>>> The backbone=20
>>>of the Lunar Empire is Ye Olde Dara Happa and some peoples (like
>>>Orlanthi) do not see a meaningful distinction between the two. =20
>>Ergo, my greek/roman analogy.=20
>The backbone of Rome was not Greece.
Sure, the philosphical backbone of rome was ROMAN. But where, pray, did
they learn their military techniques? Like everyone else in the Med, from
the GREEKS. Therefore the ROMAN military model (early Republican)
~evolved~ from the Greek.
My point was that the Lunars had ~similiarly~ evolved a further refinement
to the DH model of warfare. Why is that so unreasonable to postulate?
>
>>>Hence the lunars would be phalanxes (in addition to their peltasts,
>>>slingers and assorted cavalry, avilry and artillery chariots). I=20
>>>dunno where cohorts are in glorantha. It may be the Kingdom of
>>>War or Safelster...
>>Very unlikely to be either. Cohort-tactics take an extraordinary amount=
of
>>training, professionalism, execution, and leadership at every single level
>>of command. I can't see this coming from the Kingdom of War.
>Rubbish. The rank and file of the cohorts were originally common=20
>farmers working parttime and their officers only slightly more=20
>educated. And the Kingdom of War is quite capable of having training,
>professionalism etc. It wouldn't be worthy of the name otherwise.
I'm not sure why you're getting quite so worked up about this. To
characterize the legions as little more than armed farmers is deliberately
misleading. For the majority of Roman history, the legions were
long-term-of-service veterans, who *might* be lucky enough to have a
general who would pension them off with some land - usually as a
garrison-in-place in case the natives started slitting throats.
And where would the kingdom of war have developed this fairly complicated
bit of tactical legerdemain? The Romans came up with it after generations
of conflict - the KoW just pulls it out of a hat because they have the
name? That's rubbish. IMO, they are substantially more feral than that.
>
>>>>[Western Knights] (shock Heavy Cav/Cataphracts)
>>>They are not exclusively cavalry. [...]
>>Well, yeah. I was talking archetypes. =20
>Stereotypes is the word you want, not archetypes. And to concentrate=20
>on a specific trooptype in discussion of all glorantha armies is
>IMO rather pointless. "Hmm. The Lunars use phalanxes. Why don't
>I wipe them out by using cavalry to attack behind them?". "Hmm.
>The Westerners use Knights. Why don't I use pikes so they'll be
>slaughtered when they charge?".
so it's down to semantics is it? i am *pretty* sure I understand the
english language:
ar=B7che=B7type n. the most typical of a group
ster=B7e=B7o=B7type n. 1 a person who is typical of a group; 2 a too-simple=
and
often mistaken idea about a particular group
hm...no, i MEANT archetype.
I originally brought them up to illustrate the point you make here. Someone
posted that Gloranthan troop types could be described in two terms. I said
no, there's more. That's all. That was my point. That said, I disgree
with you again. To discuss a troop type that is dominant in a force
(either numerically or psychologically) will be useful in determining the
things that force is not only capable of, but likely to do.
A Loskalmi army, while probably CAPABLE of waging a guerrilla hit & run
campaign against a foe (certainly the Loskalmi HAVE light cav, light foot,
etc), probably WON'T given the psychological dominance of the "Knightly"
troop type.
>
>>Well, right. OK, the trolls fight at night. So what does that have to do
>>about troop classification?
>Nothing. I was commenting that calling them celtic warbands
>tells us very little about their troop types. Do they use=20
>chariots? Shieldwalls? Do they have Beserkers? Merely uttering
>'celtic warband' tells us _little_. =20
It tells us they fight in rather unformalized groups. It tells us they are
impetuous. It tells us they are probably largely armed with hand- or
short-range weapons. It tells us that they are probably structurally
disorganized. It tells us they are typically individually brave. It tells
us they are on foot. It tell us that they are probably primitively
armored. It tells us that they are probably unlikely to perform any really
complicated mass maneuver.
I think it says a lot, actually. But that's probably just me.
>
>>Also, warbands weren't in a vacuum - they had slingers, scouts, etc too -
>>like trollkin, like Orlanthi would.
>The Uz herd trollkin to attack their enemies. Most of them will
>be slaughtered. This doesn't sound like Orlanthi slingers and
>scouts to me.
The Uz also use them as light troops, skirmishers, irregulars, and
slingers. That DOES sound like Orlanthi light troops to me. They're just
a lot more expendable.
>
>>Again, talking ARCHETYPES. The warband is a band of warriors bound more=
by
>>morale and valor than by training, who engage by the charge and generally
>>seek to break a combat from unit vs. unit to man vs. man.
>Before you were classifying the Praxians in terms of combat strength=20
>and armour types. Now you are talking about the Orlanthi in terms
>of their military culture. I do think that for a description of=20
>gloranthan armies, consistent terminology would be more useful than=20
>anything else.
Well, thanks Peter. Now I'm clear on that. Why are you being so snide?
IN MY OPINION, the warband has a strong cultural element. It's
characteristic of a certain level of development. I'm really sorry that
confused you. For consistent terminology, grab a copy of the WRG ancients
rules, or Tactica. Most of them use a common terminology when discussing
these subjects.
Powered by hypermail