|
|
Post by macbeth on Feb 27, 2017 0:32:29 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.
As you say Panthros - everyone on the internet is a critic. Yourself included.
Mr Barker does use a variety of sources for army lists, but what is given in the DBA3 book are not necessarily the sources used for those lists, they are references for further reading about the army or the time period.
Several of them are Historical Novels!
In addition as the publication of DBA3 was getting closer and the lists were already written and critiqued by a number of the playtest group, he then asked the playtesters to recommend books to add to the Reference section, especially for armies that had none at the time.
You will see the following listed II/59 Jewish Revolt - "Son of a Star" (Novel) by Andrew Meissell III/15 Tibetan - "The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia" by C. Beckwith III/67 Hsi Hsia - "The Great State of White and High" by Ruth Dunnell IV/15 Qara Khitan - "The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History" by Michal Biran
All suggested by me, long after the lists were written, they are not sources for the lists
However there are errors in the lists - specifically where the dates for armies do not line up. I remember that DBA2 had the III/39a Navarrese and IV/3 Anglo Norman as opponents despite a 53 year gap in their respective time periods. I put it in a list of anomalies that I spotted during playtesting. They are still listed in DBA3 however it is not mutual (Anglo Normans are enemies of Navarre but not vice versa).
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 27, 2017 8:17:03 GMT
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.
Can I assume then that we keep to removing the II/69b Sassanid Persians from the II/80a Attila Army and let the II/80d Other Huns cover this raid? (II/80d and II/69b are already listed as mutual enemies, the dates match, Attila himself was not present, and II/80d being an all light horse army is just what you might expect for a fast moving force of raiders).
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 27, 2017 8:39:52 GMT
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.
Can I assume then that we keep to removing the II/69b Sassanid Persians from the II/80a Attila Army and let the II/80d Other Huns cover this raid? (II/80d and II/69b are already listed as mutual enemies, the dates match, Attila himself was not present, and II/80d being an all light horse army is just what you might expect for a fast moving force of raiders).
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
Yes. Looking at DBA 2.2, Attila's enemy list also included the II/69 Sassanid. Expanding the Sassanid to three sub-list must have carried the error over. I happened on the passage while researching the Sarmatian (early and later) and nomadic societies. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 28, 2017 18:58:24 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.
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?
---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
I am responding only to the following:
II/24 Early Rhoxolani Sarmatian 310 BC – 100 AD.
II/26 Siracae, Iazyges & Later Rhoxolani Sarmatians 310 BC – 375 AD.
In the text of II/26 Later Rhoxolani Sarmatian, Barker mentions two tribes covered by the list; the Siracae and the Iazyges. In the book, ‘The Sarmatians, 600 BC – 450 AD’ by R. Brzezinski and M. Mielczarek (2002), they give enough examples of inter-tribal conflict that substantiate II/26 to be included as an enemy of itself.
The Rhoxolani tribes did fight against each other (II/24 vs. II/26) and what is significant is how the two are differently armed. That changed when armour and kontos became common for the early Rhoxolani advancing them to the next list (II/26) after 100 AD.
I cannot imagine that the nomadic tribes of II/24 did not get involve in inter-tribal conflicts during the four centuries covered by their list, but possibly Phil decided these were too insignificant at the time (DBA 2.0) or alternatively there were no records compiled at that time to list themselves as enemies.
My own take on this is to review the list of enemies for II/24 and note that most of these are placed west of the Rhoxolani which might mean ‘they’ were the catalyst to set them migrating to new pastures west. Looking at maps showing the tribal locations from 3rd century BC and 1st century AD does illustrate this. Regarding Parthia, located south of the Sarmatian homeland, they supplied mercenaries to fight under Pharsasmanes of Iberia during a Parthian civil war (34 – 35 AD).
Map:
www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/map-of-movement-of-iranian-peoples-into-europe.jpg
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 1, 2017 12:52:23 GMT
Why do the II/26 Later Rhoxolani Sarmatians have themselves as an enemy, but the II/24 Early Rhoxolani Sarmatians do not?
