Help support TMP

"Errors in the De Bellis Renationis Army Lists?" Topic

15 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Pirates Message Board

Back to the French and Indian Wars Message Board

Back to the Meso-American Message Board

Back to the English Civil War Message Board

Back to the Renaissance Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest

18th Century

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Link

Top-Rated Ruleset

Tactica Medieval Rulebook

Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 

Featured Showcase Article

28mm Acolyte Vampires - Based

The Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.

Featured Workbench Article

Adam Paints Three More Pirates

It's back to pirates for Adam8472 Fezian!

Featured Profile Article

Herod's Gate

Part II of the Gates of Old Jerusalem.

Featured Book Review

693 hits since 5 Feb 2024
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

TMP logo


Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Paskal Supporting Member of TMP05 Feb 2024 5:40 a.m. PST

Hello everyone,

If you are a history buff or passionate about a particular period in the military history of the Renaissance or the history of a particular nation during this period, have you noticed errors in dating, organizations or classifications? of troops in the De Bellis Renationis Army Lists?

advocate05 Feb 2024 5:48 a.m. PST

I can't believe a printed list would ever have any errors. Especially not since the source material is both complete and consistent.

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP05 Feb 2024 6:26 a.m. PST


See my comment on the DBMM lists.
TMP link

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP05 Feb 2024 7:04 a.m. PST

I'm with advocate. That list was professionally printed, after all. (Anyone remember Sir Arthur Evans' "reconstructions" of Minoan palaces? "hypotheses in reinforced concrete, and no less shaky for that.")

If you're satisfied it's wrong for a given army, Paskal, I'd say talk it over with your opponent and modify accordingly.

Personal logo BigRedBat Sponsoring Member of TMP05 Feb 2024 11:55 a.m. PST

I can't believe a printed list would ever have any errors. Especially not since the source material is both complete and consistent.

:-) I write a lot of lists and this brought a smile to my lips.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian05 Feb 2024 12:41 p.m. PST

Maybe not errors as such, but differences in interpretation?

Swampster05 Feb 2024 4:48 p.m. PST

"Maybe not errors as such, but differences in interpretation?"

New research may also change views. Sometimes, authors are not aware or not convinced of this research at the time of compilation. OTOH, the research may be reflected in the lists and it the readership which is unaware.
I know, though, that there are errors in the ancient lists which can be typos or mis-editing (such as a troop type being placed in the wrong date section) so I daresay there are errors of this sort in the DBR lists as well.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP05 Feb 2024 7:37 p.m. PST

I tend to view army lists as databases--and as far as I'm concerned, there are no databases without errors of transcription, if nothing else.

But that's as far as I'll go. I haven't seen Barker's source material, and he hasn't explained his reasoning to me. I might disagree with a particular call, but that doesn't make me right and him wrong. Given the source material, frequently the best anyone could do is take a good guess.

Actually my worst disagreement isn't directly over army lists, but over troop types. I think the lack of a combined "pike and shot" type is a serious problem with the later lists, and worse if you play "condensed scale." I can see why he did it: a pike and shot base requires a big base or small castings, and everything was geared to work with existing WRG-based forces. But it's why I found another solution for my ECW games.

Again, I do not say he was wrong. I say I wasn't happy with his solution and found another. He wouldn't have been happy with mine.

Legionarius05 Feb 2024 7:43 p.m. PST

+1 Robert Piepenbrink Also, armies tend to change over time, even in the course of a single campaign.

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP06 Feb 2024 3:27 a.m. PST

@robert piepenbrink
Yes, that's exactly it, you have to use them exactly as written for a tournament game and otherwise you can modify them if you find them to be erroneous, you give your sources and people agree. But make sure your friends agree. But the most important thing is that you must give your historical sources and yes, there are no databases without transcription errors, but we must not exaggerate. For what you say afterwards, it is only the historicity side that matters to me.

Me too I die laughing when I reread this LOL

@Aegon the Unworthy
More or less depending on the lists.

@Editor in Chief Bill
Perhaps not errors as such, but differences of interpretation? The result comes to the same thing.

Well seen ! Sometimes, the authors are not aware of or are not convinced of this research at the time of their compilation. Thus we see the evolution of army lists, for the same army or the same era, rules after WRG rules.

Yes it's true, this is also why armies also tend to change chronologically in the same list.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP06 Feb 2024 7:00 a.m. PST

One more time. You can disagree with lists without "finding them to be erroneous." You have not seen his sources. You have not heard his reasoning. Simple disagreement, with your reasons explained, will get you a lot further than "I'm right and he's wrong!"

"Lord, may my words today be sweet and tender, for tomorrow I may have to eat them."

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP07 Feb 2024 2:08 a.m. PST

@robert piepenbrink

Here is an example of the absurdities found in the army lists, here is an aberration in those of DBR like the one I gave on TMP link see list N46 FRENCH CATHOLIC 1562 AD 1597 AD, the French Catholic royal infantry, its mercenaries and its allies do not have the right to muskets!?

On the other hand, in list No. 45.FRENCH HUGUENOT 1562 AD -1598 AD? the Huguenots have them ?

If I had time, I'm sure I would find other absurdities and aberrations like this in the DBR army lists.

The musket was introduced into the French royal and Catholic infantry in 1573 by Filipo di Piero Strozzi, Lord of Espernay (1541-1582) during the siege of La Rochelle.

Indeed when he became the only Colonel General of the French infantry, and took part in the long siege of La Rochelle.

During his grand tour of France, Charles IX noticed during the interview at Bayonne that in the Spanish companies, the men had a valet to carry their musket during the marches.

The king asks Strozzi to compose a squad of his guard on this principle.

Refusing this principle, Strozzi asked the Milan gunsmiths to modify this weapon by making it lighter to allow a man to carry it without being crushed and the range of the weapons was doubled.

At first musketeers were only found in the royal regiments of the French royal and Catholic army.

Charge The Guns08 Feb 2024 2:21 a.m. PST

I love reading army list as there's always something interesting to consider in them. Surely though they are treated like the Pirate Code? Aaargh, it's more what you'd call guidelines! :-)

Paskal Supporting Member of TMP08 Feb 2024 3:14 a.m. PST

@Charge The Guns
I also like reading them,but not for the same reasons LOL

TMP link

Can anyone else give an example of absurdities or aberrations existing in the army lists of DBR or DBMM ?

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.