Me:
>??? Where on earth do you get that idea? You are plainly supposing that I
>view the military sphere as distinct from the magical one.
David
> Not necessarily.
> While meant to be reassuring, it just leaves me thinking...
Me:
>Far from it. The
>military and magical spheres are linked utterly. One cannot think army
>without thinking magic. One cannot think battle without thinking heroquest
>and ritual. In Glorantha these things are utterly interlinked.
David
> ...but what I was asking for is for them not to linked - to have
>heroquest without battles
Like an Erissa quest or a Yestendos quest? No problem with that.
>(conflict, sure, but not large scale conflict),
>magic without armies, being a major element of any major Pelorian power
>stuggle.
That can happen, yes.
>This is far more the norm than armies clashing in Peloria. Label
>it 'commando style action by small elite units' if you wish to try and fit
>it into your military worldview, but I don't think that really captures
>much of the feel of whats going on - a lot of heroquesting has rather
>subtler effects than that, and doesn't involve direct engagement with the
>opposition.
In war, the fact that a worker in a factory never sees the enemy or even understands what the war is about has no impact on the definition of his role in the conflict. He is part of the grand strategic actions of the nation or group of federation he is represented by. A magical ritual, used to strength crops is a strategic asset. It gives food, which feeds the base population, which enhances the logistical attributes of the nation. On a magical level, the cumulative rituals of the priests for the blessing of the Emperor empower him with magics that are used for strategic purposes. Their low level worship is also a strategic asset. All of these things are interlinked. When I discuss military action, it is not distinct from non military action, because all actions that a state performs, whether military or not are directly related to its strategic function and goals.
>In fact, in the Lunar conception, surely a major reason for the
>Dart Competition system is to enable conflict between nobility without the
>use of armies?
Yes and no. True, the collatoral damage is lowered and as a strategic tool of policy this has the effect of decreasing the costs of military action for the Empire as a whole. However, there are other reasons too. The use of Dart Competition (DC) forces is the development of high tempo warfare in a magical world because the Empire is geared to afford this. Unlike an army, the DC is rapid and moves over distance with great speed. Unlike an army, they are slowed little by conventional fortifications. Unlike an army they need small amounts of logistical support. In effect they fulfil a special ops role we see typically in select rapid response forces in the RW.
What effect does this have on doctrine? IMO the deployment of these forces is used with strategic targets in mind. The strategic targets being the policy makers rather than the infrastructure of the state, which one would normally associate with the strategic level of conflict.
Hence, the DC attacks the C3 of the enemy (command control and communication) rather than the army. The army is irrelevant at this level of opertations. An army is useless except to fight other armies and so is not deployed until the various factions have stepped their level of conflict up a notch, to include operational action.
Beyond the interdiction of their C3, the next stage of war is the conquest of territory. Territory is a strategic asset. The conquest and subjugation of such territory allows the use of its recources, including wealth, raw materials and manpower as well as denying it to the enemy and allowing the projection of power into other regions previously not affected.
At this stage of conflict, the use of spec ops forces is limited. A dozen heroes might kill an army but the same dozen men cannot occupy a region and make it productive and hold down rebellious acts. This takes an army. Ground occupation requires troops. The paradigm of war shifts when this occupation is required by the policy makers.
>Again, its a difference between the Lunars and the Dara
>Happans, and a deliberate policy of the Lunars/Moonson to stop armies
>acting in the Heartland.
As stated above, this would change rapidly if the tempo of operations increased and the use of dislocative tactics began (military dislocation being defined as the use of our strength against enemy weakness, bypassing their strengths). If I am a noble without the means to build a strong DC force, but I had a large army at my disposal, I would use that army to occupy your territory, reducing your support, taking your revenues and killing your folowers. Such a tactic would weaken the support structure that your spec ops forces rely on. Such elites do not come without a price. In the end, as long as I kept my C3 moving or hidden, I might be able to destroy your strategic assets or seize them long enough to deny you your comparative advantage in DC forces.
The reason, David, why armies do not wander the Heartlands is simple, there is no military requirement to do so, in fact there is a cost to such displays of operational power. Policy precludes armed might as armed might is relative and should the Empire turn against he who uses it, then they are hooped. Should that situation change, then the use of armies will be as Lunar as DH.
>In a post-Moonson era, the system might break down, and we might
>see a real civil war - but its not the usual process, and it will be
>regarded as a real disaster by many in the Empire. I certainly don't think
>military action is usually a part of the succession process.
Agreed!
The Empires current political climate precludes it.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail