Re: Glorantha Digest V4 #270

From: Jim Heaton <jmh1_at_bolton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:24:22 +0000


Chris Lemens:

>Joerg Baumgartner <joe_at_toppoint.de>, talking about David Hall's conception
>of Humakti:

>>If you want warrior-monks like the knights Templar, ok. Would
>>be a subcult, and about as obscure ast the Templars within
>>general chivalry.

>The Knights Templar may be obscure now, but at their height, they were not
>at all obscure.[...] There is a little evidence to say that they fled by
>ship to Scotland. Then there is pure conjecture that they fought at (here
>my British history fails me) the Bannockburne(?) against King Edward the
>Black (?).

Yes, Bannockburn. But it was Edward II, not his father, Edward I who was known variously as 'Longshanks' or 'The Hammer of the Scots'

> The English losers said that they were winning the battle when
>suddenly a third force appeared on the field. The Scots say it was a bunch
>of irregular gillies that had been held in reserve. The speculating
>historians wonder why mounted, armor clad knights would have fled from light
>infantry irregulars.

Well, they were in the middle of a marsh and had mostly been awake all night. They were also assailed by spearmen and without their customary archers operating at full effectiveness due to the terrain and (I believe) an early charge by Bruce's cavalry.

BTW, a further conspiracy theory suggests that the Templars in Scotland went on to form the Freemasons (mind you, they are a regular feature in such subjects, eg Order of the Solar Temple in France/Switzerland etc)

>David Cake:
>>Now, anyone in our world attempting to charge a phalanx would
>>almost certainly fare a lot worse.

>Nils Weinander <nilsw_at_ibm.net>:
>>The romans proved with perfect adequacy that a phalanx was by no
>>means undefeatable, at Pydna in 167 BC. As a matter of fact they
>>charged the phalanx...

>In fact, Roman legionary infantry was the best fighting unit in the
>classical world. Romans used troops from their (typically conquered) allies
>to provide troops other than legionary infantry and (extremely lame) "noble"
>cavalry. However, they made sure that the allies never outnumbered the
>legionary infantry by more than 2 to 1 (in normal time 1 to 1), in case the
>unreliable allies would decide the revolt. They could rely on the legionary
>infantry to quash rebellion among any other troops, including phalanx pike
>and lancer cavalry.

>Pike phalanxes typically carried big ol' heavy shields. Roman pila
>(javelins) had barbed heads so that they stuck in shields and had hafts of
>soft metal so that they bent on impact. The result was that they were very
>hard to remove from your shield before the legion smashed into your front
>line (especially if both your hands were full of pike). This made using the
>shield both awkward and tiring.

What's more, the Romans wouldn't play fair. Instead of pushing at close quarters like a phalanx of hoplites, they'd just stab you in the mush with a gladius at close quarters

>Note that cavalry at the time had not yet developed the stirrup, so lances
>were not nearly as effective as in medieval times. This is probably what
>the grounded pike was not as popular as in medieval times--it was much
>easier to push the rider off the horse.

Also the medieval (western) cavalry had a wierd taboo about javelins/bows etc, which made them vulnerable to disciplined infantry of any kind. This was not the case with Roman cavalry except the Germanic auxiliaries. Grounded pike/spear holds no fears for someone who is not trying to charge home.

>From his previous posts, it looks like Jim Heaton may be able to correct the
>factual errors that, no doubt, infest the above.

Oh no they don't (AFAIK), but thank you for the complement. Sorry about the non-Gloranthan subject matter.


Powered by hypermail