Is it just me, or does anyone else see something starkly missing from the
above? I admit complete lack of SCA experience but, while the above sounds
superficially quite nifty, there's a problem that was "solved" by the
Assyrians, among others. Coming in "low and fast" is great, until you are
facing real, killing weapons. You come in low and fast, you have little
control of your own body. Great for berserkers, not good for anyone with a
brain - what exactly do you do then when the guy in front of you drops to
one knee, and plants his spear? Has anyone done this to these guys? Yah,
you kill the guy whose planted his spear, but that little device has also
just impaled the first 3 guys in your charging group, killed your impetus,
and left you vulnerable.
Or caltrops. They were pretty popular for defensive-minded troops. (I
don't mean the little medieval ones, i mean the big ones with 6-8" spines -
the kind that bother your only if you're not looking at them, i.e.
running. if you're walking, they can be avoided with ease.)
Or finally, and this may be going beyond the level of expertise in the SCA,
but what about simply drifting files apart ala Scipio Africanus?
I guess what I'm ranting about is that these SCA conclusions can't take you
very far. Yes, they can give you a feel for how useful a shield is, or
how hard it is to change weapons in combat, but for deriving useful data
for large scale behaviours, its probably worse than useless, albeit pretty
fun!
- -Steve
End of Glorantha Digest V1 #224
Powered by hypermail