nikgaukroger wrote:What makes you think it isn't covered by a Lost Scrolls army list?
Because it isn't listed in the original posting Nik.
Because it is cunningly hidden
If it is in Lost Scrolls then great. I still feel it would have been logical to put it in with its contemporaries in Swifter Than Eagles though. In general, to print any "Later" army without the "Early" one in the same book just looks a little odd and can be quite frustrating if you have the army in question.
Applies to most of the lists in Lost Scrolls - alas it did not prove possible.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger wrote:What makes you think it isn't covered by a Lost Scrolls army list?
Because it isn't listed in the original posting Nik.
Because it is cunningly hidden
So what you are saying Nik my boy is that the Early Hebrew are cleverly hidden in the Early Nomad list as they hover in the deserts and steppes of the Sinai looking for the land of milk and honey. Know what I mean wink, wink, nudge nudge.
One could also hold out belief that the armies that need photos do not encompass the entire lost scrolls book, as FOG may secretly already have photos of other lost armies that they plan to include. Overly optimistic, I know, but maybe.
Later Carthaginians (853 pts)
Medieval Swedish (591 pts)
Later Achm'd Persian (424 pts)
In fact, I've missed loads of threads since the end of December.
[My pathetic excuse is moving the job, family, home, etc. from Aberdeen to Perth. Not the one down the road. The one in WA. And not getting logged on etc. in months.]
---
I suppose it's too late for photos?
I have a reasonably marvellous large amount of Tuareg in 15mm, all Peter Pig figures, nicely based... There's a large dare I say it DBM's worth.
I have had to register just to say I can't understand why the early Hebrews are still not being covered. Indeed i was disapointed that the Swifter than eages the book that was subtitled " The Biblical Middle East at War " did not include the first Biblical armies as described in the Bible-- why on earth not?! And why are they still being ignored?
alans wrote:I have had to register just to say I can't understand why the early Hebrews are still not being covered. Indeed i was disapointed that the Swifter than eages the book that was subtitled " The Biblical Middle East at War " did not include the first Biblical armies as described in the Bible-- why on earth not?! And why are they still being ignored?
But it is being covered in Lost Scrolls. It just requires some knowledge about the nature of the early Hebrews to identify. If you read this thread you will find that the list covering the early Hebrews is actually mentioned.
Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
I did not expect in posting a comment that it would result in rudeness and sarcasm from a so called “moderator” and a silly little emoticon. You really think your comment was a moderate way to respond to my question?
Yes I read ALL the thread before posting and noted the mentioning of the early Hebrews. What I did not notice in the first post is the words Early Hebrew.
Whilst the nomadic list might do for the early Hebrews in the desert it is hard to see how a generic list can do justice to the character of the Hebrews in the Exodus. The exodus was hardly a time of sustained conflict but of internal trial and shaping for the purpose they were called to.
Even so the nomadic list, if this must be used, is only justified for the period up to Joshua settling the Hebrews in the promised land. As a list is can hardly be justifiably used to portray the unique character of the early Hebrew army during the wars associated with the Judges 1220-1050 and the period of the United monarchy prior to the later Hebrew period represented in the Swifter than Eagles book. A period of nearly 200 years is therefore lost from the early Hebrew calender it seems from the army list for the Early hebrews that is not specifically mentioned as an army list for the early Hbrews!.
This stills fails to answer the fundamental question of why in a book subtitled and published as The Biblical Middle East at War that a signature army should be omitted.
alans wrote:Even so the nomadic list, if this must be used, is only justified for the period up to Joshua settling the Hebrews in the promised land. As a list is can hardly be justifiably used to portray the unique character of the early Hebrew army during the wars associated with the Judges 1220-1050 and the period of the United monarchy prior to the later Hebrew period represented in the Swifter than Eagles book. A period of nearly 200 years is therefore lost from the early Hebrew calender it seems from the army list for the Early hebrews that is not specifically mentioned as an army list for the early Hbrews!.
I cheerfully confess my ignorance on this subject: is there something unique about the military system of the Early Hebrews that would call for a seperate army list? If so, what? Other than the fact that we know about them because they have a starring role in some very important religious writings?
alans wrote:
This stills fails to answer the fundamental question of why in a book subtitled and published as The Biblical Middle East at War that a signature army should be omitted.
Possibly because they were militarily insignificant and marketing decisions for names are not necessarily wholly logical except from a marketing point of view.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
My apologizes, I did not intend to come over rude. Cynical ... possibly, being a cynic is simply part of my personality, that's bound to shine through now and then.
I do get the impression though, that you care about the early Hebrews more from a religious then a historical or wargamers point of view. I'm not to knowledgeable about the subject, but from what I read I fail to see what made them special in a military sense.
I also don't think that historical the early Hebrews could be called an 'signature' army of their time. Being featured in various (later) religious writing does not make them an important factor of their own time.
Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
I presume from what he wrote that he meant "signature army" as the strap line for the book mentions "biblical" and thus a bible reference and thus Hebrews.
However, I rather suspect that for most wargamers "biblical" really just means "sand, sandals and chariots"
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
