Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Scott,

Thanks for the timely errata for Imperial Warrior! I am curious
concerning the Commegene infantry in the Early Imperial Roman list.
Why is it only allowed LTS or HTW? I would be very interested in
seeing your designer notes as to why the Pike is not allowed as
well. It would seem to add continuity with the Commagene list if
this were an option for the player.

Additionally, I note that in the EIR (Late period) Roman Bowmen
are allowed sh 0-1/2. But when you go to the Severan list, this is
not an option. Then for some reason the Post-Severan bowmen have the
option again. Why did the Romans choose drop shields then pick them
back up again? I'm merely curious as I have recruited a new player
who insists on playing Romans. We've been trying for weeks to make
them work against most foes.

yours sincerely,

kelly

[Bill Low]

The view adopted re Commagene is that the infantry evolved from a
Hellenistic P-based model to a later LTS- and HTW- (i.e., "limitation
Legionary") model; the overlap with EIR is contemporary with the later
portion of the period covered by the Commagene list, hence no P. Sorry, no
changes here.

At 08:49 PM 4/22/2004 +0000, jwilkinson62 wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Thanks for the timely errata for Imperial Warrior! I am curious
> concerning the Commegene infantry in the Early Imperial Roman list.
> Why is it only allowed LTS or HTW? I would be very interested in
> seeing your designer notes as to why the Pike is not allowed as
> well. It would seem to add continuity with the Commagene list if
> this were an option for the player.
>
> Additionally, I note that in the EIR (Late period) Roman Bowmen
> are allowed sh 0-1/2. But when you go to the Severan list, this is
> not an option. Then for some reason the Post-Severan bowmen have the
> option again. Why did the Romans choose drop shields then pick them
> back up again? I'm merely curious as I have recruited a new player
> who insists on playing Romans. We've been trying for weeks to make
> them work against most foes.
>
> yours sincerely,
>
> kelly
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Bill,
Thank-you for answering my question so quickly. If you have a copy of The
Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome , by Phil Barker, please take a look at
page 19, third paragraph in reference to the Jewish Revolt.

"He (Titus) retained the auxiliaries and the allied forces were reinforced by a
'large force' of heavy infantry from Commagene, including a royal bodyguard
'armed in the Macedonian fashion',, which might indicate that they were a pike
phalanx.

One of the great things about Warrior in my opinion (to quote my friend Todd
Schneider) is that Warrior give the players the option in their lists to use
historical based weaponry. That's what really makes your lists so great imho. I
thought I'd throw in a refrence to a historical refrence to back up my claim
since mere assertions really mean nothing. I believe that Vespasian's son, Titus
invested Jerusalem during the EIR period and therefore this bears some looking
into. And since there already is a troop type in the Commagene Warrior List
referred to as "Macedonians" why not allow their use as they were used in
history? After all isn't that why this is a historical wargame? Also, since the
Commagene King was present and led his Cataphracts on foot, it would be cool to
represent him as a subgeneral. If you like, I can try to find more references on
this topic. It just seems only logical that a Seleucid successor state would
continue to use Pikes over the outdated LTS.

kelly Wilkinson

As to my second question What are your thoughts regarding the interupted
use of shields during the Severan period? Why do you think the list author chose
not to allow them for this period when in the Late period of the EIR, the Roman
Bowmen get 0-1/2?

When it comes down to it, I'm campaigning for the Pike to make this a more
competitive army (in my opinion). I know this all comes down to tactics in
beating SHC and Knight armies but I'm trying to give my new player more options.
I'm certain that this is not the only answer. Also as an amatuer historian I
knew that I had read somewhere that the Commagene forces used pike as an ally to
the Romans at the seige of jerusalem. As it turns out


Bill Low <lowclan@...> wrote:
The view adopted re Commagene is that the infantry evolved from a
Hellenistic P-based model to a later LTS- and HTW- (i.e., "limitation
Legionary") model; the overlap with EIR is contemporary with the later
portion of the period covered by the Commagene list, hence no P. Sorry, no
changes here.

