to let >you see either large distances directly, or go through the spirit >world a large distance. The second is the existence of flying >troops. No doubt about it. There is a third as well -- theexistence of magic roads which allow armies (on rare occasions) to travel very quickly.
I suspect that flying troops are pretty uncommon, even in Glorantha, but even if a general only had a dozen such soldiers, they'd be invaluable as scouts. This means that it's likely that Gloranthan generals find it difficult to surprise one another in battle. It also means that feats such as Nero's countermarch to join with Livius and destroy Hasdrubal at the Metaurus would be almost impossible to perform -- Nero could do this because Hannibal was unaware of Nero's action.
Another Gloranthan feature which must be taken into account is the occasional presence of very destructive magic. On occasion, Gloranthan magicians can amass terrible force and wipe out large armies -- the Hydra, Pillar of Fire, Earthshaker quake, and so forth are examples of these. I doubt these disasters determine the course of most wars, but they've got to be a continual concern of a general.
Despite these alterations to Gloranthan warfare, I think that in general Gloranthan warfare, tactically if not strategically, is much like Earth's. My reason for doing so is not very subtle -- it is so that lessons learned on Earth over history will be applicable to Glorantha. At least in Glorantha a phalanx should be able to operate. In a D&D world, it could not -- a single Cloudkill spell would tear a gap in the lines wide enough to drive several trucks through.
Kevin Rose
>My understanding is that the Pentan's are militarily superior to the
>Praxians. The Praxians normally lose stand-up fights against them
I do not have this general impression, as I said to Kevin in a private posting. The big advantage that the Pentans have over the Praxians is that there are many more Pentans. But the Praxian animals do better in an arid climate, and as the wastes gradually grow and spread north, the Pentan grazing lands diminish, despite their grim border fights with the encroaching Praxians. No wonder they look with longing upon the green fields of Peloria.
>Note that the two areas in which the Lunars are weakest are
>light cavalry (especially) and light infantry. This is probably
>because their magicians make up for this failing in large part.
>
David Cake
>I thought the Lunars had a big supply of light infantry - I figured
>that most of the Native Furthest Corps were light inf, though they
>may be short of light inf in the Heartland Corps. Are all those
>peltasts light inf?
Dave Gadbois has asked me to make myself clearer by distinguishing between "melee" and "missile" troops, so I shall. The Native Furthest Corps, from the pictures on the Dragon Pass counters at least, appear to be melee troops, fighting in close order. I'm sure they're not as good as hoplites, but that would appear to be their purpose. Peltasts are missile troops though, like all light infantry, they're able to melee.
I guess if the Native Furthest Corps is trained to fight in open order, even without missile weapons, they could work with some efficacy against enemy missile-users. But NOT mounted archers, of course.
GENERTELAN STRATEGY
On Earth, it was almost impossible to force a battle on an
enemy army. Your army marched around trying to catch the foe, but
they kept running away. It has recently occurred to me that this may
not be the case in Glorantha.
You see, on Earth, Napoleon solved the problem of forcing battle with an unwilling foe. He did so by dividing his army up into corps, and having each corps march down separate paths, converging on the foe, cutting off escape routes, etc. Using this technique (which was rapidly adopted by everyone else in the world), Napoleon was able to make an unwilling enemy accept battle almost at will. The downside to this was that sometimes one of the separate army fragments would get involved in a battle on its own (like happened at Gettysburg, so bringing on a battle that Lee hadn't really planned to fight there).
With the Genertelan ability to control distant units easily, they may have adopted this technique -- say, during the Gbaji Wars. Arkat was certainly smart enough to think of it. (So was Gbaji.)
Using this, suddenly Dragon Pass makes a little more sense. Divvying up your army becomes a technique, not a mistake. Also, with divided armies like this, a number of new features of warfare become common, which were rare before. Here goes:
Interior Lines are now useful. You are often between two enemy forces, and can try to mass against one.
Turning Movements become common. You can try to get behind an enemy, and he must now retreat from his main position or get surrounded. In the old style, with single armies, getting behind someone just forces them to march in another direction.
Simultaneous Advances (the cure to Interior Lines) become important, but are probably as hard for Genertelan commanders to coordinate as they were for Earthly ones.
Mark Mohrfield
>According to G:CHW "The Loskalmi Army is one of the best in the
>world."We are told that Their battalions consist of both knights
and >armored footmen. Half these footmen are heavy inf. carrying
"spears, >swords, and large shields" the other half are light Inf.
carrying >"crossbows swords and smaller shields." Furthermore the
commanding >Noble Battle battalion has "3000 elite footsoldiers" in
addition to >cavalry. That these soldiers are "elite" indicates that
the Loskalmi >know how to use them.
