DBMM Forum
Armies => Book 3 => Topic started by: Barritus on July 12, 2011, 03:26:53 PM
-
Welsh: From 1150 to 1322 you can get Marcher English allies, listed as Feudal English. But the Feudal English list only runs from 1181. What do you do for allies from 1150 to 1181? (Presumably use Anglo-Normans?)
Welsh: North Welsh from 1150 can have South Welsh or Manx Viking allies. As there's no termination date, presumably these allies are available until the end of the Welsh list in 1420. But were the Manx still Viking-ish in the early 15th century?
-
Unless otherwise is explicitly specified, you can't use allies outside the dates of their own list, so no viking allies after AD 1280.
-
Fair enough.
The issue about the Feudal English allies remains unresolved (though fairly minor).
-
Early Hungarian: The normal list provides 2-4 nobles (Irr Kn (F)), and after 1150 half of them are upgraded to Irr Kn (O), while the other half are regraded to Irr Cv (S) (along with the gentry upgraded from Irr Cv (O) to Irr Cv (S)). All well and good. But the Komnenan Byzantines can use these Hungarians as allies. In that case, how do you classify the nobles? 2-4 elements in the original list provides only 1 element to be used in the allied command, but is it Irr Kn (O) orIrr Cv (S)? My personal opinion is Irr Kn (O), but I'd be curious to hear what others think.
-
As they are both compulsory,maybe there should be 1 of each? :-\
Or as the Cv(S) upgrade is listed first, that should be used? :-\
LES
-
Again not so much an erratum as a question:
The Later Pre-Islamic Arabs (Ghassanid version) can have Maurikian Byzantine allies. How do you work out the contingent?
The main problem is the Kavallarioi Cv (S), of which in the Maurikian list you have to get 9-12, but of which 0 or 4 can be downgraded to LH (S). So, as allies you'd have to take 3-4 of the Kavallarioi.
But how many of the Cv (S) can you downgrade to LH (S)?
-
I don't have the book at hand (typing this from work), so maybe am missing something, but it seems obvious you can downgrade 0 or 2.
-
Wouldn't it not work like upgrades,which are 0 - whatever for Allied Commands.So you get 1/4 -1/3, maybe you can downgrade 1 ?
LES
-
Again not so much an erratum as a question:
The Later Pre-Islamic Arabs (Ghassanid version) can have Maurikian Byzantine allies. How do you work out the contingent?
The main problem is the Kavallarioi Cv (S), of which in the Maurikian list you have to get 9-12, but of which 0 or 4 can be downgraded to LH (S). So, as allies you'd have to take 3-4 of the Kavallarioi.
But how many of the Cv (S) can you downgrade to LH (S)?
'0 or 4' goes to '0 or 1' 1 being the only whole number in the range 1 - 1.33333
-
List 56, Khitan Liao: Can the Jurchen prisoner allies have baggage?
-
A similar one is the Thessalian and Pisidian allies in the Galatian list (Bk #30)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/76261?threaded=1&l=1
PB's answer was it's intended that they don't get baggage.But if it's ment to be the same for all lists,only 1 person knows. ::)
LES
-
Indented allies often (usually?) get their own baggage, so I'd presume ti's the general intention those that don't have it listed can't have any baggage.
-
Welsh again: Owain Glyndwr is marked as an Inert C-in-C for himself, or as an Inert Ally "in English Army". Which English army would this be? The Hundred Years War English are the only contemporary English army, but they don't have any provision for Welsh allies.
-
Thematic Byzantine: The entry for archers reads
Reg Ps (O) @ 2AP [can support skoutatoi], or if in excess of 1 per 2 skoutatoi - Reg Bw (O) @ 5 5-10
Okay, so which version of the archers is compulsory? I'd long read it that any archers in excess of half the number of skoutatoi must be Bw and any before that can be Ps or Bw; but now I'm starting to think that any archers in excess of half the number of skoutatoi can be Bw or Ps and any before that must be Ps.
For example, say I get 12 Skoutatoi and 10 Archer elements. Half the skoutatoi is 6. Is it:
(a) The first 6 can be Bw or Ps and the last 4 must be Bw; or
(b) The first 6 must be Ps and the last 4 can be Bw or Ps.
