|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 2, 2017 9:21:26 GMT
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)
IV/6b Abbasid Iraq (1092 AD - 1258 AD) and the IV/46 Ilkhanid Army (1251 AD - 1355 AD) are already listed as mutual enemies, but I/6a and IV/6c were not...and the IV/6c Arab dynasties (1092 AD - 1172 AD) and the IV/46 Ilkhanid Army (1251 AD - 1355 AD) have dates that don't match.
(See the potentially fixed Group #1 on page 5:- IV/6c Arab Dynasties (1092 AD – 1172 AD) remove IV/46 Ilkhanid Army (1251 AD – 1355 AD)... ...for having incorrect dates.) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 2, 2017 9:23:27 GMT
Here are some more Later Visigothic errors from Book II:-
II/70a Army of the Burgundi (250 AD – 534 AD) add II/83a Later Visigothic Army (419 AD – 621 AD)
(Army II/83a lists II/70a as an enemy, but II/70a does not mention II/83a)
II/83a Later Visigothic Army (419 AD – 621 AD) add II/72b Alamanni Army (250 AD – 506 AD)
(Army II/72b lists II/83a as an enemy, but II/83a does not mention II/72b)
III/5a Austrasians or Burgundians (496 AD – 639 AD) change II/82a to II/83a Later Visigoths (419 AD – 621 AD)
(Army II/83a lists III/5a as an enemy, but III/5a does not mention II/83a, but does mention II/82a.
Looks like II/82a Western Patrican Roman got mentioned by mistake for II/83a Later Visigoths.)
III/5b Neustrians or Aquitanians (496 AD – 639 AD) change II/82b to II/83b Later Visigothic Army (622 AD – 720 AD)
(Army II/83b lists III/5b as an enemy, but III/5b does not mention II/83b. Again it looks like II/82b Eastern Patrican Roman got mentioned by mistake for II/83b Later Visigoths.)
III/17 Maurikian Byzantine (575 AD – 650 AD) add II/83a Later Visigothic Army (419 AD – 621 AD)
(Army II/83a lists III/17 as an enemy, but III/17 does not mention II/83a, only II/83b)
---Later Update (I missed one more Late Visigothic error, and the III/5b error above...hopefully we have them all now)---
II/83a Later Visigothic Army (419 AD – 621 AD) add III/2 Early Lombard Army (489 AD -584 AD)
(Army III/2 lists II/83a as an enemy, but II/83a does not mention III/2)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 2, 2017 10:05:00 GMT
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)
IV/6b Abbasid Iraq (1092 AD - 1258 AD) and the IV/46 Ilkhanid Army (1251 AD - 1355 AD) are already listed as mutual enemies, but I/6a and IV/6c were not...and the IV/6c Arab dynasties (1092 AD - 1172 AD) and the IV/46 Ilkhanid Army (1251 AD - 1355 AD) have dates that don't match.
(See the potentially fixed Group #1 on page 5:- IV/6c Arab Dynasties (1092 AD – 1172 AD) remove IV/46 Ilkhanid Army (1251 AD – 1355 AD)... ...for having incorrect dates.)
My error. Thanks for catching that.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 2, 2017 10:09:30 GMT
I will add the Later Visigoth errors to my list.
At the moment, I am looking into this list from page 7.
"3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/8c Apulians, II/22f Any Arabo-Aramean, II/24 Early Rhoxolani Sarmatians, II/39a Iberians, II/39b Celtiberians, II/39c Lusitanians, II/57 Later Moorish, II/60 Caledonians, II/67b Other Greuthingi, 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...." |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 3, 2017 8:42:57 GMT
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/8c Apulian Army 420 BC – 206 BC
II/8a is listed as an enemy of itself because the Bruttian rose in revolt and became independent of Lucania.
I have found no evidence that Apulia had similar internal issues.
Anyone have any information?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 3, 2017 8:44:28 GMT
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/22f Any Arabo-Aramean before 126 BC
Looking at the II/22 Arabo-Aramean army we find three sub-lists which start from 126 BC and these would include Hatra, Characene, Edessa, Singara, and Adiabene which signifies a consolidation of power along the trade routes. Also significant is the fact that not one of the six sub-lists have themselves listed as an enemy, so internal conflict was less a problem than the banditry of II/23 Nomad Arabs. Note also that all the above were allies of Parthia at one time.
