>Oliver Bernuetz:
>>The use of peltasts were one of the reasons why pike
>>phalanxes dropped out of favour. (They're cheaper too).
>
>Well, sort of. They were a component which could be used for some other
>things, but not as front-line heavy infantry.
>
>>Roman style infantry were another. They'd still be among
>
>No. The legion SYSTEM had some advantages. A line of legionaries would get
>creamed against a line of hoplites, given equal training. The main thing
here
>is the quality of the troops, and not the weapons. In the cases where
legions
>beat phalanxes they were trained legions against armies which no longer
>maintained there drill. There were many battles in which legions lost.
>Hannibal used phalanxes and did very well.
>
>The peltasts had nothing to do with the pike phalanxes falling out of
>favor. Peltasts were a part of the phalanx/cavalry/peltast combined arms
>of the Macedonian army. All three worked in concert to bring the cavalry
>to bear on the enemy. The peltasts needed the defensive strength of the
>phalanxs or would have been eaten alive by the enemy cavalry. Also,
>peltasts and phalanxes operated together from before Phillip II to the
>ultimate victory of the legion over the phalanx, a span of hundreds of
>years. You may be thinking of Hypaspist which some believe were the
>beginings of the Roman cohort. The Hypaspist were an elite Hoplite group
>with lighter armor and shorter spears.
>
>I've never heard of anyone suggesting that the Romans got their idea from
>hypaspists. It seems to me more that they were sort of peltasts with big
>shields and more armor, and better drilled for close-combat. Both ideas are
>wrong, tho, as the Roman troops evolved independently of those others.
>
>It was the Roman legion supremacy which ended the use of phalanxes,
>
>Here I disagree with you. Both SYSTEMS had their advantages. Hannibal would
>have changed if he'd thot the Romans were better. Several people fought the
>legions down with phalanxes. Saying that the legion was superior because it
>defeated the deteriorated armies of the later Macedonians and so on, is like
>saying that the various barbarian mob-armies were better than the legion
>because the barbarians took Rome. I'd take a phalanx over a legion if they
>are both of trained troops.
>
> and
>even then it took several battles to decide the issue (some believe the
>phalanx and legion were equals).
>
>And some believe the phalanx is better. Then there is the issue of systems.
>Do we do our battle with the historical support-troops of both, or just the
>two types of heavy infantry?
>
>Sergio Mascarenhas:
>
>>What changed my mind was not their weaponry but two facts
>>that make yelmalion very similar to the swiss:
>>1. They are mercenaries, 'piques for sold' unlike the
>>macedonians AFAIK.
>>2. Their impact was based on an high degree of social
>>cohesiveness based on strong personal and social
>>relations. People from the same family or region
>>training together to become soldiers and latter fighting
>>side by side.
>
>No different than the Greek hoplites
>
>You are right there. I don't know where Sergio sees a difference. Macedonian
>phalanxes were also payed soldiers, but were usually in the same army as
>where they came from. About his second point there is really NO difference
>between that and Macedonians. They had the same relations, and were of the
>same tribes and all that, so I don't know what he means.
>
> - see Xenophon's 10,000 Greeks among
>other sources.
>
>Of course these guys were mixed. They came from different places and so were
>different in that respect, altho very many were Spartans.
>
> From the time of the wars between Athens and Sparta to the
>time of Phillip II, the Greek hoplites were considered the premire
>mercenary groups in the ancient world and saw extensive action in the
>Persian empire.
>
>Yea! Keep going. Tell those Gloranthans out there about ancient history.
They
>keep coming up with middle-ages stuff cuz they just don't know anything else.
>
>Actually, I believe the forests start just south of the Sun County lands,
>so trees are not that far off.
>
>Well, too bad. There are no forests in Prax. There are bushes and some trees
>in the Zola valley tho, so that does help.
>
> Also, I believe these forests were old dino
>grazing grounds, so I would assume the trees were tall and durable.
>
>That info should be in River of Cradles. There just isn't much in the way of
>trees in that area, and not tall at all. If you want I'll look thru my
>extensive collection of Glorantha stuff to find more about trees in the
>river-valley and the Sacred Ground. They are getting them somewhere, and so
>are the Agimori, and the Praxians also. To the North where the river starts
>is also a good place to look.
>
>Gives you a reason why Pavis is so important to SC and why the Sun Domers
>keep good ties with whoever controls Pavis. Also, most of the traditional
>enemies of Sun County were more of raiders than occupiers and probably
>couldn't mount a serious long-term *blockade* of the SC trade.
>
>Correct. We Praxians do steal poles for our lances whenever possible tho. If
>someone brought poles across Prax you can be sure of them not getting to SC
>without a lot of "visitors" coming to "see" your nice poles, and anything
>else you've got.
>
Powered by hypermail