I cannot imagine that the nomadic tribes of II/24 did not get involve in inter-tribal conflicts during the four centuries covered by their list, but possibly Phil decided these were too insignificant at the time (DBA 2.0) or alternatively there were no records compiled at that time to list themselves as enemies.
So do we add II/24 Early Rhoxolani Sarmatians as enemies of themselves or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 1, 2017 12:55:19 GMT
In a bid to help clear out some of the blue items from Group #3, I have been doing some research of my own.
II/18a Antipatros’ Army (320 BC -319 BC) remove II/18f Queen Olympias’ Army (317 BC – 316 BC)
II/18c Kassandros’ Army (318 BC -298 BC) add II/18f Queen Olympias’ Army (317 BC – 316 BC)
II/18f Queen Olympias’ Army (317 BC – 316 BC) change II/18a to II/18c Kassandros’ Army (318 BC -298 BC)
Although the aging mother of Alexander the Great constantly intrigued and tried to undermine her son’s appointed commander in Macedon, no forces under the command of Queen Olympias ever actually fought against Antipater’s forces. No battles, no sieges, and no military confrontations (how could there be...Antipater died two years before Olympia’s Army start date).
Antipater died of natural causes in 319 BC, and nominated as his successor not his son Cassander, but his friend and lieutenant, Polyperchon. In 317 BC Eurydice, queen to king Philip III Arrhidaeus, the feeble minded elder half brother of Alexander the Great, declared herself regent in Macedonia with the support of Cassander. Olympia in Epirus immediately formed an alliance with Polyperchon and together they invaded Macedonia. Once installed in Pella, Olympia began a reign of terror executing Cassander’s followers, as well as Eurydice and Philip III. This made her unpopular, so she moved her court to the coastal city of Pynda, which Cassander then besieged in 317 BC.
Aristonous, Olympia’s lieutenant in eastern Macedonia, could not come to her aid because it was the end of the campaigning season, and he was unable to mobilize the Macedonia national levy, and Polyperchon was blocked and forced to fall back by Cassander’s lieutenant Callas in western Thessaly. Olympia’s cousin Aeacides, king of Epirus, tried to help, but his men mutinied and staged a coup, which cost Aeacides, the father of Pyrrhus, his throne.
By 316 BC Aristonous in the north had raised enough men to be a threat, so Cassander sent Cratevas to attack him, but Cratevas was defeated and killed by Aristonous near Amphipolis . But it was too late; the starving city of Pynda surrendered, and Olympia ordered Aristonous to also lay down his arms. Despite assurances of personal safety, Cassander had them both executed and took control of Macedonia for himself.
Source: pages 46-52 of “The Wars of Alexander’s Successors, volume 1”, by Bob Bennet t & Mike Roberts, 2010.
(Is this is sufficient justification to move these from Group #3 to the finalized Group #1 in order to make room for more fresh errors?)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 1, 2017 12:57:23 GMT
II/15 Alexandrian Imperial (328 BC – 321 BC) add II/20a Ptolemaic Army (322 BC – 275 BC)
II/20a Ptolemaic Army (322 BC – 275 BC) add II/15 Alexandrian Imperial (328 BC – 321 BC)
When Alexander died in 323 BC, Perdiccas became regent, but he was not popular and Antipater, Craterus, Antigonus and Ptolemy planned to rebel against him. In 322 BC Ptolemy became the satrap of Egypt and had the Greek garrison commander Cleomenes killed then invaded and conquered Cyrene. Perdiccas was annoyed by this show of independence but the final straw came when Ptolemy hijacked Alexander’s corpse. Taking this outrage as a direct rejection of his authority, Perdiccas began the First War of the Diadochi (322-320 BC) and attempted an invasion of Egypt in 321 BC.
