Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Siward]

Apologies if this has been asked before but my searches came up blank.
With most of the Greek sublists ( in list 3 and 17 ) Spartans/Thebans/Phokians can downgrade ally/any ally generals to sub-generals. Does this mean that ( using a specific example ) a Spartan army under list 3 can have a Spartan C- in - C with an Ionian sub general bringing the Ionian sub-list into play?


Cheers...........Geoff

[scott holder]

No. The presence of any sub-list's troops depends on whether or not the CinC is of that sub-list's nationality, not that the Ally or Sub is present. Just the CinC.

scott

[Bill Chriss]

Okay, now I'm confused. I thought that allies did in fact bring their own commands, and thus that "the presenece of any sublist's troops depends on whether the ally is present, not on the identity of the CinC. E.g., list 17 specifically says that: "Troops from any sublist except Spartan or Phokian can be allies of a generic Greek army...A Theban army may have Athenian or Thessalian allies ...but no others."

This seems clearly to mean, e.g., that a Theban army can have and Athenian ally general, who then brings with him Hippotoxotoi, Thracians, etc., and/or can have a Thessalian ally general, who can bring with him Thessalian cavalry.

Yet, Scott, your reply seems now to negate this. I must be missing something. How do you square your reply to Siward? Are you just saying that this sort of thing must be done with ally-generals and not subs? If so, your response seems to be overly broadly worded.

Thanks.

[scott holder]

Argh. I *knew* there'd be an issue with this. I delayed answering because of that. I also delayed cuz Bill should really be the one to weigh in since he wrote the list, the Greek thing is his specialty, not mine, but he's also ramrodding the *very* extensive BW rewrite.

Lemme consult with him. It's quite possible I screwed up. I have waaaay too much on my plate at the moment.

scott

[Siward]

[Edward Sturges]

Greetings

From an historical perspective I would be surprised if the sub-general in the Spartan list (as opposed to Ally) for CW#3 could be anything other than Spartan given the fact they are Reg A.

Ionians appear under Agesilaus but after the date of this list. Is their presence in a Spartan Army reflecting alliances during the Pelopponesian War?

Regards

[Siward]

[scott holder]

Okay, consulted with Bill. Here's the answer:

The answer to the original question is still “no”, in that a Spartan army/CinC cannot have an Ionian sub-general bringing the Ionian sublist into play.

A Spartan army/CinC can, however, have an Ionian ally-general who does bring in the Ionian sublist.

The reason for this, as Bill Chriss suggested, is that the downgrading of ally- to sub-general in some sublists applies only to ally-generals in the main list, and not to ally-generals from other sub-lists. We’ll put the point in line for errata-izing."

scott

[Bill Chriss]

Thanks, Scott. This makes sense, as Ionians would seem to need an allly-general, not a sub, to fight in a List 3 Spartan army, and Spartans would only get "Spartan" subgenerals.

I presume that I still have the rest right, i.e., that as per the comment to list 17, ally generals can bring their troops with them per their individual sublists, unless otherwise prohibited by the list or comments, e.g., "A Phokian army may have Spartan allies but no others." (emphasis added). Or: "A Theban army may have Athenian or Thessalian allies (excluding troops marked ***), but no others." (emphasis added).

Thus, a Theban army would have a Theban CinC, and could have a Theban subgeneral, an Athenian ally general (with Athenian sublist or main list troops under his command), and/or a Thessalian ally general (with main list or Thessalian sublist non-*** troops under his command). A "generic Greek" army would have "generic" CinC, and could have "generic" Greek ally generals commanding troops from the main list, or Theban or Thessalian or Athenian ally generals commanding troops from their own national sub list or from the main list (of troops common to all Greek armies).

Have I understood the comments correctly? It makes sense to me, but it never hurts to be sure. Thanks for your patience and indulgence on this, Scott and Bill.

[Siward]

[Bill Low]

Bill Chriss’ reading is correct, with one clarification. The ally references in the notes to "no others" should be read to mean no other sublist allies (and, in the case of List 3, Thessalians from the main list), and not to the generic ally generals in the main list or the troops under their command.

None of the sublists is a stand alone allied contingent; each just specifies how troops from the main list can be used when playing that “nationality.” Any army can use not only the CinC (modified if necessary by a sub-list) but also the generic ally generals listed in the main list (with the one exception of the Phokians in List 17, for which all such generals must be downgraded to sub).

Note that, for those sub-lists that include special treatment for a “national” general (e.g., Spartan and Theban in List 3), only such a “national” general (be it CinC or sub) can command troops from that national sub-list.

To use Bill’s example, a List 17 Theban army would have a Theban CinC and could have a Theban sub general (each of which could command troops from the main list as modified by the Theban sublist), but also an ally general from the main list (commanding only non-Thessalian main list troops un-modified by any sublist), as well as Athenian and/or Thessalian allies (with main list troops modified per their respective sublists).

We will look at all these points in considering errata clarification. Thanks for bringing it up.