Action:
Leave as is.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 3, 2017 8:45:35 GMT
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/39a Iberians 240 BC – 20 BC
The Iberians were NOT listed as enemies of themselves in DBA 2.2. Of the three sub-lists, the Iberians were the first to come under the influence of Carthage and later Rome, but does this qualify as sufficient reason to omit its listing.
Indibilis, chief of the Ilergetes (Iberian) was allied to Carthage and fought the pro-Roman Iberians during the 2nd Punic War (Livy).
Action:
Consider adding II/39a as enemies of II/39a.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 3, 2017 8:46:50 GMT
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/39b Celtiberians 240 BC – 20 BC
The Celtiberians were themselves listed as enemies in DBA 2.2, so this could be an error missed during proofreading. The period of time covered by the list marks also the change from clan to a tribal structure and the rise of oppidium (walled towns). Celtiberians fought for both Carthage and Rome so it would seem unlikely that the animosity generated would dissipate during a time of peace.
Action:
Add II/39b Celtiberians as enemies of II/39b.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 3, 2017 8:47:47 GMT
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/39c Lusitanians 240 BC – 20 BC
The Lusitanians were listed as enemies in DBA 2.2, so this could be an error missed during proofreading. The Lusitanians followed a similar evolution to a tribal structure as the Celtiberians and the use of fortifications.
Action:
Add II/39c Lusitanians as enemies of II/39c.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 3, 2017 8:49:27 GMT
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/57 Later Moorish 25 AD – 696 AD
Phil places the Later Moorish as inhabiting the northwestern part of Africa which later became the Roman provinces of Mauretania Tingitana and Mauretania Caesariensis. The regions were the home to the Gaetuli, Musulami and Garamantes; however the majority of the tribes lived outside Roman lands.
I can find references to inter-tribal conflict for II/40 Numidian & Early Moorish period but nothing during the Imperial period of Rome, that is until the usurpers of the provinces during the 3rd and 4th century augmented their forces with native tribes.
Aside from the few rebellions there is relative quiet in the African provinces even during the Vandal and Byzantine occupation. As one blogger stated this may be due to the ‘disunion among the Moors’ caused by jealousies and quarrels among the tribes (Byzantine Military).
Action:
Anyone else have any information regarding possible inter-tribal warfare?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 3, 2017 10:57:07 GMT
(As this is my 100th post, I thought I’d give myself a picture.  )
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-II/8c Apulian Army 420 BC – 206 BCII/8a is listed as an enemy of itself because the Bruttian rose in revolt and became independent of Lucania. I have found no evidence that Apulia had similar internal issues. Anyone have any information? Apulia in the south-east of Italy was apparently inhabited by three tribes; the Dauni, the Peucetii, and the Messapii, and these are often regarded to be Oscan tribes. The Dauni and Peucetii aligned themselves with the Rome, but the Messapii aligned themselves with the Samnites. And during the war with Pyrrhus, the Messapii joined the invader while the Dauni and Peuceii stayed loyal to Rome. Source: page 43 of the “Armies and Enemies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, 1982.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 3, 2017 11:27:47 GMT
(As this is my 100th post, I thought I’d give myself a picture. )
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-II/8c Apulian Army 420 BC – 206 BCII/8a is listed as an enemy of itself because the Bruttian rose in revolt and became independent of Lucania. I have found no evidence that Apulia had similar internal issues. Anyone have any information? Apulia in the south-east of Italy was apparently inhabited by three tribes; the Dauni, the Peucetii, and the Messapii, and these are often regarded to be Oscan tribes. The Dauni and Peucetii aligned themselves with the Rome, but the Messapii aligned themselves with the Samnites. And during the war with Pyrrhus, the Messapii joined the invader while the Dauni and Peuceii stayed loyal to Rome. Source: page 43 of the “Armies and Enemies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, 1982. Good catch (That is page 104 of the 2016 edition). Action:Add II/8c Apulia as an enemy of itself. The II/10 Camillian Roman 400 BC – 275 BC list all sub-lists of II/8 as enemies. There would seem to be a case to consider II/8c Apulia as an ally (Dauni & Peucetii) of II/10 Camillian Roman. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 3, 2017 11:36:41 GMT
(As this is my 100th post, I thought I’d give myself a picture. )
Apulia in the south-east of Italy was apparently inhabited by three tribes; the Dauni, the Peucetii, and the Messapii, and these are often regarded to be Oscan tribes. The Dauni and Peucetii aligned themselves with the Rome, but the Messapii aligned themselves with the Samnites. And during the war with Pyrrhus, the Messapii joined the invader while the Dauni and Peuceii stayed loyal to Rome. Source: page 43 of the “Armies and Enemies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, 1982. Good catch (That is page 104 of the 2016 edition). Action:Add II/8c Apulia as an enemy of itself. The II/10 Camillian Roman 400 BC – 275 BC list all sub-lists of II/8 as enemies. There would seem to be a case to consider II/8c Apulia as an ally (Dauni & Peucetii) of II/10 Camillian Roman.
