Ally General Sub-List

[andrew]

This is a question about the reliability of ally generals that are sub-lists within a main list.

Page 1 of the lists under the heading "Allies", first paragraph states:
"In most cases foreign allied contingents are specified by reference to their own list."  The words "own list" is referring to the other army list, being that of the potential ally.  For example, list 2.7 Later Achaemenid Persian last row has "only if the C-In-C is Bessos in 329BC" - Saka allies Book 1.43.  1.43 is "their own list" and it is different to list 2.7.  This is the norm and common practice for the majority of allies.  However, the words "in most cases" imply there are other types of allies, which is what I want to explore.

The remainder of the first paragraph and the 2nd paragraph under "Allies" on page 2 of the lists relate to the usual allies mentioned above.  These other sorts of allies are in paragraph 3.

Para 3, sentence 1 "Where foreign allies do not have a suitable list of their own, their contingent is specified as a sub-list within a nation’s main list."  The first such sub-list in Book 2 appears in 2.6 Bithynian after 179BC (last rows).  "Paphlagonian ally-general commanding all and only Paphalgonians" and it goes on to list the ally-general, 2 different troops and baggage.

Does this sub-list in 2.6 meet the criteria for para 3, sentence 1 above?

Para 3, sentence 2 "Where ally-generals are specified in a nation’s main list, such generals are of the same or a closely related nationality."

What does "main list" mean in this context?  Take for instance, list 2.11 Gallic.  The 3rd line refers to ally generals.  Is that part of the main list?  I would think so.

Looking further down list 2.11 we have a date constrained ally being the Ligurians before 174BC.  This is a sub-list per para 3, sentence 1.  But does it meet the criteria for para 3, sentence 2 in that the ally-general has been specified in the main list?

The distinction is crucial given the 3rd sentence which states such generals will not change sides if unreliable, unless in a civil war.

I think the 2.6 and 2.11 Paphlagonian and Ligurian sub-lists meet the criteria for sub-lists per sentence 1, but these sub-lists are not part of the main list.  Accordingly I think the ally-generals in these 2 sub-lists do not meet the criteria for having been specified in the main list per sentence 2.  Therefore they could change sides if unreliable.

Is my interpretation correct?

[Fon Tok Nak]

You are correct.

Essentially, a main list ally is of the same nation as the C-in-C and draws troops from the main list, while a sub-list ally is of a different nation and draws troops from the sub-list.

A main list ally must have at least 1/4 the minimum of all compulsory troops in his command, so the Gallic ally must have at least 1x Cv, 10x Wb and 1x PsI. He can also have more than the 1/3 limit of maximums that applies to foreign allies, and non-compulsory troops not available to foreign allies.   

A sub-list ally usually has different minimums and (generally) cannot have main list troops. Thus, the Paphlagonian ally only has to take 4x AxO (which is less than 1/4 of the 30 minimum in the main list), and the Paphlagonian AxO do not count towards that 30 (they are not Bithynians). The Paphlagonian also cannot have Kn, Ps or AxS otherwise available to main-list Bithynian generals.

Anthony