Page 2 of 3
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:09 pm
by david53
hammy wrote:david53 wrote:Hi There
I'm fishing with a stick of dynimite here but would i be completely wrong to think that spear armed Assyrian foot would be classed as drilled Heavy foot. Cheeky I know but.........
Dave
The later Assyrian spearmen are indeed heavy foot.
Thanks for the quick reply here comes more 25mm buying now about buying my own christmas presents weres that cataloge.
Dave
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:05 pm
by nikgaukroger
Later Assyrian being after Sennacharib and possibly actually from Esarhaddon IIRC so make sure you're getting the correct figures ...
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:24 pm
by rbodleyscott
nikgaukroger wrote:Later Assyrian being after Sennacharib and possibly actually from Esarhaddon IIRC so make sure you're getting the correct figures ...
And they are not all HF even then.
Base the ones with tower shields and huge round shields as HF, base the ones with smaller round shields as MF. You will probably want some of each.
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:31 pm
by david53
rbodleyscott wrote:nikgaukroger wrote:Later Assyrian being after Sennacharib and possibly actually from Esarhaddon IIRC so make sure you're getting the correct figures ...
And they are not all HF even then.
Base the ones with tower shields and huge round shields as HF, bases the ones with smaller round shields as MF. You will probably want some of each.
Bang goes my idea of ruling all the known world with my HF Assyrian army, no thanks for the info its good of you, just to stretch it little bit more if I did'nt want to invest in Heavy chariots could i leave them out or is there a minimum.
Cheers
Dave
(not an assyrian name)
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:04 pm
by rbodleyscott
david53 wrote:if I did'nt want to invest in Heavy chariots could i leave them out?
In heaven's name, why would you want to do that?
There is a minimum of 4 Heavy Chariots.
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:08 pm
by david53
rbodleyscott wrote:david53 wrote:if I did'nt want to invest in Heavy chariots could i leave them out?
In heaven's name, why would you want to do that?
There is a minimum of 4 Heavy Chariots.
Of course it was a daft idea of mine i thought Cavalry would have taken the place of chariots but your right will have to go off and look at the rules for Heavy Chariots now.
Dave
Re: Swifter than Eagles
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:08 pm
by david53
rbodleyscott wrote:Just to put you out of your misery, here is the contents list:
NUBIAN
EARLY LIBYAN
LATER SUMERIAN OR AKKADIAN
EARLY NOMAD ALLIES
OLD OR MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPTIAN
HYKSOS
MITANNI
SYRO-CANAANITE
NEW KINGDOM EGYPTIAN
LATER MINOAN OR EARLY MYCENAEAN
HITTITE EMPIRE
MIDDLE OR EARLY NEO-ASSYRIAN
LATER MYCENAEAN OR TROJAN
SEA PEOPLES
PHILISTINE
PHOENICIAN ALLIES
NEO-HITTITE AND ARAMAEAN
LATER HEBREW
MANNAEAN ALLIES
LIBYAN EGYPTIAN
URARTIAN
MEDIAN
NEO-ELAMITE
PROTO-ARAB ALLIES
CIMMERIAN OR EARLY SKYTHIAN
NEO-ASSYRIAN EMPIRE
PHRYGIAN ALLIES
KUSHITE EGYPTIAN
NEO-BABYLONIAN EMPIRE
Hi There
Could you please bear with me not up very much on biblical troops which of the above use a lot of camels in their army? Stupid question I know but...................
Dave
Re: Swifter than Eagles
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:47 pm
by rbodleyscott
david53 wrote:Could you please bear with me not up very much on biblical troops which of the above use a lot of camels in their army?
Well none really, apart from Proto-Arab allies (12 bases). The Neo-Hittites and Aramaeans can have a few (4 bases). The Neo-Babylonian have a lot (12 bases) of very bad ones, and the Neo-Assyrian Empire can have a few very bad ones (4 bases). There may be a few others with a few.
None of the above camels are what you might call battle-winning troops.
Re: Swifter than Eagles
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:36 am
by david53
rbodleyscott wrote:david53 wrote:Could you please bear with me not up very much on biblical troops which of the above use a lot of camels in their army?
Well none really, apart from Proto-Arab allies (12 bases). The Neo-Hittites and Aramaeans can have a few (4 bases). The Neo-Babylonian have a lot (12 bases) of very bad ones, and the Neo-Assyrian Empire can have a few very bad ones (4 bases). There may be a few others with a few.
None of the above camels are what you might call battle-winning troops.
Thanks for the info are the Proto Arabs the same as Midianite Arabs.
Dave
Re: Swifter than Eagles
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:53 am
by rbodleyscott
david53 wrote:Thanks for the info are the Proto Arabs the same as Midianite Arabs.
Yes, but there is only an ally-contingent list, not a full list.
Re: Swifter than Eagles
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:36 am
by david53
rbodleyscott wrote:david53 wrote:Thanks for the info are the Proto Arabs the same as Midianite Arabs.
