Art De La Guerre

[Warwolf]

Using Sassanid Persians as an example, list 109. This permits an Armenian ally from list 71 before 605AD. Whilst the Armenian list stops in 428AD the notes section says the state was divided then between Byzantium and the Sassanids and lost its independence. So am I correct to assume this means that the Sassanids can take an allied corps from the Armenian list 71 between 428AD and 605AD? Armenia would still have existed, had subject rulers and presumably provided troops on a feudal type basis when required over this period? There will be other examples.

I do not think this is explicitly stated anywhere in the rules but may have missed something.

[Mark G Fry]

That would seem to be a reasonable assumption.
But it is an assumption, and it might be a typo on the dates in the Sassanid list
_________________
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

[madaxeman]

[KevinD]

Generally I think the dates for the two lists need to line up. However there are some exceptions that seem to be permitted by the lists.

A. There are a few lists like this where an ally is explicitly allowed after (or before) the allied list exists. These should be permitted.

B. Where there is just a blanket statement that the ally is allowed but the allied list doesn’t exist for all of those dates, I would be inclined to not permit it outside the overlapping dates.

I would think this particular list is more like A than B above as it does allow the Armenians as the Sassanids list explicitly notes that the Armenians in particular are allowed as allies “before 605”. (The verbiage that Armenia lost its independence in 428 in the Armenian list is consistent with them still existing and thus being allowed as allies (vassals) after that date.)

Still this is something that could be usefully clarified in the errata.

(A similar but even more confusing issue is the Arab Conquest (#130) allowed “Early Arab allies (list #75 Early Arab) other than a Bedouin tribe after 634 AD”, noting that Early Arabs list (#75) covers from 312 BC to 630 AD. What does “other than a Bedouin tribe after 634 AD” even mean and what effect does the end of the Early Arab list in 630 AD have? Can you (a) only have non Bedouins after 634 AD and no Early Arab allies before that? Or (b) you can have any Early Arab allies until 634 and then only non-Bedouins? In any case, like the Sassanids-Armenians above you can clearly have some sort of Earlly Arab ally after the Early Arab list in in 630 AD… Fortunately the errata clarified that (a) is the correct reading - implying that the Sassanids-Armenian issue should be read in a similar manner and the Armenian ally permitted until 604 AD.)

[madaxeman]

Aaah.  I didn’t have the book to hand so wasn’t aware of words specifically mentioning a later end date. 

If something is actually there in the text that is a legitimate and clear reason to override the general rule of “within dates” I agree 
_________________
www.madaxeman.com

[Warwolf]

All,

Good, given I have just bought some Irregular 15mm late Sassanid with half armoured horses and an overarm lance position to double as either Sassanids or Armenians (strangely Armenian figures for any period between their cataphract age and their Crusader age is lacking...). The rest of my Sassanids are FiBattle. and I can already do Hunnic and Arab allied contingents. A few months of painting before they see the light of day as yet however.

Luckily all my painting of bits and bobs for my armies for Britcon, Kegworth, Warfare and Brixham competitions is done.

Anyone else like to make plans so far ahead for competitions?

[MarkK]

[Mark G Fry]

[KevinD]

A question similar to, but more complicated than, the initial question can be asked for the Normans (#179 911-1071 AD)

(Note that all Normans milites change from HC Impetuous before 1050 to MKn Impetuous from 1050)

They are allowed “Western Frank allies (List #154 Later Franks) except in 1066.”

However, the Western Frankish list ends in 1049. Ending the ally at that date renders the “except in 1066” superfluous.

Obviously, by analogy to the above, this could be read as allowing a Western Frankish ally from 911-1065 and 1067-1071.

However, are we really to believe that Frankish cavalry remained lighter (HC vs MKn) than Normans when allied to the Normans from 1050-1071, but not when they fought on their own? This just seems silly as the spread of armor and shock tactics was at least as rapid among the “Franks” as “Normans”. Denying them as allies also seems wrong given the variety of alliances between the Normans and the various other Frankish counts and Dukes in 11th c Northern France.

Two possible solutions are:

1. Western Frankish allies of the Normans taken from 1050 AD must upgrade all HC Impetuous to MKn Impetuous.
Or
2. Replace Western Frankish allies of the Normans from 1050 with Feudal French allies.

I think #2 is cleaner and more elegant, but probably requires an errata note to implement. While we are at it I would not allow Normans in Italy or Sicily to have Western Frank or Feudal French allies.

Now… about those Lombard allies….

[madaxeman]

I thought it was de factor considered illegal to take any ally other than the Bretons with a Norman army ...?

(or at least thats been the ally every time I've seen one chosen!)

[KevinD]

You’d think so, but the list really hamstrings this. No Breton ally EXCEPT with William in England in 1066??? This just seems way too restrictive. The Bretons never fought alongside the Normans otherwise? Really? And no Franks/French allies in 1066 - what do you call all these nobles from throughout Northern France who joined him first in Britany and then England?

What about, for just one example, Rivallon I of Dol, a Breton lord who sided with William at Dinan (1065)? (Dinan is fascinating because you have William, Rivallon, Geoffrey of Anjou and Harold Godwinson all fighting together against Conan! What a cast of characters! And the opportunities for treachery!)

Next, why is William only a Strategist at Hastings with 1/3-2/3 of his milites dismounted? This has to be the most restrictive reading of Strategist quality leadership to just a few months of one year! Surely he displayed Strategery in the Norman-French-Angevin wars from 1047-1060 and the Norman-Breton war (1064-1066). From 1047 at Val-ès-Dunes on he was being credited with winning battles (though King Henry I is also and perhaps more credibly credited for this victory). He emerged victorious in the war against Anjou, King Henry I and his rebellious (Norman) vassals winning notable battles such as Varaville (1057) where good scouting and a well timed attack crushed the royal army by “surprising his enemies with unexpected moves”. By 1058 he was invading royal and Angevin lands, taking castles, bishoprics, etc. and concluding victoriously by 1060. The Harrying of the North through 1071, though brutal, was very effective at crushing what could have been a long drawn out English resistance. In fact his first defeat in battle was at Dol in 1076, after this list ends and after almost three decades of virtually constant fighting, a defeat from which he quickly bounced back; though he was also forced to retreat from Gerberoi 3 years later.

I would modify the list to allow William to be a Strategist from 1047 until 1080 or so (thus also in the early Anglo-Norman list - perhaps allowing for his Strategery to slipping away after 1080 in his old age…). I would also allow William as a Norman Flemish, West Frankish, Feudal French and Breton allies from 1047 (when he assumed personal rule). I’m not sure what list the Flemings are though, but probably West Frankish and Feudal French will work at this time. Then in 1066 in England allow him the fortified camp (was this really the first time he used one?) and dismount 1/3-2/3 of the knights (as they couldn’t transport all the horses desired perhaps). (But why the limitations of only 8 Elite knights for this single campaign? Surely he had access to experienced and effective knights during this invasion as he had for all of his pre-Conquest career.)

[MarkK]

I think you have to accept that the army lists aren't accurate, I can only assume it is intentional to make them all rounded and competitive with each other.