At the risk of flogging a dead or dying horse, I wanted to make a few (quick?) comments on the recent Art of War and Kingdom of War threads.
First off, I have to admit that I am increasingly skeptical of the idea of the KoW being a purely mounted force, particularly after Kevin Rose's observations of the KoW's terrain as represented on most of the Fronela maps (an obvious starting point, but one I admit I never thought of). In fact, it seems increasingly likely that the composition of their forces would be the exact opposite (mostly disciplined infantry, pioneers, and siege men -- with the KoW being forced to adapt to Loskalmi _horsemen_ once the Ban was lifted) unless -- and in Glorantha this is a pretty big "unless" -- there was some magical or cultic explanation for the development of purely mounted troops in forested and mountainous terrain; if anyone has any theories on what that explanation might be, please post them. I kind of liked Jean Durutz's theory of Lord Death on a Horse being an uzuz, though it does once again point toward foot and not horse warfare; the option of an entirely human adaptation of the ZZ cult as the KoW's core also suggests itself as an alternative, which might make the adoption of mounted warfare a bit more palatable.
As a side note, if the KoW is in fact purely mounted, then at least on the
face of it the elf reforestation wouldn't pose an immediate problem to the
KoW (which can apparently handle forested terrain), but more likely to
Loskalm -- except, of course, to the extent to which the new forests are
_elf_ forests and not simply lots of new trees. Fire-worshipping KoW
pioneers using axes to blaze trails through elf lands readily suggest
themselves, however.
On the whole Greeks-and-Persians-at-Macedon thing --
Having not yet gotten a copy of Archer Jones' book (it's a bit pricey for me,
though I think it may have recently been remaindered) and being an irregular
poster at best, I had avoided commenting on the recent heavy vs. light
thread. However, I just wanted to throw out this quote from Arthur Ferrill's
_The Origins of War_ on the Battle of Macedon, since, amongst other things, I
think it illuminates the point which someone -- I can't remember if it was
Kevin Rose or maybe Raymond Massey who posted on this -- had made about the
AoW thread ignoring the cultural dimension of warfare. Sorry, it's kind of
long --
"The phalanx, however, was more than a tactical formation. It represented a way of life, a code of manliness and morality that was much more deeply ingrained in Greece than in most military societies because of the demands of heavy infantry in shock on 'the flesh' were so much greater than in integrated armies. As a social institution the phalanx was as important to the Greeks as their emerging and ever-changing political forms...
"The morality of heavy infantry made it very nearly impossible, after the Greeks came into contact with the integrated army of Persia, to imitate the obviously better military institutions of the ancient Near East. The resistance was moral and cultural and not based upon rational analysis or military science (though there *was* a science of the phalanx). The retort of the the insulted Spartan survivor of Pylos showing contempt for long-range weapons was moral. The new, modern warfare of the fourth century, for the most part borrowed from Persia...was greeted by stiff opposition even when its advantages were obvious...
"Greek victory in the Persian Wars undoubtedly also contributed to the military 'foolishness' of phalanx society. Although some Greeks realized that Persian errors made victory possible, the more common belief was that it represented the triumph of the spear over the bow or of heavy infantry over light. In naval warfare the Greeks showed more creativity, and their navy was more responsible than their phalanx for the defeat of Persia. Though there was much fighting on land during the Peloponnesian War, it too was determined at sea, and to the extent that the phalanx was made irrelevant by the fleet, Greeks could continue to believe, as they did, in the superiority of heavy infantry in land warfare. Philip of Macedon proved them wrong."
I would, incidentally, add Ferrill's book to Sandy's suggested list of
military history titles as a pretty good introduction to ancient warfare. In
addition to seconding his recommendations, I'd also add Victor Hanson's _The
Western Way of War_ and _Hoplites: the Classical Greek Battle Experience_,
which he edited (though, come to think of it, there are few if any direct
parallels between the communal ethos of ancient Greece and any Gloranthan
society, with the potential exceptions of the Safelster city-states and the
cities of the Lunar Heartland); W.K. Pritchett's five volume _the Greek State
at War_; John Warry's _Warfare in the Classical World_, though short on
references and long on cheesy, if useful, illustrations; Philippe Contamine's
_War in the Middle Ages_ as a good intro, really only applicable in the West;
and, as a companion to Dupuy & Dupuy, I would suggest the recently published
_Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare_, edited by Geoffrey Parker (the
sections on Greek & Roman warfare being written, coincidentally, by Victor
Hanson). I could be wrong, but I believe that the book Sandy suspected was
the _History of World Warfare_ is titled _the Art of War in World History:
from Antiquity to the Nuclear Age_, edited by Gerard Chaliand (though, as
with Jones' work, I'm afraid I haven't bought it because of its $30 price
tag).
Mark
Powered by hypermail