This is also the source of the 1 year Glorantha=~9 months Earth, which was shouted down a few months ago. So I guess it isn't all that canonical. . . Sob.
Mark said (21 Apr)
>And while Esrolia is wealthy, it is their wealth that makes them the target
>of the very neighbors from whom they would be hiring mercenaries. I would
>suspect that if they can help it, they're not going to be hiring someone
>today who will be raiding them tomorrow, at least not as a consistent
>military policy.
Actually, this is exactly what the Byzantines did to obtain their light cavalry forces. Worked well until the central Asian tribes figured out that the Byzantines were always hiring them to fight other central Asian tribes. Then they had lots of trouble finding and keeping mercenary light cavalry.
Martin Laurie said (22 Apr):
>I believe, after much delving on this issue, that male domination in
>pre-modern day Western societies was caused _by_ the greater strength and
>aggressiveness of males.
That was sort of the argument developed by Marvin Harris in _Our Kind_, although he worked it backward: The more warlike the band/village was the lower the status of women was. So Yanamano women were oppressed, but no nearly as much as women in the horribly violent New Guinea societies. This basically only applied to smaller scale societies. When you reached larger tribal organizations the dynamics changed.
>If you look at early cultural groupings it is easy to find female dominated
>societies.
It is also easy to find Neolithic sites that have clear evidence of significant warfare. For example, 13,000 BC villages with fortifications and clear evidence of large scale violent death. Warfare is not a recent invention. It's been around as long as modern humans.
But violent peoples were not always male dominated. For example, the Iroquois tribe. They were a non-peaceful people in which women had very powerful roles.
Peter Metcalfe said (21 Apr)
>For starters look up human wave tactics in the first world war. The
>infantrymen there held their officers in worse disregard than being
>'snotty bitches' but still went over the top. Also look at peasant
>armies fielded by feudal lords during the middle ages. They didn't
>side with the enemy, did they?
Uh, the majority of the French army mutinied during the First World War, precisely because of this sort of thing. Fortunately the Germans were busy doing other things.
WWI tactics were not really human wave assaults, as human wave assaults are based on the idea that you can overwhelm the opponent with so many attackers that they cannot kill them all. WW1 tactics were based on terrible misunderstandings of how artillery and infantry work. The effect was similar, but the theory was quite different.
(22 Apr)
>Secondly I believe the primary factor that determines a troops'
>effectiveness on the battlefield is their equipment.
Not really. Troop training, morale and leadership is usually the key. For example, captured Arab equipment is much more effective when used by the Israeli Defense Forces then by the Arabs it came from. As a counter example, the German conscripts in WW1 killed the highly trained British professionals without much difficulty at Neuve Chapelle, so there are limits to how much advantage you can get.
(SNIP)
>>If your enemies don't have cav and you do then you have a
>>edge, the Esrolians have the money so why not get the edge?
>My guess is that the Esrolians have no spare land to set aside
>for raising of cavalry (a la Japan).
Where does this come from? The Japanese had quite a bit of cavalry when they were fighting. Bajitsu was a core martial art of the Samurai, and large numbers of cavalry were present at all the battles. For example, the main striking force of the Takada clan was their strong cavalry forces.
(23 Apr)
>Likewise I do not believe the Esrolians consider it wise to teach their
>spearmen fanaticism for this end. If the spearmen morale is improved,
>they risk the danger of getting stuck in the battle and consequently
>being wiped out.
Normally it's the side that breaks and runs is the one that gets slaughtered. Once a spear armed unit breaks formation they are doomed. How does encouraging your troops to rout when decisively engaged reduce their chance of being killed in large numbers?
Lewis Jardine said:
>The British army would be a good model for Esrolia
Yes, indeed. I remember this being proposed by someone the last time this subject was brought up. I don't remember much argument then.
Kevin Rose
Powered by hypermail