Re: Celtic Madness

From: Sandy Petersen <sandyp_at_idgecko.idsoftware.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 96 14:10:34 -0500


Peter Metcalfe
>After introducing a curious digression about a re-enactment of a
battle between >Union and Confederates, neither of which indulged in phalanx warfare nor berserk >charges AFAIK,

        You have evidently not read much on the tactics of the American Civil War. In any case, Joerg's point was that seeing a screaming mass of enemy soldiers pouring down upon one was able to make me twitch even though I _knew_ that I was perfectly safe. In fact, in at least one battle I _did_ break and run without consciously deciding to do so (the rest of the unit routed, too, at exactly the same time -- a fine example of the "group mind" at work).

>To suggest that Celts could break a phalanx like a war elephant is
sheer >nonsense.

        Except that they did.

>Phalanxes are designed to stop the people in the front (who would
be the most
>scared by the Celts) from turning around and running away.

        This is not the intent of a phalanx's design, nor would anyone who knew much about war intend this. Soldiers start to flee from the _rear_ of a unit, not from the _front_.

        The point of the furor celtica is not that it was some kind of unstoppable terror, but that it was recognized as significantly enhancing Celtic battle power. Obviously they could still be beaten.

Sandy P.


End of Glorantha Digest V3 #18


WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html

Powered by hypermail