Perdiccas ordered the clearing of some old canals of the Pelusic branch of the Nile, but Ptolemy had these flooded which caused havoc in the invaders camp, and also began bribing some of the regent’s supporters. Perdiccas then forced marched his men by night to a ford at the Fort of Camels, but Ptolemy had already fortified it and repulsed the attack. The regent again forced marched by night to Memphis where there was a large sandy island. Elephants were used to block the current upriver, but as more and more men crossed the ford the sandy bottom became disturbed and was washed away, making the crossing point deeper. Realising that the whole army would be unable to cross he ordered those who had got to the island to return, but many were drowned by the strong current and some 2,000 were lost. The forced marches, the desert heat, the needless casualties and the lack of success caused a mutiny and he was murdered in his tent by his own officers.
Source: pages 25-33 of “The Wars of Alexander’s Successors, volume 1”, by Bob Bennet t & Mike Roberts, 2010, derived from Diodorus 18.35.
Note: If Ptolemy was able to conquer Cyrene in 322 BC (defended by an army of 30,000, including Carthaginian and Libyan allies), and repel Perdiccas’ invasion in 321 BC, he must have had an army. So the Ptolemaic start date needs to be moved 2 years earlier to 322 BC.
Source: page 23 of “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, 1982.
(Is this is sufficient justification to move these from Group #3 to the finalized Group #1 in order to make room for more fresh errors?)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 1, 2017 12:59:58 GMT
I/6a Early Bedouins (3000 BC – 1001 BC) remove I/60a and I/60c Early Achaemenid Persians (550 BC – 420 BC)
I/60c Early Achaemenid Persians (539 BC – 420 BC) remove I/6a Early Bedouins (3000 BC – 1001 BC)
(I/6a lists I/60a and I/60c as enemies, and I/60c lists I/6a as an enemy, but the dates are clearly wrong.
However, I/6b does list I/60a and I/60c as enemies, and vice versa, so they still have early Arabs to fight.)
II/7 Later Achaemenid Persians (420 BC – 329 BC) add II/5k Agesilaus’ Expedition (396 BC – 394 BC)
(II/5k lists II/7 as an enemy, their only enemy, but II/7 does not mention II/5k. Clearly an omission.)
II/10 Camillan Roman (400 BC – 275 BC) remove II/28b Other Armenians (300 BC – 244 AD)
II/28b Other Armenians (300 BC – 244 AD) remove II/10 Camillan Roman (400 BC – 275 BC)
(Definitely an error, as there is no way Rome could have reached Armenia this early when they haven’t even set foot outside of Italy yet. Indeed, the later II/33 Polybian Romans and the II/28b Armenians are not listed as mutual enemies, even though the Romans had a foothold and a presence in western Anatolia by this time...if they are not listed as enemies then how can the earlier II/10 Camillan Romans be one!?)
II/33 Polybian Roman (275 BC – 105 BC) add II/47a Cimbri-Teutones (113 BC – 102 BC)
II/47a Cimbri-Teutones (113 BC – 102 BC) add II/33 Polybian Roman (275 BC – 105 BC)
(There are so many sources for this conflict that it cannot really be disputed. It’s why the II/49 Marian Romans came into existence.)
(Is there sufficient justification to move these from Group #3 to the finalized Group #1 in order to make room for more fresh errors?)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 1, 2017 14:14:52 GMT
Here are some more errors from Book II (Group #3 on page 5 has been updated):-
II/54b Scots-Irish Army (433 AD – 841 AD) remove III/40b Viking Army (850 AD – 1280 AD)
(Army II/54b lists III/40a & III/40b as enemies, but III/40b does not mention II/54b, and the dates don’t match.
It appears that the correct enemy of III/40b are the III/46 Norse Irish (842 AD – 1300 AD), who are already listed as mutual enemies of each other.)
II/81d Strathclyde Army (580 AD – 1034 AD) add III/19a Welsh Army (580 AD – 1149 AD)
(Army III/19a lists II/81d as an enemy, but II/81d does not mention III/19a)
II/82a Western Patrican Romans (408 AD – 493 AD) add II/70a Burgundi Army (250 AD – 534 AD)
(Army II/70a lists II/82a as an enemy, but II/82a only lists II/70a? as an ally.)
