PDA

View Full Version : Draft DBA 3.0 BOOK IV Lists


Chris Brantley
06-20-2011, 04:29 PM
Sue Laflin-Barker has forwarded the latest version of the Book IV lists and invites Fanatici feedback...

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/DBA3/LISTS_IV.pdf

Please note this is the complete book, and replaces the previous version which only covered lists IV/1 - IV/20

Sue adds: " I am collecting comments on the Book IV lists over the next two weeks and would welcome their input."

Input presumably can be posted here and/or send to Sue at: sue@wrg.me.uk

Redwilde
06-20-2011, 05:37 PM
Whew. The handful of HYW armies I've just been assembling all remain un-tweaked in this version. Let painting commence. Well, when I have time....

The only change I've spotted for my armies is the previously painted Granadine which now has a Kn or LH General instead of the previous Kn or Cv. I'm happy to use a 3 fig stand for a LH general. The same stand used for either of the previous options will do just fine for the new option for me too. So no need to acquire and paint more figs for this change.

Inanna'sBoyToy
06-20-2011, 06:26 PM
My Mound Builders need more Honoured Med w/Bows.

Groovy...

Richard Lee
06-21-2011, 01:27 AM
Phew! My Later Bulgars have not changed as far as I can see.

dicemanrick
06-21-2011, 02:18 AM
Still no Psilois for the Later Crusaders!!:???

maerk
06-21-2011, 02:43 AM
Dear Sue,

thank you for posting the preliminary DBA 3.0 army lists. I have two comments on the Book IV Swiss armies:

IV/41 Early Swiss
there is a typo in the accompanying text: "(...) from the revolt of Schwyz, Unterwalden, Uri and Lutzen (...)". Instead of "Lutzen" (which is a town in Saxony) it should be "Lucerne" (which is one of the four communities revolting against the Hapsburgian rule).

IV/79 Later Swiss 1400 AD - 1522 AD
For the 15. century the numerical relation of Pikes (Pk) to Halberds (Bd) is far too high. While the military leaders at this time wanted to have such a high percentage of Pikes in their contingents, in reality they had large numbers of men equipped with the traditional halberd or sword (Schaufelberger W., der Alte Schweizer und sein Krieg, 1952 / von Rodt E., Geschichte des Bernischen Kriegswesens, 1831).

I hope my inputs are useful to you.

best regards,

Maerk
sites.google.com/site/dbamaerk/

Tony Aguilar
06-21-2011, 05:10 AM
Still no Psilois for the Later Crusaders!!:???

Not sure how the DBMM lists shook out, but they didn't have an option for any psiloi in the DBM books, which is why DBA 2.2 doesn't allow for any.
Of course, the Post-Mongol Samurai should have had an option for some, but don't get any.

dicemanrick
06-21-2011, 10:00 AM
Not sure how the DBMM lists shook out, but they didn't have an option for any psiloi in the DBM books, which is why DBA 2.2 doesn't allow for any.
Of course, the Post-Mongol Samurai should have had an option for some, but don't get any.

Sorry, I don't play DBMM (:rotfl)..but the Early Crusades have psiloi, and EVERY Medieval army of the period (who all contributed contingents to the Crusades) have psiloi. Where are they in Outremer? Why not include the possibility for one measly element?

Tony Aguilar
06-21-2011, 10:16 AM
Sorry, I don't play DBMM (:rotfl)..but the Early Crusades have psiloi, and EVERY Medieval army of the period (who all contributed contingents to the Crusades) have psiloi. Where are they in Outremer? Why not include the possibility for one measly element?

I don't play either DBM or DBMM either, Rich. The DBA 2.2 lists, I have been told, are based on the research in DBM (and the 3.0 lists are based on DBMM)which are the historical interpretations by the same author. I don't see how (logically) they would be included in DBA if they weren't included in DBM - in which they do not have any Psiloi available (I checked). DBM, after all is a more "zoomed-in" scale than DBA. Whether or not I agree with you that psiloi should be an option is irrelevant, as the author apparently (for whatever reason) doesn't seem to think so based on there being no option for them even in a more "zoomed-in" setting.

pozanias
06-21-2011, 10:31 AM
Sorry, I don't play DBMM (:rotfl)..but the Early Crusades have psiloi, and EVERY Medieval army of the period (who all contributed contingents to the Crusades) have psiloi. Where are they in Outremer? Why not include the possibility for one measly element?

But the real question is: did the Later Crusader armies actually have troops that fought in the manner represented by Psiloi in DBA?

Knowing the Early Crusader army has Ps and that contemporary European armies also had Ps is a good reason to think that the Later Crusader army probably used Ps too, but its not definitive. My reading of the Crusades has been too high level to be able to say definitively one way or the other. Of course I've seen plenty of references to the knights and heavy foot, but I don't recall a lot of detail regarding the support troops.

In other words, you may very well be right -- but your argument would be stronger if you cited historical evidence supporting the position that ps played a role in Later Crusader armies.

Haardrada
06-21-2011, 05:11 PM
Dear Sue,

thank you for posting the preliminary DBA 3.0 army lists. I have two comments on the Book IV Swiss armies:

IV/41 Early Swiss
there is a typo in the accompanying text: "(...) from the revolt of Schwyz, Unterwalden, Uri and Lutzen (...)". Instead of "Lutzen" (which is a town in Saxony) it should be "Lucerne" (which is one of the four communities revolting against the Hapsburgian rule).

IV/79 Later Swiss 1400 AD - 1522 AD
For the 15. century the numerical relation of Pikes (Pk) to Halberds (Bd) is far too high. While the military leaders at this time wanted to have such a high percentage of Pikes in their contingents, in reality they had large numbers of men equipped with the traditional halberd or sword (Schaufelberger W., der Alte Schweizer und sein Krieg, 1952 / von Rodt E., Geschichte des Bernischen Kriegswesens, 1831).