Yes, but there is only an ally-contingent list, not a full list.
Your quicker than i thought answering thanks just had a look around the threads about camels I might have it completely wrong if so i hold my hands up. But Midianite Arabs have archer mounted camels but are they classed as Mtd infantry foot with bows which dismount to shoot and arn't covered in rules. I'm going with past experience years ago when a Midianite army had more camels than Lawrence ever dreamed off, but I have a sense my camels will have to stay in the box.
Dave
Re: Swifter than Eagles
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 10:03 am
by rbodleyscott
david53 wrote:rbodleyscott wrote:david53 wrote:Thanks for the info are the Proto Arabs the same as Midianite Arabs.
Yes, but there is only an ally-contingent list, not a full list.
Your quicker than i thought answering thanks just had a look around the threads about camels I might have it completely wrong if so i hold my hands up. But Midianite Arabs have archer mounted camels but are they classed as Mtd infantry foot with bows which dismount to shoot and arn't covered in rules. I'm going with past experience years ago when a Midianite army had more camels than Lawrence ever dreamed off, but I have a sense my camels will have to stay in the box.
Dave
The Proto-Arab ally contingent can have 12 bases of Unprotected camelry with bows. They are not counted as mounted infantry.
Re: Swifter than Eagles
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:03 pm
by david53
rbodleyscott wrote:david53 wrote:rbodleyscott wrote:
Yes, but there is only an ally-contingent list, not a full list.
Your quicker than i thought answering thanks just had a look around the threads about camels I might have it completely wrong if so i hold my hands up. But Midianite Arabs have archer mounted camels but are they classed as Mtd infantry foot with bows which dismount to shoot and arn't covered in rules. I'm going with past experience years ago when a Midianite army had more camels than Lawrence ever dreamed off, but I have a sense my camels will have to stay in the box.
Dave
The Proto-Arab ally contingent can have 12 bases of Unprotected camelry with bows. They are not counted as mounted infantry.
Thank you for your help with that.
Dave
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:34 pm
by menard
Can someone possibly elaborate on the difference between the Minoan / Early Mycenaean list and the Later Mycenaean / Trojan list ? Specifically, it would be helpful to know which centuries the two army lists correspond to. There are many competing interpretations of warfare in Bronze Age Greece and knowing how where the line is drawn between the two lists would at least give some indication of which interpretations these army lists are based on.
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:42 pm
by hammy
Later Minoan 1600-1450
Early Mycenaean 1600-1250
Later Mycenaean / Trojan
The later list is after the body shield was dropped in favour of a smaller one.
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:57 pm
by Redpossum
hammy wrote:Later Minoan 1600-1450
Early Mycenaean 1600-1250
Later Mycenaean / Trojan
The later list is after the body shield was dropped in favour of a smaller one.
Will the Minoans get any Marines?
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:26 pm
by timmy1
Only if they go into a bar and buy them a drink nicely. (Unless the Marines are H*tt*e, in which case a subclause of law 199 applies)
Re: Swifter than Eagles
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:33 pm
by vingthorr
no Early Hebrews? Or does the Later Hebrew list cover more than it's DBM cousin? Is the Joshua, Judges, Saul period in this list? unlike the DBM lists where David's kingship was the line between the Early and Later lists?
-thanks
rbodleyscott wrote:Just to put you out of your misery, here is the contents list:
NUBIAN
EARLY LIBYAN
LATER SUMERIAN OR AKKADIAN
EARLY NOMAD ALLIES
OLD OR MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPTIAN
HYKSOS
MITANNI
SYRO-CANAANITE
NEW KINGDOM EGYPTIAN
LATER MINOAN OR EARLY MYCENAEAN
HITTITE EMPIRE
MIDDLE OR EARLY NEO-ASSYRIAN
LATER MYCENAEAN OR TROJAN
SEA PEOPLES
PHILISTINE
PHOENICIAN ALLIES
NEO-HITTITE AND ARAMAEAN
LATER HEBREW
MANNAEAN ALLIES
LIBYAN EGYPTIAN
URARTIAN
MEDIAN
NEO-ELAMITE
PROTO-ARAB ALLIES
CIMMERIAN OR EARLY SKYTHIAN
NEO-ASSYRIAN EMPIRE
PHRYGIAN ALLIES
KUSHITE EGYPTIAN
NEO-BABYLONIAN EMPIRE
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:19 pm
by hammy
The later Hebrew list covers from 1000 BC to 586 BC
Hope that helps as I don't have any DBM lists to hand.
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:11 am
by vingthorr
hammy wrote:The later Hebrew list covers from 1000 BC to 586 BC
Hope that helps as I don't have any DBM lists to hand.
oops. another one for the lost scrolls then, i guess. no joshua? no gideon? conquest of canaan? wars with the philistines? david and goliath and all that? oops