Some Book 1 errata

[Orcoteuthis]

3rd Dynasty of Ur: Which direction does the Amorite Wall face?

West, I believe.

Later Amorite: Is Iasmah-Adad (Inert general) Assyrian? I'm guessing he is given the similarity of the name to the named Assyrian king in the list notes. It's only a minor thing, but there are slight aggression factor and terrain differences between the lists.

Good question. He was the son of Shamshi-Adad, founder of the "Old Assyrian" empire, who installed him as king of Mari. At Shamshi-Adad's death, the kingship at Ashur went to Iasmah-Adad's brother Ishme-Dagan.

The Assyrian options cover, according to the list notes, Shamshi-Adad and his successors - does that mean successors at Ashur only, or also Iasmah-Adad's diadoch state at Mari? Your guess is as good as mine.


Speaking of Later Amorite, the notes mention both Aleppo and Yamhad as dynasties covered. They're the same: Aleppo is strictly the capital city, Yamhad the kingdom (but the later is often also refered to as "Aleppo").

[John Hickman]

3rd Dynasty of Ur: Which direction does the Amorite Wall face?
 

Preferably towards the enemy

[Orcoteuthis]

FWIW, Steve Rathgay thinks Iasmah-Adad shouldn't count as Assyrian.

[Barritus]

- Sumerian: The list allows you to field Zagros Highlander allies. If you take them in 2250BC as part of the Great Revolt, can you treat them as Guti and upgrade the Ax (I) to Wb (F)?

[Orcoteuthis]

I don't see anything that'd prevent you.

That said, skimming the relevant section of Hamblin's Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC, I don't believe that historically speaking Greatly Revolting Sumerians should have Highlander allies at all.

[Barritus]

List 60, Early Achaemenid Persian - more of a question than an erratum...

From 539BC to 500BC the army can include 0-1 Babylonian 4 horse chariots per 2 Chaldean foot. So far so good, as the Chaldeans were a Babylonian tribe.

Look at the entry for Chaldean foot, and it says they can be either Bw (I) or Ps (O). Also fine.

Then it says "[can support Assyrian Sp (I)]".

What? Since when would Chaldean Ps archers be supporting Assyrian Sp?

[Orcoteuthis]

Being in that list, it's probably based on something Herodotos wrote ...

Do note that the Assyrians had been Chaldaean subjects for a couple generations down to 539 BC.

[Barritus]

Being in that list, it's probably based on something Herodotos wrote ...

:-) Good point.

Do note that the Assyrians had been Chaldaean subjects for a couple generations down to 539 BC.

True, but it's a very specific combination.

My copy of Herodotus is on the floor behind me...

[Barritus]

Early Hoplite Greek (list 52): Athenians after 511BC can have Thessalian allies, including a general and 3 to 9 LH.

Only problem is that commands must have at least 4 foot or mounted elements totalling 4ME in addition to the general.

The minimum therefore at least needs to be increased to 4.

(It's curious this option is even available during the Persian Wars when the Thessalians engaged in a bit of Medizing.)

[Barritus]

Saitic Egyptian, list 53: the list starts in 664BC, and Greek mercenary hoplites are listed as being available from 665BC. Perhaps they should just be incorporated in the main list.

And given their Greek name, would it be possible for the Greek ally general [commanding only Greeks] to include trieres in his command? After all, they're specified as carrying Sp...

[LAP1964]

Saitic Egyptian, list 53:
And given their Greek name, would it be possible for the Greek ally general [commanding only Greeks] to include trieres in his command? After all, they're specified as carrying Sp...

Actually they are specified as carrying Hoplites or Oarsmen, both of which are Athenian. But are they classed as "Greeks" ,for  purpose of being command by a Greek Mercenary ally-general?   
LES

[Barritus]

Saitic Egyptian, list 53:
And given their Greek name, would it be possible for the Greek ally general [commanding only Greeks] to include trieres in his command? After all, they're specified as carrying Sp...

Actually they are specified as carrying Hoplites or Oarsmen, both of which are Athenian. But are they classed as "Greeks" ,for  purpose of being command by a Greek Mercenary ally-general?   
LES

Sorry, I didn't mean the Athenian trieres. I meant the Egyptian trieres, as available after 610BC. If they're given a Greek name, can they be used by the mercenary Greek ally general?

[Barritus]

Another one for the Saitics: can Greek mercenary Reg Sp (O) support Spartan mercenary Reg Sp (S). Spartan Sp (O) can, after all, support Spartan Sp (S) in the EHG and LHG lists, and I'm assuming the Sp (O) in Agesilaos's force would have been Spartan periokoi...

[LAP1964]

Sorry, I didn't mean the Athenian trieres. I meant the Egyptian trieres, as available after 610BC. If they're given a Greek name, can they be used by the mercenary Greek ally general?

My bad i missed that one.  But you will still have the problem of the Egyptian Marines which are 1 per Gal.So i would say they have to go on any Egyptian Gallies brought.
LES

[Barritus]

But you will still have the problem of the Egyptian Marines which are 1 per Gal.So i would say they have to go on any Egyptian Gallies brought.
LES

Ah. Game, Set, Match to Les. I missed that detail. Yes, there's no way a Greek general, who's limited to commanding only Greeks, could command Egyptian trieres with Egyptian marines.