Aha, I get you now. I was reading the emphasis on the FOOT, you were
putting it on the ARMY?
So can everyone at least agree that the Rathori are never mounted?
> ------------------------------
>
And then further on:
> >Why would
> >ANYONE bother to raid nomads?
> Horseflesh, reprisals, weapons, leather goods etc.
>
> >Sure, you can burn their yurts, but
> >everything they own is mobile, so the wealth basically runs away.
> The stuff in the yurts will not run away but has to be packed away.
But wait, just to use your examples, horseflesh - that would be running away self evidently. Reprisals - ok that makes sense. Weapons, well, they'd be being used. I can't think of a less efficient way to get a weapon than to try to rip it out of a warrior's hand? Leather goods...seriously? The Rathori would leave the forest full of animals to go onto the steppe - totally out of their natural environment, and a region second only to a desert in lowest animal population per hectare (ok, third after arctic and desert) - to get Leather goods? That's pretty silly.
I am not saying that it's impossible that they raid the Char Un, just that if the Rathori are like the RW barbarians described in Caesar's Gallic Wars etc, they are opportunists. They will raid when circumstances FORCE them to recognize that the risk of death in a raid is either worth the potential gain, or the risk of death by not raiding (say, starvation) is higher. I'm just convinced that the relative opportunity cost of a raid on nomads makes it NOT worthwhile. Nomads in general are usually pretty darn poor, and usually tough. Why raid a tough poor person? That seems not to be a Darwinistically positive move.
> >Even if the Rathori did defeat a yurt, they would have a hell of a job
> >getting out with theirr loot, especially as they can't ride the horses
and
> >the horses would not want to go with them and would resist.
>
> Horses are not the only loot in a yurt.
They're the only wealth that couldn't be easily tossed onto a horse and
ridden away.
You don't have to pack up the tent to run away with the money, and if the
money's gone, why risk your skin (as a raider) to grab an empty tent?
> >If the Char Un use them for food, and most of the hoofprints represent
> >beasts sans riders, doesn't that mean that they'd have LOTS of remounts?
>
> No, for the simple reason that most horses are unfit for riding, just
> like most trollkin are unfit for warrior duties.
Totally, utterly disagree. Completely. Worked 2 years (summers) as a
rancher in Montana/Wyoming, very frequently had to deal with wild mustang
herds. I would expect that a horse herd is a horse herd. These were wild
mustangs that had never been broken or human-trained. Most of these horses
were NOT unfit for riding, and in fact could be broken (by a skilled rider,
which I think we can agree the Char Un are) without too much difficulty from
their wild state. Putting a saddle and bridle on is another matter
entirely.
In these herds, yes, some horses would not make satisfactory mounts, but the
HUGE majority - say 9 out of every 10 - were perfectly fine, health beasts.
And if you equate the Char Un herds more like Native American herds, where the herd was semi-tame by constant human contact with their "owners", then it would be a breeze.
Powered by hypermail