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

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?

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

@advocate

See my comment on the DBMM lists.
TMP link

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.

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.

Maybe not errors as such, but differences in interpretation?

"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.

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.

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

@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.

@BigRedBat
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.

@Swampster
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.

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

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."

@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 N°46 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.
​
​

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! :-)

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

TMP link

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