Some Book 2 errata

[Barritus]

Campanians etc: How would you calculate the relative proportions of Leves, Hastati, Principes and Triarii in a post-275BC Campanian army?

After all, from 340BC, your Roman style foot are a quarter of each of the above. But from 275BC, Triarii reduce to 1 per 4-6 Bd, which means the Leves, Hastati and Principes can't each be a quarter of the total number of foot...

= = = =

Later Hoplite Greek: In the list of armies allowed foreign allies, Ephesus is listed as a "minor Ionian state". On that basis, what hoplites does it get? A minor state's 0, or 8-36 Irr Sp (O) or an Ionian state's 8-36 Reg Sp (I)?

[Orcoteuthis]

The 0 or 8-36 Irr Sp (O) is for minor mainland states. Ephesus isn't "mainland" in the sense of this list (see first line of list notes).

Re the Campanians, it seems fairly clear to me - first you buy your romanized foot in quartets, then you remove some of the Triarii. You have to think of the lines as applying sequentially.

[Barritus]

The 0 or 8-36 Irr Sp (O) is for minor mainland states. Ephesus isn't "mainland" in the sense of this list (see first line of list notes).

Ah, good point, thank you.

Re the Campanians, it seems fairly clear to me - first you buy your romanized foot in quartets, then you remove some of the Triarii. You have to think of the lines as applying sequentially.

Yes, that's a perfectly sensible approach, and really the only one. My main concern is that sequential application is really only implied rather than specified.

In any case I can't see it materially affecting games that often - I don't think I've ever heard of anyone taking a Campanian army to a competition, regardless of the rules...

[LAP1964]

One which i thought was odd when checking lists for Rollcall, Mid Imp Roman should the Praetorians be included in the  number of blades for taking artillery ? 
LES 

[Orcoteuthis]

The list seems clear enough they should. Whether that's historically appropriate I don't know.

[LAP1964]

The list seems clear enough they should. Whether that's historically appropriate I don't know.

RAW yes,but should be brought up when Bk2 gets a make over .   

LES

[Valentinian Victor]

One which i thought was odd when checking lists for Rollcall, Mid Imp Roman should the Praetorians be included in the  number of blades for taking artillery ? 
LES

Other lists allow you to use a variety of blades to trigger the number needed. For example, the Late Roman list states you can take 1 x Legionarii Archers (Ps(O)) per 2 x Bd(O), as the generals can all deploy as Bd(O), if deployed as Bd(O) they count towards this restriction.

[Swampster]

Armenian II/28 can have Sarmatian II/26 or Alan II/58 allies in 35 AD. The Alan list doesn't start until 50 AD - one or other of the lists should mention that they are allowed as an ally earlier.

[Valentinian Victor]

Middle Imperial Roman- All references to 'Visigoth' should be replaced by either 'Goths' or 'Tervingi'. Visigoths appeared towards the end of the Late Roman period.

Not sure why the Middle Imperial Roman's get a better selection of barbarian options than the Late Romans do?

[Doug M.]

Can the 'Old Mercenary' Peltasts support Thessalian Cavalry or are they restricted to the Greek Mercenary cavalry ?"

[Orcoteuthis]

Seems clear enough to me they can only support mercenary CvI, not Thessalian CvO.

(Note that the CvI cannot be supported if you, for reasons of stark insanity, declare them to be allied rather than mercenary.)

[Doug M.]

Thanks - that's what I thought (re the Greek Peltasts) but I wanted a second opinion. It does mean I can organise my army more effectively :-) (I hope!)

[Barritus]

List 72: Early Frankish, Alamanni, Quadi, Suevi, Rugian or Turcilingi.

Problem 1: In 419 the Suevi can have Patrician Roman allies. According to the notes, "a Roman ally contingent cannot include mounted troops". But if you look at the Patrician Roman list, its generals must be mounted: Cv (O), Kn (F) or LH (S). This is obviously a fossil, as in DBM the allies were Late Imperial Romans, who could have Bd (O) or Ax (S) generals, and for the DBMM lists the start date of the Patrician Roman army has been brought forward from 425 to 408.

Problem 2: The Suevi option starts in 406 and ends in 584. Suevi can use Quadi options. But the Quadi option ends prior to 406. Perhaps the words "...even after the end of the Quadi..." could be added to the sentence "Suevi can use Quadi options..." to remove any doubt.

[Barritus]

List 62: Abyssinian and Horn of Africa: The notes say that a Muslim ally-general cannot command Ethiopians. However, the only troops defined as 'Ethiopian' are the Bd (F) Sarawit and the Hd (O) camp artisans. Does this mean all other troops in the army can be classified as Muslim if desired (and thus be commanded by a Muslim ally general)?

As there are apparently no restrictions on Ethiopians commanding Muslims, does this mean a post-1285 Ethiopian army can include Muslim Cv (O) (as long as no generals are so upgraded) and Bd (X) Muslim dembus wielders?

Also, Bw (I) can be upgraded to Bw (O) as Muslim archers. Does this mean Bw (I) aren't Muslims?

Finally, what's the distinction between Abyssinians/Ethiopians and Axumites/Solomonids? I get the impression the Solomonid dynasty replaced the Axumite dynasty in 970, and that Solomonids are not Muslim, but these points are far from clear in the list notes.

[Barritus]

List 42 - Tamil Indian and Sinhalese: What is the date range of the Sinhalese? Can they be fielded prior to 300AD to use the Wb (F)?

Do the Pallavas or Cholas count as Sinhalese? (I suspect probably not but the list doesn't specifically say.)

Can the Sinhalese take Chavers?