"DBMM III/14 Early Bulgar list" Topic
5 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 don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the De Bellis Magistrorum Militum Rules Board
Areas of InterestAncients Medieval Renaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe fascinating history of one of the hobby's major manufacturers.
|
hindsTMP | 27 Feb 2014 8:20 p.m. PST |
I was thinking about doing a III/14c Early Bulgar DBA army, and as usual was looking at the equivalent DBM / DBMM books to get more information on the troop types represented. So, there seems to be a discrepancy here. Can anyone provide insight as to why the DBMM III/14 Early Bulgar list has the Cv changed to Kn (F) after 803AD (when my man Nicephorus I was disputing with them)? The DBA 2.2 III/14c list still has them as Cv, which has been the traditional interpretation. Of course we can do anything we want, but what's the community's view on this? Mark |
goragrad | 27 Feb 2014 11:20 p.m. PST |
Not having been in on the change, my presumption would be that someone uncovered evidence that the Bulgar CV started charging home. DBMM lists came out several years later than DBA 2.2 (2.2 was 2004 and Book 3 DBMM list in 2007). I presume the DBA 3.0 lists will be more in accord with the DBMM. |
timurilank | 28 Feb 2014 12:50 a.m. PST |
The change may reflect the feudal system adapted by the Bulgars; the rise of the Boyar class or Knights (F). |
GurKhan | 28 Feb 2014 6:32 a.m. PST |
Have a look at link and in the archives of link |
hindsTMP | 28 Feb 2014 9:18 a.m. PST |
OK, I looked at GurKhan's first link, and applied for membership in the second. After looking further at DBA 2.2+ and DBMM 2nd edition, I see that Cv and Kn differ between the 2 rule sets. Perhaps that explains the difference in the respective lists, rather than chronological factors. Mark |
|