Meshwesh minor errors and typos

[Andreas Johansson]

Yet another Wade-Giles infiltrator: the Early Hu have "Jung" allies, who should be pinyin "Rong".

(Yes, "Rong" is the same as the latter half of "Xirong" (W-G "Hsi-Jung"). "Xi" means 'Western' and "Rong" effectively means 'Western Barbarians'. Cf Beidi.)

[Andreas Johansson]

Not an error, perhaps, but it's passing strange that the "Later Muslim Indian" list is followed by the Sultanate of Delhi one. The dates of the former list appears to be that of the Mamluk Dynasty of Delhi, so maybe that's what the list should be called? Or just call them Early Sultanate of Delhi and Later Sultanate of Delhi?

Also, is the Sultanate of Delhi list, despite the name, intended to also cover breakaway Muslim regimes like the Bahmani Sultanate? There doesn't seem to be any other likely candidate.

[Andreas Johansson]

The dates are wonky for the "Early Kassites or Nairi 1649-950 BC, or Hurrians 1779-950 BC 1749 to 950 BC" list - clearly if the Hurrian sub-list begins in 1779 the whole can't begin in 1749.

[Andreas Johansson]

The Grenadines and Marinids are allowed one another as allies until 1339. This just misses what must be their most famous cooperation, in the battle of Salado in 1340.

Relatedly, in the Later Almohades and Other Islamic Berber list, the Arab-Berber horsemen are restricted to the Almohads, but somewhy a Marinid contingent in a Grenadine army can include them. I'm guessing the Meshwesh logic for allies simply doesn't handle restrictions like this?

[David Kuijt]

The Grenadines and Marinids are allowed one another as allies until 1339. This just misses what must be their most famous cooperation, in the battle of Salado in 1340.

Thanks, Andreas. That's an error; we'll fix it.

Relatedly, in the Later Almohades and Other Islamic Berber list, the Arab-Berber horsemen are restricted to the Almohads, but somewhy a Marinid contingent in a Grenadine army can include them. I'm guessing the Meshwesh logic for allies simply doesn't handle restrictions like this?

I'll take a look at it. There are some very complicated database issues involved in some of these special cases, and some of them aren't really representable without an unwieldy amount of programming. This might be one of those.

[Andreas Johansson]

The St. George's Night Uprising list has Swedish allies drawn from the Prussian list: I assume this is an error of some kind.

In the Yuan lists, "Mengkuchun" are still mentioned in the description for the Horse Bow or Bad Horse line. They should be "Menggu jun (Mongol army)" like in other lines. Also, the Steppes or Korea version has no less than four optional contingents of North Chinese subjects, which seems excessive.

[David Kuijt]

The St. George's Night Uprising list has Swedish allies drawn from the Prussian list: I assume this is an error of some kind.

Fixed. Thanks for catching this -- army lists have two internal numbers, the sort_id and the list_id; they got transposed in this reference. Rather than Prussians (sort_id 225a, list_id 227a) it should be Early Medieval Scandinavians (sort_id 227a, list id 229a). Very difficult error to spot when just looking at the numbers; we appreciate the help.

In the Yuan lists, "Mengkuchun" are still mentioned in the description for the Horse Bow or Bad Horse line. They should be "Menggu jun (Mongol army)" like in other lines.

Fixed, thanks.

Also, the Steppes or Korea version has no less than four optional contingents of North Chinese subjects, which seems excessive.

I'll have to talk to Jack about what's going on there -- the master copy has 7 lines for allies, which are:

• North Chinese subjects
• Chagadai Mongols
• Uighurs
• Chagadai and North Chinese (double ally)
• Uighurs and North Chinese (double ally)
• Koreans
• Koreans and North Chinese (double ally)

So internally the data shows very differently from the Meshwesh appearance.

[Andreas Johansson]

The Early Egyptian list has a line with skirmishers defined as "Javelinmen paired with quiver-carriers", which sounds more like Light Foot.

The Franco-Scottish list has "Voulgier", should be pl "Voulgiers".


Not an error, I guess, but the name "Later Sicilio-Norman" is passing strange - there's little obviously Norman about the Regno in this period, the original conquerors having been assimilated and the Norman dynasty having been replaced by the German Hohenstaufen. Maybe call it Hohenstaufen Sicilian, and the early list just Sicilio-Norman (or Siculo-Norman, which variant is a lot commoner online).

[David Kuijt]

The Early Egyptian list has a line with skirmishers defined as "Javelinmen paired with quiver-carriers", which sounds more like Light Foot.

The Franco-Scottish list has "Voulgier", should be pl "Voulgiers".


Not an error, I guess, but the name "Later Sicilio-Norman" is passing strange - there's little obviously Norman about the Regno in this period, the original conquerors having been assimilated and the Norman dynasty having been replaced by the German Hohenstaufen. Maybe call it Hohenstaufen Sicilian, and the early list just Sicilio-Norman (or Siculo-Norman, which variant is a lot commoner online).

I like the name Hohenstaufen Sicilian. We'll talk about it in a few weeks when I get back from Canada.

[JonathanJ]

The Feudal German lists indicate that the knights can have the mid-battle dismounting battle card, but they do not indicate what they dismount as. I've assumed elite foot, but it doesn't actually say...