I'm sure the Loskalmi soldiers are excellent warriors individually, just like the Italian condottierri. But I also think that, just like them, they're going to be devastated when they're attacked by a nation that knows how to fight.
For example, I would not be the least bit surprised if the technique used by the Loskalmi in choosing their military commanders was to select the knight who had the greatest fighting skill, "because he knows best the use of arms."
>Concerning the Kingdom of War I'd like to point out that just
>because one likes war it does not necessarily mean that one would
>make a good soldier
Ardant du Picq said it best. "A nation that is warlike will be defeated by a nation that is military." The Loskalmi are warlike. They have high morale, individualistic soldiers, and firm confidence that God is on their side. The KoW are militaristic, with drilled, carefully regimented troops, leaders who are all keen strategists and avid tacticians, and a wide variety of combat styles. When the Loskalmi first encounter the KoW and get whipped badly, their morale is going to plummet. "Is God punishing us?" The Persians were certain of victory as they landed at Marathon.
>I am wondering how long its been since the KOW fought a war.
We don't know what they were doing under the Ban. As soon as the Ban ended, they came charging out, conquering everyone they encountered. Admittedly, most nations had let their military forces deteriorate, so perhaps the KoW isn't as mean as it appears at first. But maybe it is.
>Are they well versed in Logistics
Probably not. Nobody would be, after emerging from the Ban. At least the KoW is trained at foraging to supply its armies, which I suspect no one else has learned to do.
>How much experience do they have with exotic cult magic?
Heaps. They have a hundred different gods, and use sorcery as well. They probably have a far better idea of what the Loskalmi and Jonatings can do than the L & J know about KoW magic.
THE BATTLE OF PLATAEA
There has been some discussion about the battle of Plataea,
and whether or not it shows that the Persians used native heavy
infantry. Here is an account of the battle. I have taken it from
four different sources, so as to be as unbiased and fair as
possible. (My sources were Delbruck, Jones, Herodotus, and
Eggenberger.)
When the Greeks came out of their mountain pass, the Persians immediatedly proceeded to harass the hoplites with missile cavalry. (Showing superiority of horsebowmen to heavy infantry.) The Greeks responded by stationing some archers by the hoplites, who were then able to keep the cavalry at bay (showing superiority of foot missile troops to mounted missile troops). The Persian cavalry at one point attacked the hoplites directly, in melee combat, and were defeated handily, despite their superior numbers (showing superiority of heavy infantry to cavalry in melee).
The Greeks then stationed themselves atop a hill, daring the Persians to attack. The Persian archers kept the Greeks from coming down to the river for water, and the Persian cavalry actually rode around to the back of the Greek army and stopped up a well. The Persian archers and horsebowmen harassed the Greeks for some time, causing a number of casualties, and depressing their morale.
Finally, the Greeks charged. The Persian archers were unable to retreat from the Greeks, because additional troops had come up behind them. They were hemmed in by their own mass. In hand-to-hand combat, the Greeks handily won, as the Persian bows were useless. Herodotus says, "many times the Persians seized the spears in their hands and broken them, for in boldness and warlike spirit they were no wit inferior to the Greeks." But the Persians were not drilled in close combat, and even if they had been, their light equipment would have probably led to a defeat against the hoplites.
>The sources I read indicate that the Persians had heavy infantry
in >large numbers
Name said sources, please. Herodotus makes it clear the Persians were bow-armed. No bow-armed soldiers are "mainly melee troops". It takes years to train a skilled bowman, comparatively little time for a spearman. The Persians at Marathon engaged in melee vs. the Greeks because their backs were to the sea. The Persians at Plataea engaged in melee vs. the Greeks because they were hemmed in by the men behind them.
Sure the Persians were able to fight in melee. Both their cavalry and infantry could do this, but at least for the infantry they clearly fought in a more open order than the Greeks.
Another problem that the Persians had was that until they met the Greeks, they'd had no experience with heavy infantry. After Plateae and Marathon, the Persians started recruiting Greek mercenaries for their armies.
>According to your statements on offensive superiority, an army of
>archers should beat an army of heavy inf and light because they
will >have greater offensive mobility (hence superiority) due to the
>slowness of the enemy heavies.
I deny this misinterpretation of my statements. Let's reduce the situation to the simplest possible: on an endless flat plain, a force composed solely of peltasts will defeat a force composed solely of hoplites. The Greek experience with this actually led them to lighten hoplite armor. After peltasts became more common, the heavy bronze cuirasses that are so famous today were frequently replaced with much lighter gear, made of leather, and lighter helmets. Some cities even equipped their hoplites with felt "cuirasses"! This was done so that the hoplites could run faster. They still couldn't run as fast as the naked peltasts, but they had a better chance of catching them. When peltasts attacked, frequently groups of hoplites would break ranks and run after them. In the heavy bronze, they could never catch them. In the lighter felt or leather armor, at least the peltasts didn't dare come as close.
