Re: Bows, with some Gloranthan stuff.

From: Kevin Rose <vladt_at_interaccess.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 14:11:12 -0500 (CDT)


Steve wrote:

>Anyway I wasn't discussing whose bows were effective, I was discussing
>DOMINANCE on the order of that exhibited by English (Welsh) Longbowmen,
>who psychologically transfixed military thought for several centuries.
>This hasn't been seen in Glorantha, not that they don't have effective
>archers, just none that have been DOMINANT in that way.

Well, the Mongols stomped the Russians flat, then ruled them for several hundred years. One of the reasons why the Russians are really fond of artillery is that it was one of the only effective techniques to engage horse archers with. My uderstanding was that as late as the 1700s a Russian army got destroyed by a large band of Tartars.

And it does have to be pointed out, that for all the way the longbow is portrayed as a wonder weapon, the English lost the Hundred years war. And the longbow didn't prove so spiffy in the English civil war. The English longbow is a tactically very limited weapon, as it only really works wonders in a prepared defensive postion that is attacked by idiots. All infantry missile troops have severe limitions in that they can only defend. They cannot force cavalry to fight them. And only an idiot will attack, if the archers are properly formed.

Assuming that a "weapon" is what counts, the Swiss Pike was actually much more effective militarily. And the Roman gladius was probably the most effective weapon. But weapons don't kill people, people using the weapons kill people. Lots of people tried to imitate the English longbowmen, and lots tried the Swiss. Most fell woefully short. (Not that you are arguing this)

Both your societal view of warfare and the military class must accept a weapon in order for it to be used effectively. Most European noblity was revolted at the idea that commoners could kill knights. That is one of the main reasons the French hired mercenaries insted of training effective infantry from the French commoners.

On a more OT thought, I would argue that there are basically only two military forms that have been shown to be widely used in Glorantha. These are the Lunar infantry forces and the Western shock cavalry. All have been around many hundreds of years. Generally they do a pretty good job on anyone they fight. Of course, Lunar magic support certainly helps out in dealing with opponents.

Pretty much everyone with brains wants some cavalry. But not everyone is convinced that infantry is useful. In particular the Pentans, the Praxians and much of the West seems to hold this opinion. There are good reasons for their belief that infantry has no real place in their way of war, but it imposes limitations that they probably don't see.

Most of the West would not use horse archers, even if they had them, as they don't fit the way they want to fight. And if they had infantry as effective as the Swiss they would probably not use them effectively. The West, in general, seems as conservative as the Japanese were when they successfuly banned guns and disarmed the non-bushi. The job of knights is to fight, and it is wrong to allow anyone else to do this.

It appears that real armies are pretty rare in Glorantha. The Lunar Empire, Kraloria, and Loskalm seem to be the only human cultures of Genertela that maintain a reasonable sized trained and formed military. Most Gloranthan combat forces seem to fall into the category of "armed mobs". The Sartarites, Praxians, and the Pentans fall in this category. But they are all capable of doing impressive things when properly led. But Sheng and his like are pretty rare.

Kevin


Powered by hypermail