> 3-5 days travel from the Rathori forests and it seems clear that they
could
> have a strong force responding to a raid within eight days or its
appearance.
> I find it hard to believe that the Rathori have never been caught and
forced
> into battle. It makes no sense.
>
I don't see why not. Using the Roman analogy, the Avars, Huns, Goths,
Germans, etc throughout the Roman era ('s; including the Imperial and later
East/West Roman Empires) all succesfully and consistently raided even
relatively heavily garrisoned areas such as Gaul with, if not impunity,
enough frequency to indicate that they weren't terribly afraid of the
garrisons. And the Romans, as a society, were a heck of a lot better
organized in terms of homogeneity and communication than the Upper Janubian
hinterlands.
Plus, to posit regular raids, you have to first assume a fairly high level
of population in the Janubian Marches to be victimized (for lack of a better
term) which I don't think is the case at all. Granted, there are farming
communities around the cities (there must be) but I don't think there's a
great deal beyond that.
In any case, why would they stick around even four days? Let's assume I'm
a particularly audacious raider. I might (to maximise my target area and
thus minimize the garrison density) allow that my raiders will move as
quickly as possible the first night (or even day, if the population is
sparse enough) and the next late afternoon, striking at dusk as deeply as
possible (also assuming that these communities will be less prepared,
typically, and probably wealthier) in "enemy" territory.
This means that I maximise my oppportunities for escape - by having it night
by the end of the raid - and assuming I'm roughly 2 day's travel from the
nearest large city, it's going to be 2 days for word of what I did to get to
the garrison and 2 days for them to get to the location of the raid. 4
days, as you said. Of course, moving as fast as possible and NOT then
sticking to night travel, I've been in my 'safe area' for probably at least
2 and a half days.
This also presumes that I'm not really aggressive, and don't set a nasty ambush for any guard trying pell mell to run me down. Further, the guard commander CANNOT assume that THIS raid is to be dealt with to the exclusion of others - he has to decide to keep at least 2/3 of his ready forces in reserve, in case a second raid follows elsewhere immediately or this is a ruse.
I just think that there is a band, roughly 2-3 days travel from the Rathori woods, that is sparsely populated, against which the Rathori raid. I personally doubt they've been caught, except for amazing luck for the defenders or stupidity by the Rathori - either IS of course possible.
> I do not believe that the
> >people of upper Janubia are capable of maintaining a "quick
> >reaction and warning system", much as though they would like to.
>
> I don't believe that they wouldn't. Even frontiersmen in the wild west
> developed a sense of small town community enough to have a response
ability.
> Its normal for frontier people to learn how to defend themselves in this
way.
Yes, they try to but CAN they, effectively? I think the American West analogy is badly flawed. The only groups against which they had to defend were typically small groups of bandits, not barbarian raids. I think the better analogy would be the coastal towns of Anglo-Saxon England. They were raided routinely, but were basically NEVER able to develop a defense short of massive fortifications - certainly not a quick-response force - that worked against the Vikings. In fact, the whole thing only really ended when the Vikings decided to stay, and stop being raiders.
In a sense, it's simple math. A band of 100 raiders strikes a town of 500. Of these 500, probably 2/3 are either old, women (not impossible that they'd fight, but historically we don't have a lot of evidence for this* so let's assume not), or children. So you're left with 175 men or so, vs. 100 raiders. Of the 175, few or NONE would be professional fighters - otherwise they'd be in an army somewhere and not on a farm or monastery (a particularly attractive target for the Vikings - maybe for the Rathori too?). Of the 100 raiders, almost all would be hardened veterans, organized, usually with the element of surprise. 1.75:1? With those factors working in their favor, I'd bet on the raiders. They ransack the town, chase away the inhabitants (far more common, and pragmatic, than killing them - if you kill them, whom are you going to raid next year?) and take anything of value.
> >conquered many foes. If Elves can survive raiding the CharUn
> >on the Steppes, then the Rathori should too.
>
> I suppose I could point out that no foot army ever successfully penetrated
> the steppe in the RW. I guess elves just blend in...
I find this unlikely, despite what the Genertela book says. Why would ANYONE bother to raid nomads? Sure, you can burn their yurts, but everything they own is mobile, so the wealth basically runs away. Especially if the attackers are on foot. (As a counterpoint to the above, I'd disagree: lots of people penetrated the steppes in RW - they were all other nomads.)
[snip a bunch of stuff I agree with - I just don't see anyone wasting their time raiding nomads. I can see them wanting to kill nomads and attacking for this purpose, but the cost/benefit of raiding nomads just doesn't add up to me (actually, I can't even see that - nomads and elves probably would totally agree that Farmers are their common enemy/prey. They are totally NOT in competition with one another, but maybe I'm too Toynbeean.])
Thanks too for the info about the Gers. I didn't know that.
> ------------------------------
And, further on....
> Subject: Rathori
>
> >>I concur that they would prefer hit and run to a degree but would
> >>contend that the Longbow is NOT the weapon to dothis with.
>
> Why not? It is no more or less bulky than a stout spear (lighter, but
> then you carry along a quiver, too). Especially if you hit first, run
> then (the other way around is less effective, since it is harder to find
> the necessary calm after running, think biathlon).
It's a lot less bulky, actually, even considering the quiver IMO, when thinking of some of the real war spears I've seen. But the longbow was used as a hit & run weapon to some degree by the Welsh. I don't know if the fact that they couldn't really carry off any hit & run tactics successfully outside of Wales was because of the weapon, the Welsh, or other circumstances. But I just have the hardest time imagining skirmishing with a longbow. I don't know why, and am perfectly willing to accept it's a failure of my imagination. But at a visceral level, I'm inclined to agree that the longbow isn't a skirmish weapon. The shortbow yes - a couple hundred years of Amerind history proves that. But the longbow? I dunno...
>
> >>The tactical use of the longbow by the Rathori would seen to be a
> >>reaction to the heavy armour of their oft mounted foes in the
> >>Janube valley.
>
> I doubt it. Any decent self bow has the draw weight and approximate
> length of a shorter hunting longbow. A stick with draw weight of 50 to
> 80 lbs is sufficient to hit any prey in forested territory, and to shoot
> clout-style (i.e. at 165 meters, with about 30 to 40 degrees release
> elevation) at clusters of enemies. A good hit with one of these will be
> able to give a bear serious chest trouble at 20 to 40 meters (though not
> immediately lethal unless you "impale" or "critical", and even then
> immediately lethal with a bear can mean within a couple of minutes). I
> think these uses sum up Rathori bow application.
>
Maybe we could short-circuit this discussion by noting that the Rathori *may* (just a suggestion here) be burlier than your average hsunchen, and maybe are using self bows with pulls in the 100-120 lbs range. That would scare anyone, armor or no. They handle them as a shortbow, but by any standard their performance = RW longbows?
> Peter:
> > Erigia is not a civilized land and Janubia/Arrolia is so sparsely
> > populated that it lacks the population to prevent the Rathori from
> > making a career as raiders.
>
> That's post-Ban Janubia. Pre-Ban Janubia did welcome settlers, but
> hardly was uninhabited - I find the situation very similar to the German
> Holy Roman Empire's east colonisation into Slavic territory, with the
> Rathori quite similar to Slavic or Baltic tribes made landless by German
> settlers.
>
I'd suggest a better parallel with the Roman attempts to settle the Balkans.
Powered by hypermail