Is there anyway of finding out what the references are for the DBA/DBMM army lists?
Sometimes the lists contain quite specific details that must be the result of a particular literary or academic reference, but its quite difficult to look them up and understand them.
For the European armies, I would normally check the WRG books like the Armies of the Dark Ages, or Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars which sometimes describe sources. For the popular armies e.g. XYZ Romans the references are myriad and sometimes obvious.
But for the armies of the "Orient" there is no equivalent WRG book, fewere things to be referenced, and so I am a bit stuck wondering, "where did that come from?"
PS: I really dislike/feel weird about the use of the word "Orient" in this context - positively Victorian.
The 3rd edition of DBA has a list of recommended reading for each list. They're not necessarily references, but they're something.
Phil does not, I believe, keep any particular records of where information comes from. He's been known to say he doesn't recall why something or other is in a list.
I confess that I rather like the term orient, it merely means ' rising' (from the Latin) so it's toward the rising sun, as opposed to Occident which means setting. So technically (for me) Hull is the distant orient 8)
Interestingly the word is still used properly in terms like 'The Orient Express'
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 16, 2015, 07:02:03 AMPhil does not, I believe, keep any particular records of where information comes from.
That's a pity. But I guess understandable, since it would be quite a job to maintain such information.
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 16, 2015, 07:02:03 AM
I confess that I rather like the term orient, it merely means ' rising' (from the Latin) so it's toward the rising sun, as opposed to Occident which means setting. So technically (for me) Hull is the distant orient 8)
For a native Latin speaker that might make sense...
But at some risk of distracting us from the main question of this thread... try asking anyone who lives in Asia whether they are from the Orient and they will either not understand, or suspect you are being rude.
To use "the Orient" to describe Asia, is peculiarly eurocentric and old-fashioned. By contrast, someone living in Asia is very likely to be quite happy call themselves Asian - at least in regards to the rest of the world. But for some reason, in DBx parlance Asia describes the Middle East which Middle Easterners might find equally confusing.
This is getting way off track but Nippon as the name for Japan meaning 'the sun's origin' or 'the land of the rising sun' comes from Sui dynasty records and the Japanese picked up on it.
We all do it, defining people by whether they are east of west of us 8)
Quote from: Dangun on September 16, 2015, 02:02:50 AMBut for the armies of the "Orient" there is no equivalent WRG book, fewere things to be referenced, and so I am a bit stuck wondering, "where did that come from?"
A lot of the time it comes from suggestions or discussions on the Yahoo dbmmlist or DBA groups. A few years ago, a lot of change proposals were discussed on the tabulae_novae_exercituum Yahoo list and written up on http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbworks.com/, but that has fallen into disuse. But as Jim has said, there is no "master list".
Anything particular you're after?
As various of the posters here have said, most of the lists and/or changes to lists are made by people who have a good knowledge of the particular list in question. Many such as myself have made suggestions to Phil, he does listen and if you can back up the suggestions with solid evidence then he will incorporate what has been suggested into the lists.
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 16, 2015, 09:06:41 AM
Anything particular you're after?
Broadly, I was wondering about the South East Asian army lists in the medieval and earlier periods.
...except the Khmer list because some of the sources for that are kind of obvious.
PS: sent you an email on ntlw
The Vietnamese lists are my work, mostly. The Burmese one I haven't a clue: I think the first DBM version may just have been translation from the old 6th edition list, but where some of the additions came from I do not know. A lot of the Thai stuff was from Wayne Watts via the dbmmlist.
Was Dan Mersey's work the source of the Burmese lists?
Martin
I'm not sure; I may be wrong, but I read his Burmese Armies booklet some years ago, and purely from memory I don't think it matches up very well with the specific info in the army list notes.
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 16, 2015, 11:06:56 AM
A lot of the Thai stuff was from Wayne Watts via the dbmmlist.
Thanks. I will get googling Watts + dbmmlist.
