cohorts

From: Mikko Rintasaari <rintasaa_at_mail.student.oulu.fi>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:22:03 +0300


> Mikko Rintasaari:
> > Dragon Pass left me feeling that phalanx warfare is a speciality of the
> > Yelmalio cult and community (and of the older traditions they are built
> > on).
> > I don't like having phalanx warfare be a common thing, as it would be if
> > it were the common strong arm of the Red Moon Empire.
>
> This seems an odd statement if you Take As Your Text DP, which has
> Phalanx This and Phalanx That, left right and centre. Though it's
> also clear that the army is a lot less phalanx dominated than a
> Macedonian one would be.
 

Oh I know what you mean but, the loose terminology aside, only the Yelmalians got the defencive bonus and staying power that real phalanxes generate.  

> > I think the heavy infantry of the Army fight using cohort tactics, of
> > which unfortunately very little is known today. What is known is that the
> > cohorts vere much smaller, more mobile units, than phalanxes, and that
> > they trained in very complex manouvers. For instances front cohort could
> > double the spaces between men, letting pilum throwers advance to the
> > front, let fly and retreat through the cohort, which neatly closed up
> > again to stand up to the enemy charge... and so on.
>
> Without knowing what sort of lunar unit you're suggesting this for
> (surely not the phalanxes...), or which of the unknown tactics you
> suggest as a model (surely not pilum-chucking...), it's hard to make
> a detailed reply to this. I predict you'll get widely vilified
> for being 'too Roman', though. ;-)

Oh don't get me started. I don't want the roman at all, I just like having the Lunar army more manouverable and flexible. I think a nice basic manouvering unit of the Red Armo would be a cohort of 70 men. Both for heavy infantry and auxia (apologies for the roman terminology). These units are of course trained to unite / separate / unite again as needs be.  

> In a pitch battle, I don't think any unit smaller than a regiment/
> phalanx is supposed to be meaninfully 'operationally independent'.

Indipendent, yet in close co-operation with others.

> Not the heavy infantry, at any rate. So I don't think there's
> really a strong analogy with the cohort model. A lunar/dara happan
> (or Pelandan) phalanx may be somewhat more flexibly organised
> in some respects (certainly I see them being deployed in 'police
> actions' by the square/century or so), but not really a whole lot.
> Where the army as a whole is more flexible is having a wider mix of
> forces, which given a skilled general can be a very great strength,
> but equally could be a recipe for disaster if not done right.
 

  :) oh yes (pro Orlanthi tendencies surficing)  

> > The place for the greek/macedonian model warfare is the purely solar
> > cultures.
>
> Like for example, Dara Happa...
 

Indeed. But I think most of the Dara Happan phalanxes aren't acually that deep, and are equipped with 1h-spear and shield, not the Sarissa. The Dara Happan phalanxes are heavily armored and fearsome though.  

> > Ah, and here's another thing. The great big roman legionaire shields vere
> > great for holding the line and shielding the unit. But... If the enemy
> > charge could break the lines and a general melee ensued then a huge shield
> > is a deadly hinderance. Try it some day... in a free melee you really
> > don't want anything bigger than a target shield.
>
> And what have we learned from this today, class?
> <in unison> Don't let the enemy break the line, sir!
> Very good...
>
> Cheers,
> Alex.

  =D hehe... that's the trick, ain't it

"Don't let those screaming blue men and this thunderstorm un-nerve you men. Hold the line."

        -Adept

"thinker, dreamer and aventurer"


Powered by hypermail