-
I've always read it as (b). Don't see how you could read it as (a) to be honest.
Assuming (b) is indeed intended, it might have been more clearly written something like this:
Archers - Reg Ps (O) @2AP [can support skoutatoi] 5-10
Upgrade archers in excess of 1 per 2 skoutatoi to Reg Bw (O) @5AP Any
-
2 more from checking lists for Rollcall.
1) Why are the Hindu Indians allowed Hephthalite allies untill 600 AD,when in the Hun list from Bk 2 they end at 570 AD ?
2) In the Dailami list should Irr Gens be allowed to command Reg Dailami infantry ?
LES
-
According to the final line of notes in 3/20, "Silla Korean allies cannot be used with southern tribesmen, Turks, Mo-ho, or any other allies."
The only "Turks" in the list are 0-6 "Turkish and other nomad horse archers - Irr LH (S) @ 6AP". Now, does that "and" mean all elements from this line must be considered to include Turks, or can one claim one' s particular nomad horse archers belong to other ethnicities and thus can still be used with Silla allies?
-
Tom Adamson suggested that, on historical grounds, no nomad horse archers ought be allowed with Silla allies.
-
Middle Anglo-Saxon: Before 937 you're allowed a Wb (S) ally-general of the same nation. From 700, the C-in-C, subs and Hird must be upgraded from Wb (S) to Sp (O), but no mention is made of the ally-general. Presumably he should be regraded as well.
-
;D Hi Peter,
I think the line says
'Change Wb to Irr Sp(O) @ 14 AP if C-in-C or Sub-general, 9AP if ally-general, otherwise 4 AP All
-
;D Hi Peter,
I think the line says
'Change Wb to Irr Sp(O) @ 14 AP if C-in-C or Sub-general, 9AP if ally-general, otherwise 4 AP All
No, I think you're wrong - there's no red glow in my...
Oh.
Yes.
:-[
-
List 65 - Nikephorian Byzantines: The notes say:
Lombards cannot be used with Klibanophoroi or Rus.
Why are the Klibanophoroi mentioned? The list itself rules out the possibility of the Lombards and Klibanophoroi being used together, as the Lombards can only be used in Italy, while the Klibanophoroi can only be used in Anatolia or Thrace.
-
List 11 - Central Asian Turkish: The last sentence of the notes reads:
Uighurs cannot be used with Sogdians.
What's it supposed to mean?
It doesn't mean "Uighurs can't use Sogdian allies" as Uighurs aren't listed among those who can take Sogdian allies.
The only possible meaning I can deduce is that if you take a CAT army, you're allowed up to 2 CAT allied contingents, and presumably one of these could be Uighur, and if you take that Uighur ally then you can't have Sogdians as your other ally. The problem with that theory is that Sogdian allies are available in 741 at the latest, while Uighurs aren't available until 860 at the earliest.
-
List 11 - Central Asian Turkish: The last sentence of the notes reads:Uighurs cannot be used with Sogdians.
What's it supposed to mean?
It doesn't mean "Uighurs can't use Sogdian allies" as Uighurs aren't listed among those who can take Sogdian allies.
The only possible meaning I can deduce is that if you take a CAT army, you're allowed up to 2 CAT allied contingents, and presumably one of these could be Uighur, and if you take that Uighur ally then you can't have Sogdians as your other ally. The problem with that theory is that Sogdian allies are available in 741 at the latest, while Uighurs aren't available until 860 at the earliest.
I suspect it's a fossil from an earlier version with less stringent date limits. However, to be pedantic, Uighurs are available straight from the start of the list, it's just they don't get any special options or restrictions until AD 860.
-
;) Hi lads, I think it is a misprint, I think Sogdians and Utigurs (as in Utigur huns) should not be able to combine in a Gok Turk OOB.
William
-
Good points, both.
Thanks guys.
-
List 14 (Early Bulgar): In 812 the Bulgars can have Avar allies, who are limited to 24 elements. The problem is that in 812 the maximum number of Avar elements available to form an allied command is 13 - a general and 4-12 Avar noble Cv (S). I'm guessing there's some assumption about Slav foot being included, but they're not available to Avars after 631.
