Alex that shall be known as Alex:
>This is the distinction I was referring to as (perhaps too loosely)
>as 'Greek vs. Macedonian'. However, I'm not clear what you're
>saying about Dara Happa vs. Pelanda in such respects: are/were
>Pelandan phalanxes of what you call the 'lighter' formation, or of
>the heavier type?
Nope, the Pelandans would definately be heavier to begin with. Their material advantage would have been made up slowly, so given time a DH and Pelandan phalanx would have been similarly equipped, but initially, the Pelandans were the heavy inf of the day. The DH phalanx would be medium infantry in comparison.
>My money is on the Pelandans (or maybe the Darsenites, if you want to be
>_really_ picky...) were the 'inventors' of the sarissa and the associated
>tactics, which the above DH formations having 'borrowed' it, but I'm
>not saying how much money that actually is..
I would say that the Pelandans are still hoplites. The Sarissa is a great weapon to a point (sorry) but is poor in small numbers. Its a kind of critical mass weapon. Small tactical bodies do not do well with the Sarissa or any large pike as they are too vulnerable to missile fire and flanking. Where the pike formation wins in with the weight of its push against the enemy opposing mass. The sarissa is therefore a development of the drive to defeat the opposing mass of the enemy infantry BUT also has great cavalry retarding powers too. Given that the Pelandans were top in hoplite warfare and were only partly matched by the DHs until the dawn, it seems unlikely that the next evolutionary step would have come from them. I wonder if Saird was actually the source of the Sarissa. It has interesting Macedonia parallels to the Greek (DH) city states.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail