Just in case anyone's wondering, the Classical Indian and Kushan lists are stopped with effect from 55BC because that's when the Greco-Indian list ends, which removes the last Greco-Roman enemy for the Indians and Kushans. It has no practical effect on the Indians as there are no options which start or end between 55BC and 1BC. But it does remove a range of troops from the Kushans, including their Irr Bd (I) swordsmen and their Indian troops.
Quite a few of the list selections were a bit on the subjective side - for example how 'Greek' were the Greco-Indians? And should Sertorius's Romano-Spanish or the Pompeian Numidian armies be in the Greco-Roman category? In particular, I dithered for a long time before putting the Latins of the Latin, Early Roman, Early Etruscan and Umbrian Italian list in the Barbarian category. Even though the army is almost identical to the Camillan Roman army, it had a separate military existence and tradition from the Roman army of the time. What swayed me was that I didn't think twice about leaving Campanians in the Barbarian category, even after they were assimilated by the Romans, so figured I should apply the same rule to the Latins.
The thing is, though, that both categories provide plenty of variety (the Barbarians obviously more so), while still containing a lot of armies which will be familiar to people who only know a little about ancient warfare. These are armies led by generals that everyone's heard of: Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar. Hopefully a few players will rise to the occasion and field armies led by those particular personalities...
