>Now that you have finally _explained_ what you meant, I shall tell you
>(again) that it is _wrong_. The Lunar Empire does not fight in cohorts
>thus there is no difference between them and the Yelmites in terms of
>military tactics.
Why are you so aggressive in your replies Peter?
Anyway I though the Lunar army was composed of a diverse collection of
regiments
because it was more interesting for GM's (MGF) that way . I think we
should all remember its not real at this point. Glorantha's been written
as a work of fiction by a varied collection of authors with differing
interpretations and views of what the world would be like. So its all just
opinion really.
Steve
>>>>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.
Peter
>>>Rubbish. The rank and file of the cohorts were originally common
>>>farmers working part-time and their officers only slightly more
>>>educated. And the Kingdom of War is quite capable of having training,
>>>professionalism etc. It wouldn't be worthy of the name otherwise.
I think that dismissing Steve's perfectly valid point as rubbish is deliberately antagonistic.
>>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.
>I am not being deliberately misleading. You stated something that was
>flat out wrong and I corrected you. In particular, I said the cohorts
>were _originally_ armed farmers which confuted your notion that Cohorts
>required extraordinary training, leadership etc. in all ranks. Before
>accusing others of being misleading, you should ensure that you have
>gotten your facts straight.
According to John Peddie in his excellent book 'The Roman war machine' in which he cites many primary sources;
Vegetius on the first page of his Epitoma rei militaris states that [the
Romans]
"owed the conquest of their world to high standards of military training
and discipline and 'the unwearied cultivation of the other arts of war'"
And Josephus says of Roman war
"nothing is done without plan or on the spur of the moment"
Also there is a whole chapter on the Romans using an intricate system of trumpet calls and standard signals to coordinate maneuver, something which requires extensive training to perfect.
I could go on.
I would humbly suggest Peter that it is you who,
>should have gotten your facts straight.
This is just speculation but I think that by peasant farmers you are referring to the Republican citizen legionaries. These soldiers used the maniple as their primary tactical unit not the cohort and predate the Marian reforms. IIRC the reforms attributed to Caius Marius led to a full time army because he paid his troops hence they could remain formed longer and did not have to disperse to their homes. Anyway I imagine Steve had in mind the early imperial cohorts ( with classic Lorica Segmentata, square shield & pillum ) of the post Augustan reforms who were definitely a professional force.
>>Well, yeah. I was talking archetypes.
>Stereotypes is the word you want, not archetypes.
Can someone please send me the post where the Glorantha Digest became the Nit-picking Pedant digest as I seem not to have got that one. :-)
Peter again
>>Nothing. I was commenting that calling them Celtic warbands
>>tells us very little about their troop types. Do they use
>>chariots? Shieldwalls? Do they have Beserkers? Merely uttering
>>'Celtic warband' tells us _little_.
A warband is a quite commonly used term in wargames circles in WRG's De Bellis Multitudinis it is defined as 'all irregular foot that rely on an impetuous and ferocious collective charge to sweep away enemy foot, rather than on individual skill. The Celtic warbands (Gauls and ancient Britons etc.) are classed as 'Fast' which means 'fighting in a loose formation emphasizing speed in the charge'. I don't expect you to have known this but its probably what Steve meant by Celtic warbands. That one's not a moan just a suggestion.
>>Well, thanks Peter. Now I'm clear on that. Why are you being so snide?
>I'm not. I'm just pointing out that you have cobbled together
>a mishmash of facts, opinions and erroneous statements in an
>unsatisfactory manner.
I wasn't aware mailing lists were supposed to be some sort of a literary competition I thought they were a group of individuals swapping ideas about a common interest. I think that English grammar is a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance as our colonial cousins so eloquently prove. :-)
To round up sorry Peter if this has turned into a personal attack, IMO you have a lot of good ideas but I for one would prefer to see them expressed in a less pontificating style.
>I fail to see how I can make this any less unpleasant.
I think you should think about this one quite hard.
Trevor
Powered by hypermail