I hope my inputs are useful to you.

best regards,

Maerk
sites.google.com/site/dbamaerk/

I agree,but I would also add the proportion of mounted elements is too high. Only one element of Kn or Lh.

dicemanrick
06-22-2011, 12:31 PM
But the real question is: did the Later Crusader armies actually have troops that fought in the manner represented by Psiloi in DBA?

Knowing the Early Crusader army has Ps and that contemporary European armies also had Ps is a good reason to think that the Later Crusader army probably used Ps too, but its not definitive. My reading of the Crusades has been too high level to be able to say definitively one way or the other. Of course I've seen plenty of references to the knights and heavy foot, but I don't recall a lot of detail regarding the support troops.

In other words, you may very well be right -- but your argument would be stronger if you cited historical evidence supporting the position that ps played a role in Later Crusader armies.

Sorry, Mark, but my medieval language skills are nil (and I don't think they were called psiloi anyway:D). I just think it's logical to assume that army organization would not be unique to Outremer and the possibility of a psiloi or two should exist as an option.

The Shattered Lance wiki has this for Later Crusaders (especially see points 2 and 3):

This covers the Frankish armies in the Outremer, after the 3rd Crusade and up to the Golan campaign of 1260. After this point, no field armies were used.



The main points of difference with the earlier Kingdom of Jerusalem list are:

1 the increasing reliance on the military orders to provide contingents in field armies;
2 that most major battles in this period depended on the presence of contingents from overseas;
3 the increasing use of missile weapons and of course;
4 greater use of armour and caparisons for the knights.

Andreas Johansson
06-23-2011, 08:09 AM
FWIW, the DBMM Later Crusader List allows extremely limited numbers of Ps in the form of Flemish marines.

I just think it's logical to assume that army organization would not be unique to Outremer and the possibility of a psiloi or two should exist as an option.
The one doesn't follow from the other - the difference between Ps and Bw/Cb is not one of organization.

pozanias
06-23-2011, 09:18 AM
Sorry, Mark, but my medieval language skills are nil (and I don't think they were called psiloi anyway:D).

Lets call them skirmishers. :2up But in my defense, I did not refer to them as psiloi, but rather as "troops that fought in the manner represented by Psiloi in DBA"



I just think it's logical to assume that army organization would not be unique to Outremer and the possibility of a psiloi or two should exist as an option.

I guess this is just a disagreement between us as to what standard of evidence should be required to change the army lists. IMO the most we could say is that because the Early Crusaders had skirmishers, and because the Western Europeans that supplied the Later Crusaders had skirmishers -- it is logical to conclude that the Later Crusaders themselves *probably* employed skirmishers as well. And if this were a period that was not well documented, then I would say that's good enough. But there are plenty of contemporary (and even first hand) accounts of the crusades, and lots of very serious and scholarly research on this army -- so the standard should be a bit higher.

So, IMO, your logical argument must be supplemented by first hand accounts of skirmishers or quotes from serious historians that did the research showing that skirmishers were a standard element of the Later Crusdader army.

I'm only trying to help you. If you want to make a serious case to Sue and Phil that the list should be changed, I think you're going to need a more substantial argument. You didn't convince me and I'm way easier to sway than Phil or Sue. Just ask Larry -- he's buying me off with just one beer at Historicon. You buy me one too and I'll sign your Later Crusade Ps petition.

david kuijt
06-23-2011, 09:34 AM
I'm only trying to help you. If you want to make a serious case to Sue and Phil that the list should be changed, I think you're going to need a more substantial argument. You didn't convince me and I'm way easier to sway than Phil or Sue. Just ask Larry -- he's buying me off with just one beer at Historicon. You buy me one too and I'll sign your Later Crusade Ps petition.

You're so easy, Mark. Everyone says so.

dicemanrick
06-23-2011, 10:44 AM
Lets call them skirmishers. :2up But in my defense, I did not refer to them as psiloi, but rather as "troops that fought in the manner represented by Psiloi in DBA"

You didn't convince me and I'm way easier to sway than Phil or Sue. Just ask Larry -- he's buying me off with just one beer at Historicon. You buy me one too and I'll sign your Later Crusade Ps petition.

I'll have a Newcastle there with your name on it, bud!

And it's as well documented as LH destroying formed spears/pike when frontally attacked, too!:D

pozanias
06-23-2011, 11:01 AM
And it's as well documented as LH destroying formed spears/pike when frontally attacked, too!:D

Its very easy for Phil to convince himself of anything. Its very hard for us mere mortals to convince him of anything.

kamill
06-23-2011, 08:00 PM
Two minor comments on IV/66 list:

- First, there is a typo in army description. Polish mounted crossbowmen were called "strzelcy", not "strelcy". Second, "rycerz" is singular and "strzelcy" is plural. IMHO it would be more elegant to use both forms in plural, so "rycerze" and "strzelcy".

- I would suggest listing IV/66 and IV/80 armies as allies as well as enemies. Not only number of Polish volunteers fought along Hussites against Sigismund Luxemburg, but in 1432 Poland openly entered military alliance with them, followed by a joint expedition against Teutonic Order next year.

Haardrada
06-26-2011, 05:20 AM
IV5 Sicilian 6xPs

I think Filipo S. commented this in the earlier lists 1-20, but I think I should raise it here. I would go further and say some lists give optional clarifications of troop types, this is one of the lists that does not. In DBM (I do not have a copy of DBMM so do not know the classifications in those lists) that the Berber/Sarecen archers these troops represent are given as either Ps or Bw. Why not so in DBA? I hope Sue & Phil are addressing this in DBA 3.0.