Re: Re: Lunar Army article

From: e-g_at_...
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 11:36:02 GMT


Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_...> writes:

>This is at odds with historical experience. To be heavy infantry,
>one has to have expensive weapons and armour to survive (whereas
>the lights can do with slings and other cheap weapons) and most
>infantry provided their own equipment. Ergo the heavy infantry has
>better status, expertise and professionalism than the light infantry
>does. The truly noble in the Imperial army rode horses or chariots
>instead.

It's a lot harder to train light troops to be effective, disciplined and professional, so most ancient armies didn't bother. For heavy infantry, discipline is just a matter of lining up and marching around in order, and takes practice, practice and more practice. Light infantry need to be able to act independently and make individual tactical decisions, skills which are difficult to teach. So, most LI forces were just a mass of untrained peasants expected to chuck a spear or two at the enemy then run away; but the very-rare professional light infantry forces who would obey orders and manoeuvre on the battlefield - like Balearic slingers or Macedonian peltasts - were incredibly valuable and sought-after. Admittedly, they still had a lower social status than the heavy infantry...

Stephen

Powered by hypermail