At 08:49 PM 4/22/2004 +0000, jwilkinson62 wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Thanks for the timely errata for Imperial Warrior! I am curious
> concerning the Commegene infantry in the Early Imperial Roman list.
> Why is it only allowed LTS or HTW? I would be very interested in
> seeing your designer notes as to why the Pike is not allowed as
> well. It would seem to add continuity with the Commagene list if
> this were an option for the player.
>
> Additionally, I note that in the EIR (Late period) Roman Bowmen
> are allowed sh 0-1/2. But when you go to the Severan list, this is
> not an option. Then for some reason the Post-Severan bowmen have the
> option again. Why did the Romans choose drop shields then pick them
> back up again? I'm merely curious as I have recruited a new player
> who insists on playing Romans. We've been trying for weeks to make
> them work against most foes.
>
> yours sincerely,
>
> kelly
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Bill,
Do you recall a publication put out by the Society of Ancients called
The Roman Empire - Order of Battle for the Civil Wars 68-70 AD. By Michael Lane?
This publication discusses the allies available at the time and specifically in
the case of Commagene, details the troops available for the siege of Jerusalem.
You've been very decent to me in giving me timely answers and I would be happy
to loan you my copy if you liked (very interesting reading for Roman History
buffs especially during the year of the four emperors!). Here is the pertinent
quote on Page 81,

"Antiochos was required to provide a contingent in 54 to assist in an invasion
of Parthia. He was to send 3,000 archers and 2,000 horse with G. Cestius Gallus'
Army in 66 (ref jewish war, III, 71). Titus had a force of much the same numbers
before jerusalem in 70 (Jewish War, III, 71). Reinforcements - including a guard
unit of pikemen and a force of cataphract cavalry - were sent during the Seige
commanded by the King's elder son, Prince Caius Iulius Antiochos Epiphanes. He
had evidently recovered from his wound suffered at Ad Castores fighting amongst
Otho's Praetorians."

*I respectfully submit this as my second piece of evidence regarding my
assertion that pikes were used by Commagene infantry in a capacity as an ally.
In this case as supporting troops for Titus at the siege of Jerusalem in circa
70 AD. This puts their use of the Pike within the EIR period and merits a second
look by your editing staff. I know that although FHE is very thorough, it is not
humanly possible to get every piece of minutiae correct. That is why there is
errata. And I hope you will find that the history bears out my assertion.

kelly wilkinson
Bill Low <lowclan@...> wrote:
The view adopted re Commagene is that the infantry evolved from a
Hellenistic P-based model to a later LTS- and HTW- (i.e., "limitation
Legionary") model; the overlap with EIR is contemporary with the later
portion of the period covered by the Commagene list, hence no P. Sorry, no
changes here.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Bill Low]

Thanks, Kelly, for your continuing interest.

If you check out the Commagene list, I think you will find that P are
allowed for the "Macedonian" Guardsmen into the later portion of the list,
but you lose the good Former Seleucid/Merc pikemen. You can, again in the
full list, bring Antiochus as a P-armed HI CinC during the period covered
by EIR. We are covering your reference. (You could theoretically bring
the Hoplite Infantry with P, but it is not encouraged; now THAT might be
something to fix.) However, the Commagene contingent allowed by the EIR
list is specifically stated to be too small (and would likely in any event
not be allowed sufficient freedeom of action) to qualify as an allied
contingent. Proportionally, P-armed troops in the later period should thus
be very small, and at the scale modelled in the EIR list they quite disappear.

As you know, Kelly, lots of decisions get made in putting together a list,
many of which involve judgment or personal assessment of the sources or
IMP. I don't want to try to make out that we have a monopoly on the
sources or the right answers, but decisions have to get made and we make
them. At some point, without meaning any disrespect, we just have to stop
talking about it. I don't see us increasing the size of the Commagene
contingent for EIR, which would be necessary to make the change you suggest.

Again, thanks for your interest.

