forum.wgcwar.com

Just double checking on the Dacian list which says it is Ready.

No allies? Legacy and other rule systems seem to indicate Sarmatian allies, other neighbor Germans and Celts.

Thanks.

Bill

Bill Hupp wrote:Just double checking on the Dacian list which says it is Ready.

No allies? Legacy and other rule systems seem to indicate Sarmatian allies, other neighbor Germans and Celts.

Some legacy systems do; some do not; and sometimes they disagree. For example, I think DBA 2.2 had Sarmatian allies, but none of the others; I'm not sure what DBM, DBMM, or 3.0 have.

Another thing to recall is that different rule systems use different standards for whether allies appear as an option. For us, "could have" isn't good enough -- ideally you would have Trajan saying "Boy, those Dacians were tough, with their Sarmatian allies when we fought at the battle of the Brindlesnark." If you find such a reference, let us know immediately and we will make sure that Sarmatian allies appear for the Dacians, whether just at 101 AD (battle of the Brindlesnark) or perhaps throughout their term depending upon a number of variables.

If you're playing AdLG or WAB or ten million other systems with historical army lists, they may include allies based upon a different standard of proof. In some cases the proof standard is "Hey, they were adjacent, they could have been allies" which is a little too loosey-goosey for us.

When I get home I'll take a look at some of my source books and see -- the lack of Sarmatians might be an omission. IIRC, there are some Sarmatians on Trajan's column? Yes, just found that online. So it looks like Sarmatians should be an ally -- we're rarely going to get anything better (nor even half as good) as Trajan's Column as documentation.

I'll fix.

DK,

Thanks. That question came from a combination of purchasing an army and having picked up the Warlord Hail Caesar Dacian 'sourcebook' at a discount. It would appear that sourcebook (with all of about 3 pages of actual history vs. what I generously call applied history and a really good map) is almost all based on Roman history related to Trajan's campaigns.

I think you will see more and more of this type of activity from people taking their old armies or buying used ones and adapting them to Triumph! It's a very straight forward way of doing a first level comparative analysis.

Bill

Bill Hupp wrote: I think you will see more and more of this type of activity from people taking their old armies or buying used ones and adapting them to Triumph!

What type of activity?

David Kuijt wrote: Some legacy systems do; some do not; and sometimes they disagree. For example, I think DBA 2.2 had Sarmatian allies, but none of the others; I'm not sure what DBM, DBMM, or 3.0 have.

DBA 3.0 has the same Sarmatian allies as in 2.2.

In the revised DBMM list, they get Sarmatian (Iazygian), Bastarnaean, and Scordisci allies. The Bastarnae are not really new, in the old list they were simply integrated directly in the Dacian list, while the Scordisci are based on the following passage:

Strabo VII.52 wrote: A part of this country was laid waste by the Dacians when they subdued the Boii and Taurisci, Celtic tribes under the rule of Critasirus. They alleged that the country was theirs, although it was separated from theirs by the River Parisus, which flows from the mountains to the Ister near the country of the Scordisci who are called Galatae, for these too lived intermingled with the Illyrian and the Thracian tribes. But though the Dacians destroyed the Boii and Taurisci, they often used the Scordisci as allies.

These tribes are essentially Galatians who never bothered to continue on to Greece and Asia Minor. DBMM treats them as Gauls - apparently they kept using La Tène weaponry right up to the Roman conquest in 15 BC (after which the allied contingent is no longer allowed), suggesting they remained Gallic in military culture.

Now whether Strabo's passage quite reaches David's standards of proof I'll leave to him to judge.

Andreas Johansson wrote:

David Kuijt wrote: Some legacy systems do; some do not; and sometimes they disagree. For example, I think DBA 2.2 had Sarmatian allies, but none of the others; I'm not sure what DBM, DBMM, or 3.0 have.

DBA 3.0 has the same Sarmatian allies as in 2.2.

In the revised DBMM list, they get Sarmatian (Iazygian), Bastarnaean, and Scordisci allies. The Bastarnae are not really new, in the old list they were simply integrated directly in the Dacian list, while the Scordisci are based on the following passage:

Strabo VII.52 wrote: A part of this country was laid waste by the Dacians when they subdued the Boii and Taurisci, Celtic tribes under the rule of Critasirus. They alleged that the country was theirs, although it was separated from theirs by the River Parisus, which flows from the mountains to the Ister near the country of the Scordisci who are called Galatae, for these too lived intermingled with the Illyrian and the Thracian tribes. But though the Dacians destroyed the Boii and Taurisci, they often used the Scordisci as allies.

These tribes are essentially Galatians who never bothered to continue on to Greece and Asia Minor. DBMM treats them as Gauls - apparently they kept using La Tène weaponry right up to the Roman conquest in 15 BC (after which the allied contingent is no longer allowed), suggesting they remained Gallic in military culture.

Now whether Strabo's passage quite reaches David's standards of proof I'll leave to him to judge.

Harsh!

Thanks, I hadn't seen that passage of Strabo. That certainly suffices; the question is which Gallic list would be appropriate for the Scordisci. The Roman conquest in 15 BC is a Roman conquest of the Scordisci, I assume? Or more generally of the Dalmatian/Balkan area where the Thracians and Illyrians resided? Now I gotta go look at my maps. And make sure that the EIR can still pound on something that looks Scordisci-like.

15 BC is the conquest of the Scordisci in particular, yes. The Romans were subjugating various inland peoples of the Balkans around that time. The entire right bank of the Danube didn't become formally Roman until the annexation of the Odrysian kingdom in AD 46 I believe.

Andreas Johansson wrote:15 BC is the conquest of the Scordisci in particular, yes. The Romans were subjugating various inland peoples of the Balkans around that time.

Ya, I found that out. Tiberius, is it?

Andreas Johansson wrote:The entire right bank of the Danube didn't become formally Roman until the annexation of the Odrysian kingdom in AD 46 I believe.

Cool.

David Kuijt wrote:

Andreas Johansson wrote:15 BC is the conquest of the Scordisci in particular, yes. The Romans were subjugating various inland peoples of the Balkans around that time.

Ya, I found that out. Tiberius, is it?

Yup

David Kuijt wrote:

Bill Hupp wrote: I think you will see more and more of this type of activity from people taking their old armies or buying used ones and adapting them to Triumph!

What type of activity?

I'm now doing that with Prussian, Lithuanians, etc. Getting out the old DBA 2.2/3.0 Prussian army and comparing it stand by stand with the Triumph! list (and in that case with the revised point costs for war bands.)

That is where the lack of descriptive information on a line by line basis makes it really tough to compare.

A couple of new questions are in process.

Bill