II/82b Eastern Patrican Romans (408 AD – 493 AD) remove II/80b Sabir Hunnic Army (515 AD – 558 AD)
(II/82b lists II/80b as an enemy, but II/80b does not mention II/82b, and the dates don’t match)
III/1c Southern Slavs (476 AD – 896 AD) change II/83b to II/82b Eastern Patrican Romans (408 AD – 493 AD)
(Army II/82b lists III/1c as an enemy, but III/1c mentions II/83b Later Visigoths, who were far to the west by then.
I think the Southern Slavs have got II/83b mixed up with II/82b)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 1, 2017 16:46:52 GMT
I cannot imagine that the nomadic tribes of II/24 did not get involve in inter-tribal conflicts during the four centuries covered by their list, but possibly Phil decided these were too insignificant at the time (DBA 2.0) or alternatively there were no records compiled at that time to list themselves as enemies.
So do we add II/24 Early Rhoxolani Sarmatians as enemies of themselves or not?
I would not add them. Leave the list as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 2, 2017 7:53:37 GMT
IV/14b Jurchen-Chin Army (1126 – 1234 AD) add IV/15 Qara-Khitan Army (1124 – 1211 AD)
(Army IV/15 lists IV14b as an enemy, but IV/14b does not mention IV/15)
It does appear to be a proof reading error.
Action:
Add IV/15 Qara-Khitan Army (1124 – 1211 AD) to IV/14b Jurchen-Chin Army (1126 – 1234 AD)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 2, 2017 7:54:21 GMT
IV/24b Khwarizmian refugee Army (1232 – 1246 AD) add IV/20 Ayyubid Egyptian (1171 – 1250 AD)
(Army IV/20 lists IV/24b as an enemy and ally, but IV/24b does not mention IV/20)
DBA 2.2 does list IV/24 and IV/20 as mutual enemies and allies. Refining the Khwarizmian Army to comprise two sub-lists the Ayyubid Egyptian were missed.
Action:
Add IV/20 Ayyubid Egyptian (1171 – 1250 AD) to IV/24b Khwarizmian refugee Army (1232 – 1246 AD)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 2, 2017 7:55:09 GMT
IV/34 Trapezuntine Byzantine (1204 – 1461 AD) add IV/75 Timurid Army (1360 – 1506 AD)
(Army IV/75 lists IV/34 as an enemy, but IV/34 does not mention IV/75, and they did reach eastern Anatolia)
DBA 2.2 had the exact same error.
Action:
Add IV/75 Timurid Army (1360 – 1506 AD) to IV/34 Trapezuntine Byzantine (1204 – 1461 AD)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 2, 2017 7:56:07 GMT
IV/46 Ilkhanid Army (1251 – 1355 AD) add IV/6a Turkish-ruled Ayyubid remnant Syria (1092 – 1286 AD)
(Army IV/6a lists IV/46 as an enemy, but IV/46 does not mention IV/6a, and they did reach Syria)
Actually, all three sub-lists of IV/6 list the Ilkhanid as an enemy.
Action:
Add
IV/6a Turkish-ruled Ayyubid remnant Syria 1092 – 1286 AD
IV/6b Abbasid Iraq 1092 – 1258 AD
IV/6c Arab dynasties 1092 – 1172 AD
To IV/46 Ilkhanid Army (1251 – 1355 AD)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 2, 2017 7:57:00 GMT
IV/48 Yuan Chinese Army (1260 – 1368 AD) add IV/35 Mongol Conquest Army (1206 – 1266 AD)
(Army IV/35 lists IV/48 as an enemy, but IV/48 does not mention IV/35)
The Mongol Conquest is listed as an ally for the Yuan Chinese Army, but not as enemy.
Action:
Add IV/35 Mongol Conquest Army (1206 – 1266 AD) to IV/48 Yuan Chinese Army (1260 – 1368 AD)
|
|
