> The West knows (and IMO rejects) one of the best infantries in
>Glorantha, the brithini horali. They just know that no matter how good it
>seems, it is an obsolete concept, even if it has some merit.
The West can't adopt Horali tactics simply because their men will grow old and die before they complete their training.
> The legion, at the time of the Punic Wars, was organized in the
>greek style, with hoplites with long lances and peltasts with javelins.
They were originally hoplites and peltasts but they had changed to the legions _by_ the time of the Punic Wars. That said, the romans _did_ decide to drop their maniple tactices to fight phalanx-style in at least one battle in the Punic Wars but that was Cannae and with such a precedent, I doubt they ever attempted it again.
>In the East,
>even the spiculum had a too limited range against bow cavalry, so the
>mastobarbulus (sic) was introduced, a twenty centimeters dart weighed with
>lead, carried clipped to the inside of the shield, in bunches of five.
This is where the confusion came in. Dart normally means something thrown in the pubs to me. Furthermore most of my sources focus on Republican Rome, the Julio-Claudians or Classical Greece and hence don't mention it.
Powered by hypermail