GMT
I would again like to raise the issue of ‘Internal Mutual Enemies’ once more, only this time just sticking to the actual numbers printed in the current Army Lists, which everyone can see and check for themselves.
1) Examples of armies that already do have themselves listed as enemies (and should stay that way):-
I/47 Illyrians, I/48 Thracians, I/55a Etruscans (prior to the founding of the Etruscan League), II/1 Republican Indians, II/2 Mountain Indians, II/3ab Classical Indians, II/6 Bithynians, II/8a Bruttians & Lucanians, II/11 Gauls, II/23a Nomad Arabs, II/26 Later Rhoxolani Sarmatians, II/28bc Armenians, II/37 Parthians, II/40 Numidians, II/42abcd Tamil Indians, II/52 Dacians, II/53 Ancient British, II/54ab Scots-Irish, II/68a Picts, III/45 Pre-Feudal Scots, ...plus far too many others to list here....
2) Examples of armies that already don’t have themselves listed as enemies (and should stay that way):-
I/53 Early Macedonians, I/55e Umbrians, I/57ab Etruscan League, I/58 Meroitic Kushites, I/62 Lykians, I/63 Paionians, II/13 Samnites, II/14 Ariarathid Kappadokians, II/30 Galatians, II/46 Kushans, II/83b Later Visigoths, II/84 African Vandals, ...plus many others....
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/8c Apulians, II/22f Any Arabo-Arameans, II/24 Early Rhoxolani Sarmatians, II/39a Iberians, II/39b Celtiberians, II/39c Lusitanians, II/57 Later Moorish, II/60 Caledonians, II/67b Other Greuthinggi, Early Ostrogothic, etc, II/68b Picts, II/70 Burgundi & Limigantes, II/72a Quadi, II/72b Alamanni, II/72c Suevi, II/81c British Armies, ...plus several others....
Now I fail to see the consistency in all this.
Why do the II/26 Later Rhoxolani Sarmatians have themselves as an enemy, but the II/24 Early Rhoxolani Sarmatians do not?
And the same applies to the Picts...why do the II/68a Picts and the III/45 Pre-Feudal Scots have themselves as enemies but the II/68b Picts don't?
Take the case of the II/39a Iberians...are we to assume that these tribes either:
a) lived in perfect harmony with the other tribes of their own kind and never fought each other,
b) or they SHOULD have themselves as an enemy, but it got left out as an omission?
Basically, I think that all the armies listed under 3) above should have themselves as enemies, unless someone can give a good plausible reason why this should not be the case.
---Later Update--- Further reading of Tacitus' Germania has led me to believe that perhaps the II/72a Quadi should not have themselves as an enemy as they appear to be a single tribe, and not a tribal conglomeration. However, the II/72b Alamanni and the II/72c Suevi certainly were... ...on the other hand, perhaps the II/72b Alamanni and the II/72c Suevi should also not have themselves as enemies simply because they were large tribal conglomerations, similar in their own way to the Etruscan League, and able to quell internal dissent before it broke into bloodshed and war. So I'll withdraw the Germanic armies listed in 3) above...but the other armies still stand.
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 26, 2017 18:26:44 GMT
Following on from my previous post, here are the last of the missing ‘Internal Mutual Enemies’ (these are the very last of them. I’ve been through the entire Army Lists, from start to finish, and there are no others...I promise). The I/4a Zargros & Anatolian Highlands do have themselves as enemies, as do the I/4c Hurrians...but the very next entry, the I/5abcd Early Susiana & Elamites don’t...but the very next entry, the I/6abc Early Bedouins do...but the very next entry, the I/7abcd Early Libyans don’t... There’s that lack of consistency again. The I/5 Early Susiana & Elam Army List historical write-up says, and I quote: “Early Susiana and Elam seem to have adopted many aspects of the Mesopotamian civilization, but do not seem to have evolved into similar centralized states.” If they did not form centralized states, they must have been a loose patchwork of independent regions, who very probably warred with each other much like any other tribal groups such as the Thracians/Illyrians/Gauls did. Therefore I’d like to add the following armies that also should have themselves as an enemy:-I/5abcd Early Susiana & Elamites I/7abcd Early Libyans I/14d Chinese Border-tribes I/36b Sardinians I/36c Sicels III/6ab Emishi III/80 Cumans IV/72 Amazonians I won’t add these to the undiscussed Group #3 list on page 5 just yet in order to give people time to post their comments. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 26, 2017 21:37:31 GMT
Guess what...I’ve got even more:- II/80a Attila’s Army (433 AD – 453 AD) remove II/69b Sassanid Persians (225 AD – 493 AD) (Army II/80a lists II/69b as enemies, but II/69b lists II/80b & II/80d as enemies. I don’t think that Attila did attack the Sassanids, being based as he was north of the Danube in the old Roman province of Dacia, although the other Hunnic groups apparently did. ) II/81c British Armies (471 AD – 580 AD) add II/81b Vortigern’s Army (429 AD – 441 AD) (Army II/81b lists II/81c as an enemy, but II/81c does not mention II/81b. Now I know that the dates don’t match each other, but let’s be honest, all the dates for Britannia in this period are just mere guesses anyway....so who can say what is correct?) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
In between visits to the Eastern Roman Empire in 435 & 450 Atilla found time for a jaunt around the northern shore of the Black Sea to attack the Sassanids. Any reason to prefer adding II/81b to II/81c's list rather than removing II/81c from II/81b's list. Just curious about this one as its not a period I'm particularly familiar with. montyburns,
I found the reference and it is attributed to Priscus who heard it from a west Roman named Romulus.
Attila did order an attack on Persia during a time when famine struck their empire. The campaign was undertaken by two lieutenants, Basich and Cursich, who passed a lake (Maeotic Sea) and fifteen days later crossed a mountain range (Caucuses) before entering Persia. They met a large Persian force that overwhelmed them with archery fire that they had to flee leaving most of their booty behind. To avoid pursuit, the Hunnic force fled northward along the Caspian Sea before returning home. The expedition is placed between 415 - 420 which predates the II/80a sub-list.
The Huns, E.A.Thompson, page 35.
|
|
