FOG 6 - time marches on

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:14 am

If anyone is planning to contribute to this, please can you let us know ASAP.

David, please will you draft a list for the Portuguese in NW Africa (incorporating mainland army till start of war of Restoration if you feel it is justified)?

(Green lists have drafts done)

FOGR6: Cities of Gold - America and Africa

Text required by 15/11/10

1. Aztec 1494-1521
2a. Tarascan
2b Tlaxcalan (including early Conquistadors) 1494-1521, Huaxtec or Otomi
3. Mixtec and Zapotec 1494-1521
4. West African Forest Peoples 1494-1698
5. West Sudanese (actually south west of the Sahara!) 1494-1698
6. Tuareg 1494-1698
7. Central African States 1494-1698
8. Mayan 1494-1697
9. Spanish Colonial 1524-1698
10. Pueblo Indian 1494-1692
11. Chichimec
12. Inca 1494-1572
13. Mapuche 1494-1698
13a Amazonian Forest Indian 1500-1698
14. Tupi and Tapuya 1494-1692
15. Buccaneer 1624-1698
18. Funj & Fur 1504-1698 (includes Shaiqiya)
19. French Colonial 1562-1698
20. English and Dutch North America 1607-1698
21. New Model English in West Indies 1654-1655
22. Eastern Forest American 1494-1698
23. Pacific NW Culture 1494-1698
24. Portuguese in Portugal (pre-1580) & NW Africa
25. Oromo
26. Central Sudanese
27. Mossi
28. Natchez 1494-1698
29. South-Eastern forest Cultures
30. Timucuan
31. Plains Culture
32. Chinantec
33. Arawak
34. Carib

The Appendix 2 probably needs to exclude the new Portuguese list from the Cities of Gold theme - otherwise it will distort it. It can be added to the Trade & Treachery theme. (Which also includes their North African opponents). However the Colonial Portuguese list of course needs to be included.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:50 am

There will be no Alwa list, it isn't credible.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:53 am

Oddly I have some info on the Chinantecs around somewhere - some similarities to the Tarascans IIRC.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:37 am

nikgaukroger wrote:Oddly I have some info on the Chinantecs around somewhere - some similarities to the Tarascans IIRC.

errm, see Blood & Gold

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:42 am

Richard, I am happy to do Buccaneers if no one else is,
John

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:03 am

marshalney2000 wrote:Richard, I am happy to do Buccaneers if no one else is,
John

Yes please

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:43 am

Ok I will break out my copy of Captain Blood and a bottle of grog!!
John

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:08 pm

Sadly, I don't think we can justify a Chinantec list, as they do not seem to have actually fought the Spanish. They had already been conquered by the Aztecs before 1500, although some regained their independence shortly before Cortes arrived.

However, although they defied a Spanish scouting force (with Aztec auxiliaries) in 1520, they then seem to have submitted fairly peacefully and were subsequently used by the Spanish as auxiliaries. (Though they arrived too late for the battle, clever chaps).

robertthebruce · Post by **robertthebruce** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:48 pm

Portuguese Discoverer sent.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 6:46 am

rbodleyscott wrote:Sadly, I don't think we can justify a Chinantec list, as they do not seem to have actually fought the Spanish. They had already been conquered by the Aztecs before 1500, although some regained their independence shortly before Cortes arrived.

However, although they defied a Spanish scouting force (with Aztec auxiliaries) in 1520, they then seem to have submitted fairly peacefully and were subsequently used by the Spanish as auxiliaries. (Though they arrived too late for the battle, clever chaps).

Just a thought - when were they conquered? As the rules start at 1494 they may still squeeze in.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:27 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:Sadly, I don't think we can justify a Chinantec list, as they do not seem to have actually fought the Spanish. They had already been conquered by the Aztecs before 1500, although some regained their independence shortly before Cortes arrived.

However, although they defied a Spanish scouting force (with Aztec auxiliaries) in 1520, they then seem to have submitted fairly peacefully and were subsequently used by the Spanish as auxiliaries. (Though they arrived too late for the battle, clever chaps).
Just a thought - when were they conquered? As the rules start at 1494 they may still squeeze in.

Not sure.

I have put 1500 as the start date for the American lists because there was no colonial conflict before that, and the start date of the Italian Wars does not seem entirely relevant to American colonial history.

However, I suppose 1494 would be more consistent with other non-European lists.

Actually, the Chinantecs sent 1500 men to aid Cortes against Pánfilo de Narváez, but they arrived after Narváez was defeated.

So it might be reasonable to have them in as they probably merit an Allies list anyway.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:49 am

I have added Chinantecs to the next draft. They rebelled once in the early 1530s - but I have not yet found an exact date.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:07 am

rbodleyscott wrote:I have added Chinantecs to the next draft. They rebelled once in the early 1530s - but I have not yet found an exact date.

Mr Khurasan will be happy - he produces a range and is having figures painted to be photographed and sent to Paul ...

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:27 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:I have added Chinantecs to the next draft. They rebelled once in the early 1530s - but I have not yet found an exact date.
Mr Khurasan will be happy - he produces a range and is having figures painted to be photographed and sent to Paul ...

Indeed. I had correspondence with him about them when we were doing Blood & Gold.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:44 pm

All lists have first draft except Buccaneers.

John?

marshalney2000 · Post by **marshalney2000** » Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:46 pm

Coming soon. I was a late starter!!
John

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:31 pm

Do any of the lists cover (or could cover) the Arawak and Caribs that Columbus fought at the start of the period?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:36 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:Do any of the lists cover (or could cover) the Arawak and Caribs that Columbus fought at the start of the period?

Unlikely, and the idea of an army of them is probably a bit far-fetched.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:12 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Do any of the lists cover (or could cover) the Arawak and Caribs that Columbus fought at the start of the period?
Unlikely, and the idea of an army of them is probably a bit far-fetched.

IIRC there is a mention of 4000 in Heath isn't there?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:29 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Do any of the lists cover (or could cover) the Arawak and Caribs that Columbus fought at the start of the period?
Unlikely, and the idea of an army of them is probably a bit far-fetched.

IIRC there is a mention of 4000 in Heath isn't there?

Really? Oh well I had better take a look then.