At 02:55 AM 4/25/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Bill,
> Do you recall a publication put out by the Society of Ancients
called The Roman Empire - Order of Battle for the Civil Wars 68-70 AD. By
Michael Lane? This publication discusses the allies available at the time
and specifically in the case of Commagene, details the troops available for
the siege of Jerusalem. You've been very decent to me in giving me timely
answers and I would be happy to loan you my copy if you liked (very
interesting reading for Roman History buffs especially during the year of
the four emperors!). Here is the pertinent quote on Page 81,
>
>"Antiochos was required to provide a contingent in 54 to assist in an
invasion of Parthia. He was to send 3,000 archers and 2,000 horse with G.
Cestius Gallus' Army in 66 (ref jewish war, III, 71). Titus had a force of
much the same numbers before jerusalem in 70 (Jewish War, III, 71).
Reinforcements - including a guard unit of pikemen and a force of
cataphract cavalry - were sent during the Seige commanded by the King's
elder son, Prince Caius Iulius Antiochos Epiphanes. He had evidently
recovered from his wound suffered at Ad Castores fighting amongst Otho's
Praetorians."
>
>*I respectfully submit this as my second piece of evidence regarding my
assertion that pikes were used by Commagene infantry in a capacity as an
ally. In this case as supporting troops for Titus at the siege of Jerusalem
in circa 70 AD. This puts their use of the Pike within the EIR period and
merits a second look by your editing staff. I know that although FHE is
very thorough, it is not humanly possible to get every piece of minutiae
correct. That is why there is errata. And I hope you will find that the
history bears out my assertion.
>
> kelly wilkinson
>Bill Low <lowclan@...> wrote:
>The view adopted re Commagene is that the infantry evolved from a
>Hellenistic P-based model to a later LTS- and HTW- (i.e., "limitation
>Legionary") model; the overlap with EIR is contemporary with the later
>portion of the period covered by the Commagene list, hence no P. Sorry, no
>changes here.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/25/2004 18:05:46 Central Daylight Time, lowclan@...
writes:
I was just hoping that FHE would be interested in historical data in
reference to any army list.>>

We are extremely interested, of course, so your hopes have come true. Thanks
for your support.

J


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Bill,
I was just hoping that FHE would be interested in historical data in
reference to any army list. That said, the Jewish War written by Flavius
Josephus who was in attendance and actually wounded at that battle, gives an eye
wittness account of at least 1,000 Macdeonian Pikemen. Further, he notes that
their were an additional 3,000 infantry and another thousand Cataphracts
present. To my way of thinking, this force would have been the best that
Commagene had to offer since the Crown Prince of Commagene was personally
leading the troops. There are no other references that state this specifically
what was present as an allied Commagene force that I know of.
A while back, I don't know whether it was Jon, Scott, or Jake who stated on
this page that disscussion of troop types and history needed to be backed by
historical evidence. I have done just that. No disrespect is intended to you in
any way, but history bears out that Pike armed troops should be available to the
EIR. This being a fact, it is too bad that FHE is unwilling to rectify this
officially. Admitting errors and making changes is not seen as a weekness rather
that of a caring company trying to have the best historical game ever! I applaud
the work you and the rest of your team have done on all of the lists, Bill. It's
absolutely tremendous what you've done in so short of a period of time and out
of respect for you as a gamer and a person whom I respect, this will be my last
post concerning this issue. Thanks for your kind response as is always the
case.

kelly wilkinson




Bill Low <lowclan@...> wrote:
Thanks, Kelly, for your continuing interest.

If you check out the Commagene list, I think you will find that P are
allowed for the "Macedonian" Guardsmen into the later portion of the list,
but you lose the good Former Seleucid/Merc pikemen. You can, again in the
full list, bring Antiochus as a P-armed HI CinC during the period covered
by EIR. We are covering your reference. (You could theoretically bring
the Hoplite Infantry with P, but it is not encouraged; now THAT might be
something to fix.) However, the Commagene contingent allowed by the EIR
list is specifically stated to be too small (and would likely in any event
not be allowed sufficient freedeom of action) to qualify as an allied
contingent. Proportionally, P-armed troops in the later period should thus
be very small, and at the scale modelled in the EIR list they quite disappear.