-
In the Early Samurai Japanese (3/55) list, before 1020 all Ax, Ps, Bw, and Bd are compulsorily regraded to Irr Bw (O) unless double-based behind cavalry.
As written, this applies not only to the "normal" infantry in the list, but also to the ladies and boys guarding baggage and to Sohei allies. Acc'd to Duncan, it probably shouldn't apply to the former, and the later shouldn't be available before 1020 in the first place.
-
In the Papal Italian list, Pope Leo can be downgraded to Inert in 1053. Seeing as he's Pope and (a) not a lay papal gonfalonier and (b) no Popes are noted as fighting, even those who dressed a knights, should he be required to be Reg Bge (S)?
-
III/79 Early Russian
the list dates are: 1054 - 1246, but the list includes..
Only after 1265
German Mercenary Knights
yours.. puzzled of Canberra
-
Indeed. Not sure whether this is another of the horrible typos that affect the whole of Book 3, or a real mistake and the line belongs in the Book 4 Post Mongol Russian list.
-
III/79 Early Russian
the list dates are: 1054 - 1246, but the list includes..
Only after 1265
German Mercenary Knights
yours.. puzzled of Canberra
I find an old email of mine saying I believe it's a typo for 1235, but I wasn't considerate enough to say why I thought so!
-
Judging from my dbmmlist msg 52455, the date 1235 was at one time in the draft list.
-
I find an old email of mine saying I believe it's a typo for 1235, but I wasn't considerate enough to say why I thought so!
The source of my belief may have been this message by Lawrence Dunn:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DBMMlist/conversations/topics/43226
-
In the first Book 3 draft I have on file - 13 June 2007 - it was:
"Only after 1150 AD:
Upgrade German Kn as double-based Reg Kn (I) @ 10AP if front element, 8AP if rear element All"
In the July 21 draft it had become:
"Only after 1235 AD:
Upgrade German Kn as double-based wedge of ½ Reg Kn (O) @ 12AP, ½ Reg Kn (I) @ 8AP All"
And it was still 1235 in 22 September, which is the latest draft I have on file.
-
In the Oct 9th draft, it had mysteriously become 1265. It's not marked as a change.
-
Oh b*ll*x. It was my fault entirely. Msg 53194, 25 September:
German knightly inconsistency
This one's been mentioned several times before, but not fixed: in list 73
Communal Italian and list 77 Papal Italian, German knights have the_option_
to be in a wedge after 1265; but in list 79 Early Russian they _must_ be in
a wedge after 12_35_. Since there seems to be no evidence for 13th-century
wedges, and they've been left in mainly for backwards compatibility, I
suggest:
Delete -
Only after 1235 AD:
Upgrade German Kn as double-based wedge of ½ Reg Kn (O) @ 12AP, ½ Reg Kn (I)
@ 8AP All
Replace with -
Only after 1265 AD:
German mercenary knights forming rear element of double-based wedge - Reg Kn
(I) @ 8AP 0 or 1 per German Kn (O)
Just for once, Phil did exactly what I asked. And it was wrong.
-
Ah well Duncan, at least we now have confirmation you aren't the Pope.
You will allow me to bookmark this page for whenever I can't find an alternative argument about Sasanians? ;)
-
Welsh again 1: The knights in the North Welsh's French allies can be fielded as either Kn or Bd. But unlike the contemporaneous Medieval French list, there's no provision for the Kn version of the knights to dismount. Should the Kn be allowed to dismount as Bd like their Med French colleagues?
Welsh again 2: How late can a North Welsh C-in-C have a South Welsh ally contingent? All the way to 1420? There's a line which reads:Only if South Welsh C-in-C from 1100AD to 1197AD or South Welsh ally contingent from 1100AD...
The fact that an end date is provided for a C-in-C but not an ally suggests to me that there's no specific end date for the availability of an ally contingent. Is that right? Is it intended?
-
1.: Don't know, don't see why not.
2.: I suspect that was what was intended, yes.