Ah...we have to be careful here. They may have been allies, but did the II/8c Apulians appear together on the same battlefield as the II/10 Camillan Romans?
---Later Edit--- ...and the answer is yes they did: the Dauni attacked Pyrrhus' camp at the battle of Asculum in 279 BC.
Again the source is page 43 (or page 104 of the new edition) of the “Armies and Enemies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, 1982.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 3, 2017 11:39:19 GMT
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/22f Any Arabo-Aramean before 126 BC
Looking at the II/22 Arabo-Aramean army we find three sub-lists which start from 126 BC and these would include Hatra, Characene, Edessa, Singara, and Adiabene which signifies a consolidation of power along the trade routes. Also significant is the fact that not one of the six sub-lists have themselves listed as an enemy, so internal conflict was less a problem than the banditry of II/23 Nomad Arabs. Note also that all the above were allies of Parthia at one time.
Action:
Leave as is.
Well, the main title for the II/22 Arabo-Aramaeans has a date running from 312 BC – 240 AD.
II/22a Nabataea starts in 250 BC...
II/22b Emesa starts in 51 BC...
II/22c Hatra starts in 126 BC...
II/22d Characene starts in 126 BC...
II/22e Edessa, Singara, or Adiabene starts in 126 BC...
...so what were these city states from 312 BC until their foundation dates?
This is where II/22f Any Arabo-Aramaeans before 126 BC comes in.
They were still wandering nomadic tribes.
And if they warred with each other once they formed city states, I’m pretty sure they would have also done so when they were still wandering nomads. 
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 4, 2017 8:29:14 GMT
3) However, the following armies do not have themselves listed as enemies (but SHOULD have):-
II/22f Any Arabo-Aramean before 126 BC
Looking at the II/22 Arabo-Aramean army we find three sub-lists which start from 126 BC and these would include Hatra, Characene, Edessa, Singara, and Adiabene which signifies a consolidation of power along the trade routes. Also significant is the fact that not one of the six sub-lists have themselves listed as an enemy, so internal conflict was less a problem than the banditry of II/23 Nomad Arabs. Note also that all the above were allies of Parthia at one time.
Action:
Leave as is.
Well, the main title for the II/22 Arabo-Aramaeans has a date running from 312 BC – 240 AD.
II/22a Nabataea starts in 250 BC...
II/22b Emesa starts in 51 BC...
II/22c Hatra starts in 126 BC...
II/22d Characene starts in 126 BC...
II/22e Edessa, Singara, or Adiabene starts in 126 BC...
...so what were these city states from 312 BC until their foundation dates?
This is where II/22f Any Arabo-Aramaeans before 126 BC comes in.
They were still wandering nomadic tribes.
And if they warred with each other once they formed city states, I’m pretty sure they would have also done so when they were still wandering nomads.
Some examples are Dura, Damascus, Harran (Carrhae), Nisibin, Hamat, Hadatta, and Petra (before 250 BC). They served for a period as vassals of the Seleucid Empire only to have them replaced by Parthian overlords.
These commercial centres were controlled by wealthy Arab tribes who more than likely still had distant cousins who were ‘wandering nomads’.
|
|
)