As you know, Kelly, lots of decisions get made in putting together a list,
many of which involve judgment or personal assessment of the sources or
IMP. I don't want to try to make out that we have a monopoly on the
sources or the right answers, but decisions have to get made and we make
them. At some point, without meaning any disrespect, we just have to stop
talking about it. I don't see us increasing the size of the Commagene
contingent for EIR, which would be necessary to make the change you suggest.

Again, thanks for your interest.

At 02:55 AM 4/25/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Bill,
> Do you recall a publication put out by the Society of Ancients
called The Roman Empire - Order of Battle for the Civil Wars 68-70 AD. By
Michael Lane? This publication discusses the allies available at the time
and specifically in the case of Commagene, details the troops available for
the siege of Jerusalem. You've been very decent to me in giving me timely
answers and I would be happy to loan you my copy if you liked (very
interesting reading for Roman History buffs especially during the year of
the four emperors!). Here is the pertinent quote on Page 81,
>
>"Antiochos was required to provide a contingent in 54 to assist in an
invasion of Parthia. He was to send 3,000 archers and 2,000 horse with G.
Cestius Gallus' Army in 66 (ref jewish war, III, 71). Titus had a force of
much the same numbers before jerusalem in 70 (Jewish War, III, 71).
Reinforcements - including a guard unit of pikemen and a force of
cataphract cavalry - were sent during the Seige commanded by the King's
elder son, Prince Caius Iulius Antiochos Epiphanes. He had evidently
recovered from his wound suffered at Ad Castores fighting amongst Otho's
Praetorians."
>
>*I respectfully submit this as my second piece of evidence regarding my
assertion that pikes were used by Commagene infantry in a capacity as an
ally. In this case as supporting troops for Titus at the siege of Jerusalem
in circa 70 AD. This puts their use of the Pike within the EIR period and
merits a second look by your editing staff. I know that although FHE is
very thorough, it is not humanly possible to get every piece of minutiae
correct. That is why there is errata. And I hope you will find that the
history bears out my assertion.
>
> kelly wilkinson
>Bill Low <lowclan@...> wrote:
>The view adopted re Commagene is that the infantry evolved from a
>Hellenistic P-based model to a later LTS- and HTW- (i.e., "limitation
>Legionary") model; the overlap with EIR is contemporary with the later
>portion of the period covered by the Commagene list, hence no P. Sorry, no
>changes here.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Bill Low]

Kelly, pleae reread my last post.

We are not talking about whether there is an historical basis for SOME
P-armed guys from Commagene in the EIR period ... there is ... but rather
whether there would have been enough of them to warrant representation in
the small Commagenian contingent allowed in the EIR list ... we think not.

No call for comments questioning whether or not we are intereseted in
historical data, or to remind us that we expect historical support for
positions taken. And if you think we are reluctant to "admit errors," just
check out the errata on the site. We make changes where we believe them to
be warranted; in our view, the one you are advocating is not.

And that's all there is to it.