Quote from: Dangun on September 16, 2015, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 16, 2015, 11:06:56 AM
A lot of the Thai stuff was from Wayne Watts via the dbmmlist.
Thanks. I will get googling Watts + dbmmlist.
just make sure you get it right when typing and dont put bdsmlist in error :-X
Oh, that's the story, is it? "In error"? ;)
ahem, indeed your honour..... ::)
Back on thread, I seem to remember back in the day, people were allowed to make their own army lists as long as they could show due diligence with some cited research/reading and then get treated on the merits of that. That wasnt to say that long established army compositions could be completely dismantled per se but that 'regional' variances could be argued for. For example I used to field successor state armies for 6th that had few Agema/guard units on the argument that a provincial army in, say, Kurdistan would not necessarily be of a very high grade of troop. Not everyone accepted this argument but my more regular opponents did and I extended the same courtesy back to them.
The point is that army lists are there to give a framework and that it shouldnt discourage people from doing their own research and refining lists.
That's ok for friendly games Holly, but I doubt competition organisers would allow home brew lists because they don't have time to check the references and sources for home brew lists.
agreed Adrian. Not much of a competition man myself but there was a time when most conventions/shows I attended always had empty tables for turn up and play games against random opponents and then this was doable.
I am sure I would get very short shrift from people if I turned up with 'home made' lists at competitions these days!
Quote from: Holly on September 17, 2015, 11:15:18 AM
The point is that army lists are there to give a framework and that it shouldnt discourage people from doing their own research and refining lists.
Indeed, though as Adrian has noted self-researched lists are usually not permitted in tournaments (but then the hobby is broader than the competition circuit).
One problem with self-researched lists is interpretation of sources. Way back when the only published lists were WRG 5th edition I recall a clubmate using a self-researched Irish list c.1170 with Welsh horse-archers, impetuous Viking wedges and triple-armed (staff-sling, axe and javelin) Irish warriors, for all of which he could supply references in primary sources that, if interpreted in a particularly generous way,
could justify his list.
Cheers
Mick
I'm not a competition gamer, so self made lists work well enough for me. However, Mick's example does show the weakness of non-peer reviewed lists. My own preference in other people's lists is that they allow legitimate difference of interpretation but demand consistency. So, you can have your 8th century Vikings as loose order warriors or you can have them as close order shieldwalls but not mix them in the same army.
I don't think homebrew lists are much of a problem with rules such as the DBx series as there is not the emphasis on weapons, armour etc that other rulesets have, so you wouldn't really get killer armies appearing because of this.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on September 17, 2015, 03:21:09 PM
I don't think homebrew lists are much of a problem with rules such as the DBx series as there is not the emphasis on weapons, armour etc that other rulesets have, so you wouldn't really get killer armies appearing because of this.
No, you'd get killer armies for other reasons. For example, in DBM(M) weapons, armour etc are abstracted to things like grading factors so it's generally a good thing to have some superior troops in a list. A good command structure is helpful, as is regular baggage, and a wide choice of element types to allow you to optimise army design against multiple potential opponents. In the past, many (Phil Barker would possibly say most) proposals to change the published DBMM army lists could be construed as attempts to make armies more "gameable" (though not those emanating from SOA members I find, which tend to have greater concern for accuracy than effectiveness).
Fact is, all rules systems have
some quirks that can be exploited to optimise army design and homebrew lists that haven't been through some sort of peer review are liable to be looked at critically by potential opponents.
And if you disagree, I'd like to play you with my impeccably researched Late Neolithic European list, which has regular generals and baggage (high level of organisation indicated by monumbers like Stonehenge) and relies particuarly heavily on archers graded as Bw(S) (unusually powerful bows indicated by the extinction of megafauna) :D
Cheers Mick
Actually the bows are supposed to be flat section compound bows and are very powerful. The stone tips may not be up to bodkin effect, but then no one is wearing armour .
Roy