A group of archers will be beaten by an army of heavy inf and archers because the more balanced army will be able to do things that the archers cannot. Example: the heavy infantry can charge. The enemy archers will have to retreat, while keeping up a fire. If the friendly archers are able to get to the side of the enemy, and hinder their retreat, or if the heavy infantry are able to back the enemy up against an obstacle, it's all over for the enemy archers.
>Philip V's phalanx had defensive superiority against the style,
>equipment and training of the Roman Legion. However, the Roman
>troops won due to their flexibility and quickness of movement
>compared to the unweildy phalanx. Therefore they had offensive
>superiority over the Macedonians. According to your own statement
>this makes them light troops
You are putting my statement backwards. I don't define missile troops as "troops who can beat heavy infantry". I am doing something totally different, saying that all things being equal, missile troops tend to beat unsupported heavy infantry.
Pyrrhus's phalanxes lost to the legions because the phalanx could not advance quickly in its long line, and if the ground was rough at all, the line tended to break up. The more flexible Roman checkerboard formation was able to exploit these gaps, and cause real problems for the phalanxes. Note that when the Romans actually closed for battle, the checkerboard closed up, too, into a solid line. But the point is that the Romans were able to march faster across the battlefield and keep their formation. This didn't make them "lght troops". It just made them better heavy troops than the phalangites.
>Horse archers will be offensively superior to javelin armed
horsemen >every time due to their range advantage.
The thing that makes light horse effective is not the type of missile they use, but the fact that they ride and fight in an open order, instead of a compact mass. This means that their march formation and their attack formation are practically the same, and so they can ride swiftly around the battlefield. Javelin-armed horsemen can ride as quickly as horsebowmen, and they're probably a lot better with their javelin than the bowmen are with their bows (remember, we're not talking about nomadic warriors here, born on horseback).
From Alexander's men up to the Spanish genitours (who fought the Moors), javelin-armed horsemen demonstrated an ability to stand up to horsebowmen. Maybe if the horsemen were permitted to fight without any other kinds of troops on the proverbial endless flat plain the bowmen would win out, which is probably why the nomadic tribes of Asia all used bows.
>I was saying a man in close formation with a bow is suddenly a
>light. This means every close formation soldier given a bow or any
>missile is a light.
A man in close formation can't properly use a missile weapon. Close formation is _quite_ close -- your arms normally touches your companions on either side. Shooting a bow is almost impossible in such a situation, and if you _could_ do it, then only the front rank could shoot.
>The Roman Legionnaires were armed with the Pilum. So they were
>light troops then, as I said, not heavies as you said?
They were heavies. They didn't skirmish, running up and retreating again. They threw their pila, then charged. The Saxon throwing axes were the same kind of thing. I'm sure that many Genertelan troops carry both a thrown weapon and a melee weapon. The purpose of the thrown weapon is to disrupt the enemy heavy infantry just before impact. Actually, it's one of the advantages of sword-armed troops that they can carry such a missile. If your men are equipped with two-handed weapons, such as the Irish Gallowglasses, the Lunar hoplites, or the Kralori Swordaxes, they can't really use a missile weapon. If they have swords or maces that they can sheath, and draw while charging, they can use their spare hand to carry javelins, darts, a throwing axe, or whatever, and launch these before smashing into combat.
This is an old troll trick. Most troll warriors carry both slings and maces, and are skilled enough with both weapons to launch their stones before they charge. Now, the sling is a complex enough weapon to require open order for its use, but the sheer size and strength of the trolls (not to mention natural skin armor) enables them, even in open order, to match typical human close-order infantry, especially if the trolls have a smattering of great trolls among them. Of course, the best human infantry will beat the trolls at this game -- like the Sun Domers, Lunar Hoplites, or Kralori heavy infantry, but more typical troops, like Native Furthest Corps, are easy meat.
>The Byzantine Cataphracti were bow armed as were the Sassanid
>Clibinari yet they were melee troops as well. So is this unit
light, >heavy or what?
Depends on what it's doing at the time. Not only that, but medieval knights could fight not only on horseback as heavy cavalry, but could also dismount, taking their lances, and fight in close order as heavy infantry. The Cataphracts were trained to close up their ranks when it was time to charge and engage in melee.