At 02:07 PM 4/25/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Bill,
> I was just hoping that FHE would be interested in historical data in
reference to any army list. That said, the Jewish War written by Flavius
Josephus who was in attendance and actually wounded at that battle, gives
an eye wittness account of at least 1,000 Macdeonian Pikemen. Further, he
notes that their were an additional 3,000 infantry and another thousand
Cataphracts present. To my way of thinking, this force would have been the
best that Commagene had to offer since the Crown Prince of Commagene was
personally leading the troops. There are no other references that state
this specifically what was present as an allied Commagene force that I know
of.
> A while back, I don't know whether it was Jon, Scott, or Jake who
stated on this page that disscussion of troop types and history needed to
be backed by historical evidence. I have done just that. No disrespect is
intended to you in any way, but history bears out that Pike armed troops
should be available to the EIR. This being a fact, it is too bad that FHE
is unwilling to rectify this officially. Admitting errors and making
changes is not seen as a weekness rather that of a caring company trying to
have the best historical game ever! I applaud the work you and the rest of
your team have done on all of the lists, Bill. It's absolutely tremendous
what you've done in so short of a period of time and out of respect for you
as a gamer and a person whom I respect, this will be my last post
concerning this issue. Thanks for your kind response as is always the case.
>
> kelly wilkinson
>
>
>
>
>Bill Low <lowclan@...> wrote:
>Thanks, Kelly, for your continuing interest.
>
>If you check out the Commagene list, I think you will find that P are
>allowed for the "Macedonian" Guardsmen into the later portion of the list,
>but you lose the good Former Seleucid/Merc pikemen. You can, again in the
>full list, bring Antiochus as a P-armed HI CinC during the period covered
>by EIR. We are covering your reference. (You could theoretically bring
>the Hoplite Infantry with P, but it is not encouraged; now THAT might be
>something to fix.) However, the Commagene contingent allowed by the EIR
>list is specifically stated to be too small (and would likely in any event
>not be allowed sufficient freedeom of action) to qualify as an allied
>contingent. Proportionally, P-armed troops in the later period should thus
>be very small, and at the scale modelled in the EIR list they quite
disappear.
>
>As you know, Kelly, lots of decisions get made in putting together a list,
>many of which involve judgment or personal assessment of the sources or
>IMP. I don't want to try to make out that we have a monopoly on the
>sources or the right answers, but decisions have to get made and we make
>them. At some point, without meaning any disrespect, we just have to stop
>talking about it. I don't see us increasing the size of the Commagene
>contingent for EIR, which would be necessary to make the change you suggest.
>
>Again, thanks for your interest.
>
>At 02:55 AM 4/25/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>Bill,
>> Do you recall a publication put out by the Society of Ancients
>called The Roman Empire - Order of Battle for the Civil Wars 68-70 AD. By
>Michael Lane? This publication discusses the allies available at the time
>and specifically in the case of Commagene, details the troops available for
>the siege of Jerusalem. You've been very decent to me in giving me timely
>answers and I would be happy to loan you my copy if you liked (very
>interesting reading for Roman History buffs especially during the year of
>the four emperors!). Here is the pertinent quote on Page 81,
>>
>>"Antiochos was required to provide a contingent in 54 to assist in an
>invasion of Parthia. He was to send 3,000 archers and 2,000 horse with G.
>Cestius Gallus' Army in 66 (ref jewish war, III, 71). Titus had a force of
>much the same numbers before jerusalem in 70 (Jewish War, III, 71).
>Reinforcements - including a guard unit of pikemen and a force of
>cataphract cavalry - were sent during the Seige commanded by the King's
>elder son, Prince Caius Iulius Antiochos Epiphanes. He had evidently
>recovered from his wound suffered at Ad Castores fighting amongst Otho's
>Praetorians."
>>
>>*I respectfully submit this as my second piece of evidence regarding my
>assertion that pikes were used by Commagene infantry in a capacity as an
>ally. In this case as supporting troops for Titus at the siege of Jerusalem
>in circa 70 AD. This puts their use of the Pike within the EIR period and
>merits a second look by your editing staff. I know that although FHE is
>very thorough, it is not humanly possible to get every piece of minutiae
>correct. That is why there is errata. And I hope you will find that the
>history bears out my assertion.
>>
>> kelly wilkinson
>>Bill Low <lowclan@...> wrote:
>>The view adopted re Commagene is that the infantry evolved from a
>>Hellenistic P-based model to a later LTS- and HTW- (i.e., "limitation
>>Legionary") model; the overlap with EIR is contemporary with the later
>>portion of the period covered by the Commagene list, hence no P. Sorry, no
>>changes here.
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
>>
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>-----------------------------------------------------
>>From Harold William Low
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Bill,

