The second steps up

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_voyager.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:46:19 +1300 (NZDT)


Trevor Browne:

Me>>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?

To quote Nick, I don't suffer Arseholes gladly. Steve Lieb has accused me of lying whilst indulging in SHOUTING and other flammage inducing behaviour. I do find it strange that you have completely ignored Steve's attacks in order to criticize me. I would suggest in future that you should wish to give a facade of impartiality, that you be prepared to criticize both sides.

>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 .

True. Most of them are however phalanx, peltasts, cavalry etc. That is clear in the literature. If Steve wishes to change this for his campaign, he is welcome to do so but he is not free from being told that he is wrong when he is giving a factual rundown of gloranthan armies in existance.

>I think that dismissing Steve's perfectly valid point as rubbish is
>deliberately antagonistic.

I fail to see how I can make my strong disapproval of the allegedly "perfectly valid point" any less antagonistic. Perhaps you could front up with a few suggestions? And I did immediately follow it up with a valid criticism of why I thought it was "rubbish". Steve chose to misrepresent this and used the misrepresentation to claim I was being deliberately misleading. That is a far more deliberately antagonistic behaviour than I have done.

Me>>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 [sniped];

None of these source quotations say however that the Roman Cohort _requires_ "extraordinary amount of training, professionalism, execution, and leadership at every single level of command" for successful execution. OTOH I have pointed out that the Roman citizen farmers period indicates that such supposed essentials were not in fact _necessary_. Could you at least debate the arguement in question?

>I would humbly suggest Peter that it is you who,

>>should have gotten your facts straight.

I would humbly suggest you go back to remedial reading school. Hmm. I think the usage of humbly is deliberately antagonistic, don't you?

>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.

But the maniple system of combat was even more elaborate than the cohort because the maniple lines were supposed to engage the enemy and then retreat through the ranks behind them! Thus one cannot use this nitpick to prove that cohorts require "extraordinary amounts of training etc".

>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.

Pay was introduced traditionally in 406 BC. What Marius did was to recruit the unpropertied Proles to avert a shortage of manpower.

>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.

It's all very well of you to mindread Steve, but Cohort style warfare is not restricted to those parallels. He is wrong when he claims it requires "extraordinary amounts of training etc." as it was practiced by part-time citizen-farmers and not fulltime professionals.

>> 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.

Steve seemed to think the warband meant its members were "typically individually brave". So is a warband marked by the Individual Warrior or the Collective Charge?

SL>>>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.

But when someone asserts statements that are plain wrong, classifies armies according to terms that have more than one meaning to different people and changes the criteria from army to army, I do believe that it is necessary to point out that he is muddying the waters rather than clarifying them. And to support my observations, I do need to point out where he is straying.

>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'm impressed. You attempt to politely criticize someone and end up being all too aware that you have just written an extended personal attack. Yet I had criticized Steve more extensively and in spite of being shouted at and accused of deliberate misrepresentation, the most you can criticize me for in stylistic terms is mere pontification. Perhaps you put more thought into deciding whether attacking someone for their posting style is going to be a positive contribution to the heat/light ratio on the digest.

>>I fail to see how I can make this any less unpleasant.

>I think you should think about this one quite hard.

Your lack of suggestions and copping out is duely noted.

End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #257


Powered by hypermail