Wondering which army list would best represent these rulers.  The history books distinguish them from the Kassites and from the Elamites who overthrew the Kassites ~1155BCE.  These then overthrew the Elamites ~1153BCE.  Too early to be Chaldeans.  Use Middle Assyrian perhaps?
thanks

Army List including Vikings grade them as formed, yet the Orkney troops are classified as tribal.  While I understand the classification of Islemen as tribal, perhaps the possibility of being able to be upgraded to formed should be entertained: at least for the huscarls.
Cheers.

The potential classification of the Troops of the Isle of Mann is another interesting discusion.

thankyou, for some reason I have a soft spot for them.  Cheers.

Charles' very long and successful career suggests that he must have been a capable and skillful general, with the ability to respond to a variety of opponents and different tactics.  It is hard to imagine over such a long career that his army would be less tactically flexible than others.  A successful general has a very restricted army list.  I cannot see how the feigned retreat at Ambiève could have been so successful without a significant proportion of the army mounted.  While references to the battle of Poitiers explicitly mention a dismounted army, the huge losses in the ruthless pursuit of the beaten enemy suggests at least the possibility of troops having access to mounts should be entertained. 

Thanks for your time.

So no mtd caballari allowed?

Is there a line missing mentioning mounted Caballarai or did all of his battles involve dismounted them as foot-stiffeners?  They are automatically counted as melee expert when dismounted. Yet in the carolingian list, dismounted caballarai are disallowed using melee expert as a characterisitic even if applied while mounted.
[Cavalry (other than Swabians) dismount as Formed Close, Short Spear, Shieldwall of the same quality. They do not get Melee Expert if dismounted, even if they have the characteristic as mounted.]
Thanks.

Ps the swabians have that as an optional characteristic: but dismounted Swabians do not get shieldwall.

It appears mtd Swabians in this list unable to dismount. 
There also appears an inconsistency w.r.t if they count as melee expert when dismounted.  some lists allow it others, not.  Also most lists allow for foot units of up to 8 bases but this one does not.

thanks

Australian Academic (Professor Trevor Bryce) has shown that the Hittite chariots were not rank busters but heavy archery platforms.  Archaeological evidence suggests the fighting crews were primarily archers with a spear for close combat.  Less mobile but less fragile.

I understand; it seems funny that their infantry increased in ferocity/effectiveness at the same time as their cavalry component increased and they were driven out of northern Italy and forced into the southwest of France by the Merovingians. 

More reading (am not sure if complete files made it last time)  Cheers.


[attachment deleted by admin]

Thanks.  Perhaps another unit of so of Cavalry but not the large numbers as suggested by the Greuthing or Radagaisus parts of the list.

There appears an inconsistency the Visigothic infantry.
360 AD Gothic foot (eastern armies from 360 CE) tribal flexible INFANTRY Average Protected Short Spear - Shoot & Charge..
Same in the Gothic army. 
Tolosan Visigothc  Tribal Close Average Protected Spearmen Devastating charges. 
And then they become Spearmen Average Protected Short Spear Shieldwall, Integral Shooters (Combat Shy). 
Considering the increasing role of cavalry, the transition from flexible Spearmen to devastating charges appears an illogical progression.   
Cheers

 This quote from the notes.  "Losing the post after Stilicho's murder in 408, he was joined by Greuthingi, by ex-prisoners from the army of Radagaisus and by escaped slaves, and plundered Rome" suggest that his cavalry numbers should have increased at this time.  However, in the army lists, the following "Allied Greuthingi and Alans under Alatheus and Saphrax (only in 378 CE)" suggest that this cannot happen.  Is the date restriction (378AD) only relating to the Alans?  thanks.

Interesting read.  I, too, have bee reading about this time. Find attached some articles.  Best wishes. 

[attachment deleted by admin]

Of course there is; I wasted your time.