It's okay. Really. I respect what your doing and appreciate you even taking
the time you do to hear me out. I respect any decision you make in this area. I
appologize if I have offended you based on anything I said in my last post. That
is not really my intention. My real intent was to at least try to convince you
that it should be an option left open to the player which is the neatest thing
you guys do for other lists. I've just recruited a new player who loves the game
so much that he purchased a 25mm EIR. We've been trying everything we can to
make it work against SHC contemporary armies and have been having a devil of a
time! Having pike armed infantry present would go a long way in helping this
army compete IMHO. Ofcourse this is open to tactics but it always seems to be
the legionary verses the Cats and pikes leaving the legionary with not choice
but to man up and not use Fulcum. I suppose that the problem is that legionaries
are so darn expensive, that it's difficult to
put more units on the table than an opponent who can buy cheap MI P, Sh with
low morale and enough SHC L to whale on the legionaries at least at 1200 points.
I figure that the results would be the same at 1600 points as well. Truly I
don't have an answer yet, but invite any advice you can give.

Thanks for your attention on this and every issue you have helped me with!

kelly

Bill Low <lowclan@...> wrote:
Kelly, pleae reread my last post.

We are not talking about whether there is an historical basis for SOME
P-armed guys from Commagene in the EIR period ... there is ... but rather
whether there would have been enough of them to warrant representation in
the small Commagenian contingent allowed in the EIR list ... we think not.

No call for comments questioning whether or not we are intereseted in
historical data, or to remind us that we expect historical support for
positions taken. And if you think we are reluctant to "admit errors," just
check out the errata on the site. We make changes where we believe them to
be warranted; in our view, the one you are advocating is not.

And that's all there is to it.

