Slitherine

Just bought Swords and Scimitars .... marvelous game. But the written descriptions of the battles are a little error prone. My corrections below if anyone from Slitherine would like to use them. May get round to sending up further corrections if folk think these are useful.

Arsouf should read:

Saladin's great victory over the Kingdom of Jerusalem was a catastrophe for the Crusader states of Outremer. This scenario was developed by Shawn Taylor.

Antioch:

The Crusaders, under Bohemond, were besieged in Antioch. The situation was becoming desperate. As a result they decided to attack the Seljuk army besieging them. After failing to penetrate the flanks of the attacking Crusader army, the Seljuk Turks were shattered by a charge from the Crusader forces.

Durazzo:

The Normans, under Robert Guiscard, invaded territories of the Byzantine Empire in the Balkans in 1081. The Emperor Alexius, responding to the invasion, approached Guiscard's army as it was besieging Dyrrachium (Durazzo, modern Dures). Guiscard withdrew from the siege and turned to face the Emperor. The Byzantine army defeated an initial Norman attack, but then disaster struck - the Varangians broke ranks to pursue fleeing Norman units. The Normans rallied, and the isolated Varangians were surrounded and destroyed. Alexius barely escaped with his life.

Another one:

Manzikert:

The Emperor Romanus Diogenes IV raised a large, but poorly trained, army to attack Turkish forces encroaching on the Byzantine Empire's eastern territories. When Romanus finally met the Turks in battle at Manzikert they withdrew, refusing engagement, throughout the day. All the while Romanus was marching further and further from his camp. As evening closed in, Romanus realised his error and tried to organise a retreat to his camp. As the retreat began, the Turks attacked and disaster overwhelmed the Emperor.

Moving here so it gets noted as a bug.

Amended all the above ready for the next update.
Thanks
Keith

OK! Glad it is helpful. I will do a few more. Cheers,

Tony

Suggested text:

The Scots leader Robert the Bruce's failed invasion of Ireland severely weakened the English position in that country. As a result, the Irish rebelled. This battle, fought between the Norman lord Richard de Clare and the Irish O'Deas in the old kingdom of Thomond, started started badly for de Clare: marched into an ambush. English failure became disaster when the O'Connors, O'Briens, O'Hehirs and MacNamaras arrived to help the O'Deas. The English were decisively beaten and both de Clare and his son were killed. De Clare's wife set fire to their settlement and left Ireland.

Sorry guys! Just noticed - my text for Arsouf above is actually the text I wrote for Hattin. The text for Arsouf below:

After capturing Acre, Richard I of England marched the crusader army south towards Jaffa, with the plan to take the port and use it as a staging post for an attack on Jerusalem. Saladin followed Richard's army at close quarters, harrassing it in the hope of breaking it up. As the crusader army approached Arsouf, Saladin switched tactics and prepared to mount an attack upon it. Though initially successful, Saladin's army could not break the crusader formation before a cavalry charge from the crusaders threw Saladin's army back in confusion and defeat. Only Saladin's personal bravery and example prevented his army routing. Richard was free to march on to take Jaffa.

i think Marionite (followers of Gaius Marius?) should read Maronite (these are the Lebanese Christians)

Fixed the above ready for the 1.4.1 update. Thanks Keith

In the battle of Antioch, Crusader forces are labelled as 'Kingdom of Jerusalem'. This is wrong - the Kingdom had not been established at this point. An easy fix is to replace Kingdom of Jerusalem with Crusader.

Just a piffling detail . . .

In Saladin's Egyptian army it says . . . "Saladin was of Kurdish race". Better to say that Saladin was of Kurdish origin, really. Most anthropologists would now say that humankind is not divided into "races" - and that the notion of "race" was an ideological construction originally used to justify slavery in the West.

stockwellpete wrote:Just a piffling detail . . .

In Saladin's Egyptian army it says . . . "Saladin was of Kurdish race". Better to say that Saladin was of Kurdish origin, really. Most anthropologists would now say that humankind is not divided into "races" - and that the notion of "race" was an ideological construction originally used to justify slavery in the West.

very "politically correct" pete

Addressed the above. Thanks Keith

In the battle outside Antioch, the Muslim forces are labelled as 'Turkey'. As Turkey did not exist at this point, it is probably best to just label the units Seljuk as per theset up screen for the battle.

In the River Indus scenario - there are two full stops after 'outflanked the Kwarizmians'. One needs to be deleted.

Have had a tought time finding out more about this battle - is it fictitious? Anyway, here is my best shot at re-writing the text of it:

Ahmad, the Emir of Iraq, also known as Mu'izz al-Daula, usually relied on his Dailami infantry to win battles. On this occasion, however, he seemed to doubt their loyalty, preferring instead to rely on Turkish mercenary Ghulams. His opponent, Ruzbahar, also relied on mercenary Turkish Ghulams. The result was stalemate. This was broken only when Ahmad called upon his Dailami infantry once more. They forced a breakthrough and shattered Ruzbahar’s army.

All the battles are real except the starter army battles. Keith

Thought so - will keep digging on Arbaq then. It is a nice little battle,

Tony

I've just noted a typo in the description of the battle of Hereclea.

It says: '... but also for the victories Pyrrhus...', but it should read '... but also for the victorious Pyrrhus...'

Thanks and addressed. Keith