On the army level there IS a difference between the way a general
employs English longbowmen and Cretan slingers. The Cretans are
skirmishers. They harass the enemy to hamper manoeuvre, and contest
difficult terrain. The longbowmen form part of the line of battle.
They carry their own portable field defences (or dig pits), a
longbow, two handed melee weapon and armour which got heavier and
more comprehensive
throughout their period as they benefited from looted equipment.
The two troop types are in no way comparable, and any attempt to
give them the same label (ie "Light Infantry") makes the term so
broad as to be unhelpful. These are not "differences of degree",
surely!
Longbowmen are NOT particularly vulnerable to cavalry charge. The French changed tactics against them, from the mounted charge which failed at Crecy, to the advance on foot which was destroyed at Agincourt and Verneuil. The Cretans would be scattered to the winds unless they could flee to the safety of rough terrain. I agree that both were disadvantaged facing a fully armoured knight afoot, but then until the advent of firearms so was every other type of troop.
You say that more room is needed to use a bow than a spear. I can't argue from a practical standpoint, since I've used neither, and as a member of SCA you presumably have. I just wonder why this is the case. A bow is held vertically, arrows can be drawn from a quiver at the waist or from the ground. Why is so much room needed?
Anyway, I'm not really interested in arguing whether the men were packed shoulder to shoulder, or had two feet between each men, or three or whatever. Each formation was presumably chosen to allow the men in it to use their weaponry most efficiently, whatever the spacing might be. The important distinction in battlefield behaviour is whether the unit fought in formation or as individuals with no regard to keeping in line or holding a particular position.
I agree with you completely about standard Persian tactics. Move into range. Halt. Fire. And that Marathon would possibly have been won had the cavalry been there to turn the flanks of the phalanx.
You miss my point about the decline of hoplite armour. I know that the man bought his own, not the state, but this was the reason why city state armies were relatively small. A battle involving 20,000 men was regarded as large by Greek standards, but by the time of the Successors it would be a skirmish. Armies were getting larger, and had to be comprised mainly of men too poor to buy their own equipment (those that could were the officers). Either the state provided or you did without.
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you accuse me of being amazed at the advance of heavily infantry. Of the Greeks only the Spartans marched in step and performed drill, but the mobs of the other city states had no trouble advancing in close order, nor do I think infantry became immobile after the fall of Rome, else most dark age battles in Britain would have consisted of two shield walls glaring at each other impotently!
I've lost the point of this argument by now, but to get back to matters Gloranthan... Is there any equivalent on Glorantha to the use of massed missile fire as exemplified by the Persians? Most missile men seem to be explicitly skirmishers, though I would expect that the Kralorelans would use close order ranks of bow or crossbowmen if they are based on the Chinese style of fighting. - --
### Russ Massey ###
### Nothing is sure but that which is uncertain' ###
### What's evident to all is most obscure; ###
### Francois Villon ###
Powered by hypermail