At 02:07 PM 4/25/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Bill,
> I was just hoping that FHE would be interested in historical data in
reference to any army list. That said, the Jewish War written by Flavius
Josephus who was in attendance and actually wounded at that battle, gives
an eye wittness account of at least 1,000 Macdeonian Pikemen. Further, he
notes that their were an additional 3,000 infantry and another thousand
Cataphracts present. To my way of thinking, this force would have been the
best that Commagene had to offer since the Crown Prince of Commagene was
personally leading the troops. There are no other references that state
this specifically what was present as an allied Commagene force that I know
of.
> A while back, I don't know whether it was Jon, Scott, or Jake who
stated on this page that disscussion of troop types and history needed to
be backed by historical evidence. I have done just that. No disrespect is
intended to you in any way, but history bears out that Pike armed troops
should be available to the EIR. This being a fact, it is too bad that FHE
is unwilling to rectify this officially. Admitting errors and making
changes is not seen as a weekness rather that of a caring company trying to
have the best historical game ever! I applaud the work you and the rest of
your team have done on all of the lists, Bill. It's absolutely tremendous
what you've done in so short of a period of time and out of respect for you
as a gamer and a person whom I respect, this will be my last post
concerning this issue. Thanks for your kind response as is always the case.
>
> kelly wilkinson
>
>
>
>
>Bill Low <lowclan@...> wrote:
>Thanks, Kelly, for your continuing interest.
>
>If you check out the Commagene list, I think you will find that P are
>allowed for the "Macedonian" Guardsmen into the later portion of the list,
>but you lose the good Former Seleucid/Merc pikemen. You can, again in the
>full list, bring Antiochus as a P-armed HI CinC during the period covered
>by EIR. We are covering your reference. (You could theoretically bring
>the Hoplite Infantry with P, but it is not encouraged; now THAT might be
>something to fix.) However, the Commagene contingent allowed by the EIR
>list is specifically stated to be too small (and would likely in any event
>not be allowed sufficient freedeom of action) to qualify as an allied
>contingent. Proportionally, P-armed troops in the later period should thus
>be very small, and at the scale modelled in the EIR list they quite
disappear.
>
>As you know, Kelly, lots of decisions get made in putting together a list,
>many of which involve judgment or personal assessment of the sources or
>IMP. I don't want to try to make out that we have a monopoly on the
>sources or the right answers, but decisions have to get made and we make
>them. At some point, without meaning any disrespect, we just have to stop
>talking about it. I don't see us increasing the size of the Commagene
>contingent for EIR, which would be necessary to make the change you suggest.
>
>Again, thanks for your interest.
>
>At 02:55 AM 4/25/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>Bill,
>> Do you recall a publication put out by the Society of Ancients
>called The Roman Empire - Order of Battle for the Civil Wars 68-70 AD. By
>Michael Lane? This publication discusses the allies available at the time
>and specifically in the case of Commagene, details the troops available for
>the siege of Jerusalem. You've been very decent to me in giving me timely
>answers and I would be happy to loan you my copy if you liked (very
>interesting reading for Roman History buffs especially during the year of
>the four emperors!). Here is the pertinent quote on Page 81,
>>
>>"Antiochos was required to provide a contingent in 54 to assist in an
>invasion of Parthia. He was to send 3,000 archers and 2,000 horse with G.
>Cestius Gallus' Army in 66 (ref jewish war, III, 71). Titus had a force of
>much the same numbers before jerusalem in 70 (Jewish War, III, 71).
>Reinforcements - including a guard unit of pikemen and a force of
>cataphract cavalry - were sent during the Seige commanded by the King's
>elder son, Prince Caius Iulius Antiochos Epiphanes. He had evidently
>recovered from his wound suffered at Ad Castores fighting amongst Otho's
>Praetorians."
>>
>>*I respectfully submit this as my second piece of evidence regarding my
>assertion that pikes were used by Commagene infantry in a capacity as an
>ally. In this case as supporting troops for Titus at the siege of Jerusalem
>in circa 70 AD. This puts their use of the Pike within the EIR period and
>merits a second look by your editing staff. I know that although FHE is
>very thorough, it is not humanly possible to get every piece of minutiae
>correct. That is why there is errata. And I hope you will find that the
>history bears out my assertion.
>>
>> kelly wilkinson
>>Bill Low <lowclan@...> wrote:
>>The view adopted re Commagene is that the infantry evolved from a
>>Hellenistic P-based model to a later LTS- and HTW- (i.e., "limitation
>>Legionary") model; the overlap with EIR is contemporary with the later
>>portion of the period covered by the Commagene list, hence no P. Sorry, no
>>changes here.
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
>>
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>-----------------------------------------------------
>>From Harold William Low
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Excellent! So that means you've got some feedback on the Dailmite infantry in
the Sassanian Persian list forthcoming perhaps?

kelly wilkinson

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 4/25/2004 18:05:46 Central Daylight Time, lowclan@...
writes:
I was just hoping that FHE would be interested in historical data in
reference to any army list.>>

We are extremely interested, of course, so your hopes have come true. Thanks
for your support.

J


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Excellent! So that means you've got some feedback on the Dailmite
infantry in the Sassanian Persian list forthcoming perhaps?
>

If this is truly about history, then you won't mind if we take all
the time it takes to get it right...

If this is about someone wanting to get a particular troop type into
a list they want to use in competition and 'history' is a just a
cover story, then you will understand if that isn't something we'd
scramble to do...

J

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Good point Jon,

Obviously this is one of my favorite armies and I am interested in it not
being short changed. If it were not, I wouldn't have even noticed this omission.
That is why I have put up the information on this page for you to decide for
yourself based on some of the sources. Thanks for your efforts.

Sincerely,

kelly
Jon <JonCleaves@...> wrote:
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Excellent! So that means you've got some feedback on the Dailmite
infantry in the Sassanian Persian list forthcoming perhaps?
>

If this is truly about history, then you won't mind if we take all
the time it takes to get it right...

If this is about someone wanting to get a particular troop type into
a list they want to use in competition and 'history' is a just a
cover story, then you will understand if that isn't something we'd
scramble to do...

J



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]