Page 8 of 10

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 12:41 pm
by David Kuijt
Andreas Johansson wrote: (What's perhaps less appropriate is the moniker "javelinmen" - we don't apply it to legionaries or vikings, for all that those too would chuck pointy sticks before contact.)
I suppose "javelinmen" is intended for troops who exclusively threw pointy sticks (i.e., didn't do much of anything else), rather than be applied to any troops that ever threw pointy sticks.

I've fixed the Sassanid problem on the master data listing; as always, it might take some time to be propagated to Meshwesh.

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:46 pm
by Andreas Johansson
David Kuijt wrote: I suppose "javelinmen" is intended for troops who exclusively threw pointy sticks (i.e., didn't do much of anything else), rather than be applied to any troops that ever threw pointy sticks.
Yes; and what I'm wondering is how exclusively those Indians were dedicated to stick-chucking. Fighting in a static style would typically mean you're ready to fight in hand-to-hand with enemy who close; if this applies to the "Hereditary and mercenary javelinmen" of the Classical Indian list, they ought perhaps be called something else. On the other hand, close combat does not seem to have been emphasized in ancient India, most troops being armed with bows or javelins, so perhaps enemy closing wasn't much of a concern, and static javelin-chucking with no particular backup plan was a viable tactic. The Arthashastra does say that infantry belong on rough ground where elephants and chariots don't want to go, IIRC.

On the third hand, ancient Indian warfare really isn't my field of expertise, so maybe I should just shut up :P

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:31 pm
by David Kuijt
Andreas Johansson wrote: On the third hand, ancient Indian warfare really isn't my field of expertise, so maybe I should just shut up :P
If we all shut up just because we were outside our knowledge base, I wouldn't have 580 posts... :)

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:48 pm
by Andreas Johansson
Sassanids again:

The Early list has "Asavran catafractarii" and "Asarvan clibinarii"; the adjective should in each case be "Asvaran", as in the Middle list.

(Modern Persian apparently has metathesized savaran "horsemen", at which point the IE roots get a little hard to discern. The as-/sa- represents *ekwos "horse", as in Lat. equus, Sanskrit asvah, whereas if WP can be believed the -var- is from *bher "carry", apparently calqued on Old Persian designations like sparabarah "pavise-bearer", arshtibarah "spear-bearer" - etymologically the meaning should be "horse-bearers"! The -an is the Middle/New Persian plural ending.)

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:53 pm
by Andreas Johansson
The Early Abassid list is still spelt thus.

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:23 pm
by David Kuijt
Andreas Johansson wrote:The Early Abassid list is still spelt thus.
Took me some time to find that. There are eight places where the Abbasid name is used on two different data collections; seven were correct and one ... not. Thx for the pointer.

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:26 pm
by David Kuijt
Andreas Johansson wrote:Sassanids again:

The Early list has "Asavran catafractarii" and "Asarvan clibinarii"; the adjective should in each case be "Asvaran", as in the Middle list.
You mean "Asavran", "Asarvan", and "Asvaran" aren't all the same word? Weird. They all look the same to me... :roll:

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:56 pm
by Andreas Johansson
The Gepids (both versions) have Ostrogothic allies from the "Ostrogoths 376 AD" list, but there appears to be something wrong with that list: in the Gepid list it says "No troop options entered" for the ally option, and if I click on the link to the main list I get errors like "Unable to retrieve army list data".

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:07 pm
by David Kuijt
Andreas Johansson wrote:The Gepids (both versions) have Ostrogothic allies from the "Ostrogoths 376 AD" list, but there appears to be something wrong with that list: in the Gepid list it says "No troop options entered" for the ally option, and if I click on the link to the main list I get errors like "Unable to retrieve army list data".
That's been resolved, but the fix hasn't been uploaded yet. The Ostrogoth allies should be from the normal Ostrogoth list (127a), not from the 376 AD special list.

Not sure when I fixed the error -- a couple of months ago, at a guess, before I went to Canada and had a mountain biking accident in August. Probably before Historicon. But it's fixed in the database, just not uploaded yet. We've been working on the high-quality hardcopy rules and have been distracted.

Re: Meshwesh minor errors and typos

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:39 pm
by Vic
I think the compositions of the Hawaii and Polynesian or Melanesian lists in Meshwesh are erroneously exchanged.

The Polynesian and Melanesian list includes regular pikemen (which as far as I know were exclusive of Hawaii) which are further referred to as Papakaua (a Hawaiian term if I'm not mistaken), as well as commoners in Hordes and Rabble.

I think the Invasion/Maneuver ratings are correct, however.

Could you confirm if this is the case?