There have been many times that highly-trained soldiers have been able to function in two roles. This adds greatly to their usefulness for their commander. In some cases, like those of the English knights, you had to choose before the battle whether you wanted your men to be one type or the other (mounted or foot, in this case). In others, such as the standard cavalry of the musket-and-pike era, you could rely on them to change back and forth at will. The cavalry during the 1600s were armed with sword and pistol and cuirass. They could charge with the sword and act as heavy cavalry, or they could skirmish with their pistols, acting as light. But they could not dismount and act on foot effectively, for their sword was inferior to a pikeman, and their pistol was inferior to a harquebusier.
If you are lucky enough to have such dual-purpose troops in your army, you are fortunate indeed. I don't think these are very common in Glorantha, because most Gloranthan troops are not that skilled compared to the best Earthly troops. As I've said before, I believe that a Roman legion would totally destroy a Lunar regiment that was not allowed to use magic. The same applies to an Alexandrian force, or Byzantines, or Mongols.
I suspect that instead of training up their men in the use of two styles of fighting, Genertelans tend to provide them with more magic instead. Thus, a unit of soldiers instead of having both javelin and sword, might rely on Disrupt spells plus their sword. Demoralizes and Befuddles will probably break up an enemy line as readily as a pilum, and if you time a charge right, you can hit them before they've recovered or dispelled your magic.
>Melee-armed men are heavy troops. Naked Gauls were heavy troops.
>>But they are just as mobile as light troops due to their lack of
>>armour.
They could not, because they had to move in close order. The Gauls fought in dense masses of hundreds of men. This limited mobility, just as the Roman checkerboard, or the phalanx limits heavy infantry's mobility. Even if the whole big heap of Gauls could run as fast as the peltasts (doubtful), the peltasts can scatter. Thus the huge block of Gauls could only catch a few peltasts, and the others would escape. Of course the Gauls also had youths who used javelins and bows and fought separately from the masses, and these were effectively peltasts.
Dave Cheng
>Sandy says that the Brithini probably have a War Manual. From
what >I've seen and heard from Stafford's 'Arkatsaga,' I'd agree.
I'd >also point out that the manual probably relies on tactics
calling >for 300-to-1 kill ratios
I agree. They are doubtless exceedingly cautious and careful, and only seek battle when they are certain of victory.
MSmylie
>I had thought of the Lunar Art of War as being more in line with
>specifically Roman practice, with a Vegetius-like figure somewhere
>in Dara Happan history.
I'll buy this. But I bet both Hon-Eel and Jar-Eel have contributed large glosses to the original manuscript.
>On the Kingdom of War, I happen to be a little confused about some
>of the references to the KoW as being an almost purely mounted
>force; this seems to contradict the notion that they worship 100
>gods of war, in that I have a hard time imagining a hundred
>different Genertelan cavalry gods.
They worship war gods, not cavalry gods. The troll members of the KoW doubtless fight afoot. There may also be bands that are able to dismount to fight, though they normally travel on horseback (like the Vikings). I predict that after the KoW has fought good infantry, they'll start using more infantry of their own. Presumably the Jonatings have some worthwhile footmen, and the KoW may already be learning to dismount some men in every major fight (as the French learned to do after repeated defeats by the English foot).
>Mounted berserkers (despite bison-riding Storm Khans) have always
>struck me as something of a contradiction
This is, of course, because we're used to thinking of all berserks as vikings. Wild-eyed horsemen aren't as common to Western minds, but they existed, too. Think of Sioux warriors, crazed on hallucinogenic drugs and holy frenzy; or the French knights at Crecy, so hungry for blood that they trampled their own men and charged into battle immediately after completing a long and tiring march; or ululating Arab horsemen, certain that to die while slaying on behalf of the faith means immediate Paradise. This may help you in picturing a ferocious mounted berserk.
>The numerical dominance of mounted troops also strikes me as
running >against RW models, in so far as outside of the various
steppes >nomads, foot soldiers have historically outnumbered mounted
troops
Really, it all depends on the period and place. The KoW is an army of elitists, you see. They are like the Spartans -- only the most elite specialists of their entire society is able to be a warrior, and that is _all_ they do. Each KoW warrior is supported on the toil and blood of several serfs. Unlike the Spartans, the KoW knows that their slaves cannot rebel.
Think of the modern U.S. army. It is comparatively tiny, compared to the size of the USA, but it is kept extremely elite and high-tech by expending large amounts of cash, toil, and research. The KoW warriors each represent an inordinately large outlay of goods and labor. Man for man, they're probably the most elite warriors in the world. Every man wears the armor he wants, carries any and all weapons he wants. They're probably the only army in the world that doesn't bother to plunder the fallen for personal gain (though I bet they force their slaves to go over the battlefield and salvage materials).
End of Glorantha Digest V2 #170
WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html
Powered by hypermail