Art of War

From: martin <102541.3423_at_compuserve.com>
Date: 17 Oct 95 14:48:17 EDT


From Martin (Laurie)

Re: Heavies - Lights

Heavy infantry, as Sandy said is more a matter of organisation that equipment but in applying that to the historical example given (marathon) I feel it is important to say that the Persians had heavy infantry too and they had won an empire because of the fighting qualities of their people. However, when they faced the Greeks, they faced a Heavy Infantry far superior in terms of tactics and equipment to their own. Added to that was the fact that the Greeks at the time spent _all_ their time fighting in this manner. Marathon was a battle of two heavy infantry armies. The Greeks simply had _better_ heavy infantry. It is a misnomer to think the Persians were all lights, they were just lighter than the Greeks.

Historically light inf (peltasts) beat hoplites but this was rare, very rare. Light infantry can rarely in themselves defeat heavy infantry unless they shoot them full of arrows and as the Persians found against the Spartans, this can take some time.

Next comes the problem of discipline. Light Infantry were often recuited in bulk to form a screen for the core of an army (the heavies). Historically there were few states that had regular, diciplined light inf. Rome being one, Alexanders lot being another. The Seleucids used to recruit everyone and his dog and the Sassanids used to chain a load of peasants together to soak up arrows. If discipline is not common among these troops than how can they be expected to perform these manouvers of feint, retreat and shoot against an oncoming phalanx? This kind of thing did happen but only in superb armies with the best conditions and a damn good general.

Added to that, the morale effect of seeing a friendly unit attack and then suddenly run away was considerable. Many common soldiers were not tactics literate, they see someone running away, they think their side is losing. Suddenly they get itchy feet. The pentian horse nomads and some of the Praxian tribes may well be masters of the feint tactic, mutch like the Mongols/Huns/Avars etc historically. The Normans also used it at Hastings to break up the Saxon shield wall. Again discipline and much practice is required for this to be a consistently sucessful tactic.

In strategic terms an army is supposed to protect or capture territory, mostly by destroying the enemy army. Napolean said "destroy their army and all else follows" which is very true.

The Lunar Army is ideally suited for this. In its campaigns in Sartar it pushed against the cities which were the focus of trade, magic (Boldhome) and political activity for most of the tribes and therefore had to be defended. In these circumstances, the Lunars were able to weild their heavy troops (Plus magics) to excellent effect. It should also be noted that in Glorantha they are one of the few countries (anyone think of another) with a permanently recruited light infantry force of high quality. In terms of numbers, they may be a small percentage of the Lunar battle array but when you consider that the Lunar Empire can draw upon nearly ten million people, thats still a hell of a lot of troops.

The odd times the Lunars attempted to meet the Sartarites on their own ground ie when Euglyptus sent a force of 4,000 that was ambushed show their weaknesses in rough and unfamiliar terrain. When Fazzur took over, the strategy was again directed to forcing the Sartarite rebels into fighting the Lunars on their terms. Note how the Lunars positioned themselves beneath the Sartarite army, offering battle every day? This is using a defensive posture to be highly aggressive. There was no way the Sartar Fyrdmen were going to accept that offer of battle. So Fazzur defeated the Sartarites by placing his army in a position that both pinned the rebels and played on the strengths of the Lunar forces. Congrats to Fazzur (or Greg) on reading Sun Tzu.

So, whats my point? My point is this: Tactically Lights _can_ be offensively superior to heavies but Strategically, if deployed correctly the Heavy will almost always win if they even get into combat at all. If you want a historical example of this, see how Alexander defeated the horse nomad Scythians with his Macedonian heavies on their home plains. He made them come to him by moving on their trade centers and prime lands. Result, they were knacked.

Another old maxim is "amateur soldiers look at tactics, professionals look at Logistics". Again how true. If one looks at Caesers Gallic campaigns (while avoiding the rather enourmous slant his own writings placed on the subject) one can see that the Romans often outnumbered their barbaric foes _at the moment of battle_ because they could bring together 80,000 men _and then feed them_ something the average barbarian tribe could not do. So in most of his battles he outnumbered the enemy. I feel the same must be true of the Lunar Army. Their Logistical support must be huge. This is another reason why the Praxians have never been a great making force of history. Nomads rarely are unless they subjugate a farming slave race to keep them fed (eg Sheng or the Sun Nomads who fought the First Council, or the Mongols in China) Can you imagine trying to keep 10,000 animals in one spot for more than a week? The Lunars could if prepared because they can supply them. This concentration of force over long periods of time is what makes them so strong. The nomads could concentrate for a short while, then they'd have to disperse. If you read Byzantine tactical manuals, this is often cited as a method of defeating otherwise bloody awkward nomads. They suggest campaigning against them when their food supplies are limited due to the season but in which the regular Byzantines can keep up full support. I think this point is well covered in the Nomad Gods game anyway.

Cavalry: The cavalry arm of any army performs two main functions; offensive action (including attacking, flanking and persuit) and screening (skirmishinf, feinting, counter-fire etc). In most battles the cavalry, due to superior mobility, cover the flanks of any substantial infantry force. They attempt to drive off the enemy flank cover thus hitting the enemy in the flank and rear as well as cutting their lines of communication.

Here's a scenario: Three thousand Sartarite Fyrd men + Huscarls face a similar number of Holpites and peltasts. The Sartarite side has 1,000 Pol Joni braves covering its flanks. The Lunars have the Antelope Lancers and the Queens Regiment on theirs. What happens? The infantry arms engage and a pushing match ensues. The Lunar heavy cavalry push against the Sartarite infantry via their flanks. The Pol Joni have to get in the way or see their allies crushed. They fire volleys of arrows into the advancing heavies, casualties are heavy but they push on. Unable to adopt their usual retreat and fire tactics because of the need to cover the infantry, the Pol Joni bravely stand their ground. The melee is furious but brave after brave find themselves being lanced or fighting heavily armoured opponents whose weapons smash through their cuiboilli. Result, they break or are pushed back enough to uncover the infantrys flank. The Lunar commander sends a company into the struggling Sartarites, they bend, then break under the three way pressure.

Here Heavy Cav were offensively superior to light cav cos the light cav had to fight on heavy cav terms. Poor lads. If your talking history, see how many times this has happened in the past!

The best way to deploy light cav is as a skirmish screen for heavier units. Eg the Impala riders swarm around the advancing Lunar army, arrows falling constantly, irritated, the Lunars charge through the screen with their heavier troops to find the Rhino riders on the other side.......

Okay, enough said.

Martin


End of Glorantha Digest V2 #155


WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html

Powered by hypermail