One of the huge advantages we have with Meshwesh (online army lists) that other rules systems that rely on print army lists do NOT have is that we can be responsive to new research. In particular, there are a significant number of cultures where we know (more or less) all of the following:
- That the culture existed, and approximately when and where
- Topography, Enemies, and sometimes even possible Allies
- Maneuver and Invasion ratings (or as much as we ever do -- sufficient to approximate them)
Five examples from as many cultures will show you what I mean: the Zhang-Zhung, Bulala, Tiwanaku and Wari, and the Genoese in Cyprus.
The Zhang-Zhung were predecessors to the Tibetan Empire. We know where they were (more or less); we know when they were (at least an end date, which is all we have for a bunch of armies); we know some opponents for them (Tibetans, for sure; possibly some Tarim Basin dudes and/or Mountain Indians). We have no translated descriptions of their armies, their battles, and no archaeology of their armament or weapons. So we have nothing on which to write an army list.
The Bulala were an African group (tribe? Movement? Army?) who displaced the King of Kanem to the other side of Lake Chad in the 14th or 15th century. We've got some (limited, but sufficient) information on the Kanem-Bornu armies, but nothing on the Bulala. No images, no descriptions, no battle descriptions, no archaeology. We know they defeated (and therefore fought) the Kanem; we know where they were, but nothing else.
The Tiwanaku and Wari (sometimes Huari) were one of two major civilizations in the Andes in the Middle Horizon period. We know both existed; we know they fought (or could have fought) each other; we know how big their civilizations were; we have ruins of their cities. We have no descriptions of anything (no writing); we have no images; we have no military archaeology. Both cultures collapsed (likely due to a series of long droughts in 1020 and 1050 that mark the end of the Middle Horizon period) before the Inca rose up in the same areas a century or more later.
The Genoese invaded Cyprus in the 14th/15th centuries and were a thorn in the side of the Venetians and the Cypriots for a century or more. We have some descriptions of sieges, a tiny bit about some troops (Hungarian Horsebow, IIRC) that were there for only a couple of years, a lot about politics, but nothing about what their army would look like. The typical Italian Condotta army of that period is clearly incorrect -- the Genoese never shipped over any major number of Elmeti (mounted knights). We know a bit (enough, but not a terrible amount) about the forces of the Cypriots and the Venetians they were largely allied with, but we know nothing about the Genoese forces in Cyprus.
There are another dozen or more army lists that fall in this "unknown composition" category. I've been working up North American army lists, and I probably have enough data (mostly from 17th/18th century) to be able to create army lists that aren't pure speculation (for one thing, military archaeology does exist, and some descriptions from early contact). There are certainly many Asian armies where we don't have good access to translations on current research and stuff.
The hope is that you readers can help us if you become aware of:
- Any research that could inform the construction of reasonable army lists for any of these armies
- Any armies that are not represented, that fall in this category of "Known army, but Unknown Composition"