Re: Re: Setting Spears

From: Henrix <henrix_at_...>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:41:06 +0200


On Wed, 05 Jul 2000, Bryan Thexton wrote:
> A critical point to remember when comparing Glorantha to ancient
> earth cultures, is that Glorantha seems to know about the stirrup,
> ancient earth cultures didn't. Lacking the stirrup, cavalry's usual
> roles were either as skirmishers, or to beat up light infantry and
> attempt to hit the heavier infantry formations from the flank or
> rear. Since the cavalry couln't pack as much punch in their charge
> without stirrups, and given the usual massive numerical advantage
> that the foot formations had, it was probably more or less a given
> that it was pointless for the cavalry to charge head-on into solid
> infantry formations.

Ah. That old theory. It originates from an British 19th c. cavalry officer cum archaeologist , whose name eludes me, who proposed this. He has since been quoted back and forth until everyone believes it. There is very little evidence for it to have been such a turning point in cavalry tactics as he thought. There were cavalry charging with lances who did not use stirrups. Early Germanic tribes, for instance, charging the aforementioned Roman formations. Some of the Hellenistic cavalry is another prime example.

Most cavalry, with the exception of medieval knights, skirmished, or had others skirmish, with the infantry and only charged if they wavered. This is especially true of all sorts of eastern horse tribes, the Huns, the Scythians, the Tatars, and so on and so forth. Charging infantry in good order has always been a pretty desperate move, if you do not know that they are prone to break, or if you are wearing heavy armour. And even in those cases arrows and javelins were generally used before. Why not use the main superiority you have over foot sloggers: the mobility?

I would think this is how Grazelanders, Pentans, Praxians, etc., do.

-- 
Henrix

Powered by hypermail