Okay Sandy, I'll be in touch privately, but just some words in my defence publically first, then I'll shut up about non-Gloranthan stuff:
(1). If the Persians were _all_ light inf why did they stand and fight at
Palatae, in some cases they were in hand to hand with the Spartans for some
time? Again, I repeat, they were famous for being light, but against their
previous opponents they weren't. Its only Greek historians who comment so
heavily on their lightness.
(2). I never said light troops have to have less spirit or are morally inferior,
all I said was that a lot of armies (such as the ones I listed) used anything
and anybody as a screen. I would also like to point out that using the bow
effectively in battle took some considerable training. The French tried to copy
English longbowmen but found that the English and Welsh were so good cos it was
a cultural weapon. It wasn't in France. The same point applies to Balearic
slingers and Cretan archers in their time. They were excellent missile troops
but they were exceptions rather than the rule. If a majority of lights were
superb missile men how come there were any heavies at all?
(3). Peltasts vs heavies: I would like to point out that I didn't say "peltasts
rarely beat _unsupported_ hoplites" cos they did as you pointed out but only a
complete banana would deploy unsupported heavies in the first place. What I was
saying was that several commentaries after the Spartan defeat by the Thebans
said that the heavies days were numbered and all they needed was lights. This
was proved wrong.
(4). I don't "mistake" light inf for light armed troops who still fight in melee
cos thats what heavy persians were, as I was trying to point out. The Immortals
were melee troops as well as missile and their gear was well lighter than a
Hoplite. Light troops can melee (like peltasts) and cos of their mobility they
could beat heavies by flanking them. An example of this was the Romans against
the Macedonian phalanx. They were being pushed back by the heavier phalangites
until the Roman inf used their mobility to flank and break up the heavy
formation. Most would say that the Romans and the Macedonians were using
heavies.
(5). I don't and never bloody well will "confuse" poorly equipped with light
troops. Sandy quotes an array of "professional" armies as examples of my
confusion. I would like to point out that very few armies were purely
professional, especially in the dark ages to medieval period which is most
pertinent to Glorantha. Most countries had a _core_ of professional troops and
filled up the numbers with militias, Landwehr, Fyrd, fuedal levy, conscripts,
mercs etc. Much of this was of dubious quality and frequently wanted to be
elsewhere.
(6). Stragetically there_ is_ a difference between heavies and lights, mobility
for one, staying power and defensive capability for another. Strategy has a
component in it of forcing your opponent into battle on terms unfavourable to
him. I think it difficult to argue against that the more mobile your troops,
then the easier you can do this.
(7). I refute the statement that my example of Alexander against the Scythians
was "poor" . Yes he did have lights too, but his lights were much less mobile
and adept at plains warfare than the Scythians or am I missing the fact that
Alexander had suddenly gained a large body of horse archers from somewhere? So
my example of a heavy army beating a purely light one still holds true.
My main objection to all this is the persistent attempt to simplify a complex issue. Troops cannot be so easily classified into lights, mediums and heavies. Is a man using a poleaxe in close formation but with no armour a light? But he's in close formation so he must be a heavy? So I take his axe of him and give him a bow, he's then a light? Blaaaa. Each case should be taken on its own merits, not lumped into convenient bands.
Okay, I'll shut up about this now, back to Glorantha.
To Peter: The Lunars were ambushed on the march which was their weakest point in the operation. Passing through hostile terrain to an objective is dangerous. I particularily liked the Sartarite use of the river as an example of dividing and conquering. The Sartarites knew where the Lunars were going and could prepare in advance, hence it was on their own ground. Attacking Lunars in ambush must be hard though at the best of times.
I liked the idea of the Kingdom of War "knowing every battle plan that existed" thats neat. So your saying they may have a kind of War College where they study everything to do with warfare? In that case Lhankor Mhy could be one of their war gods. God of Military Knowledge.
Horse nomads and baggage trains: Your right of course, they (Sun Nomads) would have access to baggage train but this would severely limit their strategic mobility. One of the benefits of fighting on interior lines is having access to all your own supply areas.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail