I really have to say that I think you are streching it too far. You seem to want to make a military virtue out of a lack of sub-unit organisation, sub-unit leadership and sub-unit drill. As far as we know at the moment (and this could all change in the up coming publications) the Heortlings lack these things in the fyrd.
Don't confuse an amorphous blob with something that has flexibility and adaptability. Being equally bad in all situations is not the same as being equally good.
I'm also not sure what later post you refer to.
> See Trotsky in # 149 for 'properly drilled'. The appropriate tactic would
> then be to fight where the drilled force cannot use its strengths.
And the drilled force may not agree to fight there. You're confusing the competing strategies of the leaders with the tactical capabilities of the troops.
> My brothers & I trained as a brawling unit by brawling, both amongst
> ourselves & with others. We were a unit because 1)we were kin & 2)we were
> intimately familiar with each other's style. The O/i train to fight the
> same way. Its part of what they are not an add on of political neccessity
> as it is for 20C nation states.
Sorry, no. Brawling together in the same room does not a unit make, no matter how many times you do it. Being a *unit* requires a little more than that.
> >The question is quite simple. Arrange equal (large) numbers of Lunar
> >regulars and Fyrd/weaponthanes in a (reasonably) open field, for a set
> >piece battle. Who do you expect to win? Why?
> >
> >My answers are: The Lunars. Because they have far superior unit training
> >and discipline.
>
> Arrange equal numbers of Bricklayers & Plumbers on an open field & engage
> them in a wall building contest.
Except in our case we have two groups of fighting troops, not something as different as in your (rather frivolous) example.
> >Who do you expect to win? Why?
> Of course the Lunars stand a better chance the Orlanthi are fighting their
> battle. To do so qualifies them for Terminally Stupid 4w2 or Desperate 4W3.
You might think so, but there seem to have been a few battles like that. So how many Saratar princes had this trait?
It's easy to say the losers in any fight were stupid to take part.
> >If the Orlanthi leader can get the Lunars into broken terrain *and* break
> >up the unit integrity than the Orlanthi have a much better chance. *But*
> >the Lunars can get to enough settlements without this happening. Why do
> >you think the Lunars conquered Sartar and Tarsh and have an empire?
>
> Like the Crusaders took the Holy Land. The war ain't over yet. See also
> more reasoned replys from Mikko & Olli in #149.
Part of the reason the Holy Lands were lost was that the Christians never mustered an army the size of the First Crusade forces ever again. Remember that most of the crusaders went home, they didn't stay. While the Lunars wouldn't leave as big a garrison force as the invasion force they would have amuch easier time reassembling a large force. So I don't think this is a good analogy.
> And the Germans. Whilst the german religion may have provided economic &
> social benefits it did not provide the direct & immanent power G gods do.
Niether did the Roman
> The O/i advantage lies in the fact that the centers of this power are
> dispersed into the very areas that make formed unit tactics so difficult.
The Germans didn't need it, because their opponents didn't have it either. Again we're straying in to strategy and away from tactics. And this would only apply to liberating Sartar anyway. It wouldn't apply to Sartar attacking Lunar territory.
> >Yes, Hastings was lost by the superiority of the new over the old. What
> >lost it was the fyrd. They are what broke, half early, half later. The
> >knights couldn't break the carls. It wasn't the mounted technology that
> >beat the fyrd (except that it enabled the Normans to run away quickly when
> >they needed it) but their own lack of discipline.
> >
> >Saying that they beat someone so had 'discipline' against that enemy is
> >nonsense. *Maybe* they had the same *relative* discipline, but that's
> >all. I wouldn't put the French army at Agincourt in the same box as the
> >Norman army at Hastings. Same basic technology, but same discipline? Do
> >you really think the French were capable of the feigned retreat William
> >used to break the second half of the Fyrd? I don't think so. And
> >interestingly it was arrows that won Agincourt and arrows that killed
> >Harold.
>
> 1) Being mounted provides a faster response to breaks in the Fyrd. A
> circumstance the Fyrdmen were not trained or exposed (& so diciplined)to
> deal with.
> 2)AFAIR Bows were not big in A/S warfare until 1066. Thus the Fyrd was not
> trained or diciplined to stand under arrow fire for 8 hours.
One wing broke long before that.
> 3) The French Knights were unused to peasants being of any military value
> thus the peasant bowmen could pose little threat. Not a failure of
> dicipline but a failure of imagination.
> In both cases, I'd say, the forces were diciplined to deal with the
> technologies & therefore the tactics with which they were familiar.
Discipline and training to deal with a situation are two different things. Discipline often is only apparent when the unexpected arises. If things go to plan and are what the troops expect then your discipline is not put under the scrutiny it is when things don't go to plan. It's when the unepected is encoutnered that discipline is put under heat. Some troops come through, some don't. Here's another question: Are the Lunars or the Heortlings better able to cope with the unexpected at the unit or sub-unit level (and this is a different question to asking whether they are equipped at the army leader level)? I would say the answer is again the Lunars.
Oh, and everything I've been talking about is pre-Argrath.
Michael
End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #153
Powered by hypermail