Why, don't you think the Gloranthan Cat and Goat Digest is a good name? <G>
Marion said:
>Seems to me that you still haven't got over it!!! Can some-one
>_please_ explain to me what the fascination is with polearms in
>RPGs???? Does it really matter that much what shape the pole is that
>skewers an opponent as long as they don't get up again afterwards?
In the same way I could reasonably argue that everyone eats "food", wears "clothes", and has "magic" in Glorantha? As they are obviously sufficient for them it is pointless to discuss what form they might take, right? How someone fights and what weapons they use is determined by their culture, situation and history, just as what they eat, what they wear and who/what they worship.
I said:
>}Pure shock infantry is not the ideal type of troops to try to fight
>}light mounted archers and shock cavalry.
And Ward said:
> But It can be done with disciplined enough troops. The Romans vs
>Parthians shows one way. Relying partially on heavier armor, short
>charges towards the archers by alternating blocks of infantry with the
>archers getting more disorganized with each withdrawl.
Yes, as did the success of Otto shows that shock cavalry can sometimes beat horse archers. But it's hard. The Romans were the finest shock infantry in the world, but they had enormous problems with the Parthans. In 54 BC, under Crassus, the Romans invaded with about 40,000 troops. 5000 survived the disastrous defeat. In 36 BC, under Antony, they lost half their army (30,000 of 60,000) on the next invasion try.
The Romans did figure out some successful techniques, but they still would get an army crushed by the Parthans every few decades. The Roman shock infantry armies had a lot of problems with horse archers.
I would expect that Sun Country would have worse problems, as they don't have any cavalry. Counting on your general always being a tactical, strategic and political genius (and your opponent being at best mediocre) seems like a poor plan. Like the saying goes, "The race is not always to the swift and the battle to the strong, but that's where the smart money is."
Jose said:
>According to RoC, the Yelmalions had light chariots, and
>the geas show they were good archers. Heavy infantry
>supported by chariots and archers is a quite nasty
>combination (the assyrians come to mind)
All the successful armies that used chariots used them before stirrups. Stirrups make chariots obsolete. Basically, they are too big, cost too much and provide too little firepower and mobility compared to cavalry. A chariot requires two or three guys using two horses but gives the firepower of one archer (The others are the driver and shield bearer.) If you take the two horses and put two of the three guys on the horses with bows you have twice as much firepower and more mobility. Plus two horses occupy a lot less space than two horses plus a chariot, so your firepower density is much higher.
> and even without
>support, the greek hoplites (who the Templars resemble more
>than the pikemen, IMO) were mercenaries renowned in the
>ancient world (Xenophon, anyone).
I agree. But their opponents didn't have stirrups. That does make it harder. Not impossible, but harder.
Kevin
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #269
Powered by hypermail