Frivolous Plumbers &.c.

From: darvall <madamx_at_ns2.mikka.net.au>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:28:44 +1100


 Michael Hitchens

>> >Cattle raids aren't stand up fights. <snip> They were mobs with some
>>>> >idea what they were doing.
>>

Me
>> & so with both organisation & leadership albeit fluid & de-facto.
>

Michael
><snip>You seem to want to make a military virtue out of a lack of sub-unit
>organisation, leadership sub-unit drill. <snip>
>
>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.

Not at all. Don't confuse, as you seem to, 19/20C western notions of combat & warfare with what other folk do. Our armies appoint leaders to men other methods exist & are equally effective within the limits of their technologies. No group which has lived in close & intimate contact for at least 14 years, which all O/i cattle raiding bands must do by virtue of their lifestyle, is going to be an amorphous blob. We're not talking urban rioters here these people know to the last drop the abilities & limitations of each member.

Me
>>The appropriate tactic would then be to fight where the drilled force
>>>>cannot use its strengths.

Michael
>And the drilled force may not agree to fight there.

Then you have to make it seem worth their while either by mis-direction or by presenting such a level of threat that they can't ignore it. At both these the Lunars far excel the O/i, as demonstrated by the enormous number of O/i cock-ups.

>You're confusing the competing strategies of the leaders with the tactical
>>capabilities of the troops.

The strategy is intimately depenent apon the tactical ability of the troops. Mis-employment of your fighting body heightens the chance of defeat.

>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.

Depends on what you're going to use the unit for. That was a particularly effective brawling unit (& melon picking & dam building & in many other co-operative activities). **NOTE WELL** I am not saying that the O/i train by brawling. They train their fighting (& rock moving & hunting & ploughing & stiklepick making etc etc ad nauseum) skills like this. ie. by using those skills with & on one another in the course of their lives. None of what they do is 'oh today I'll go off & do my whatsit training'. In the course of this natural leaders appear within their group, organic to it not imposed by a higher authority. These are the *chosen leaders* a priciple which will permeate the whole society & just as the Ernalda Gwyda leads crop blessing rituals or the Bartari ploughing rites so the best cattle raider *among that group* will lead the cattle raid. The society has a specific rule encouraging dicipline once the leader has been chosen as part of the core religion.

Me being aparently frivolous
>> Arrange equal numbers of Bricklayers & Plumbers on an open field &
>>>>engage them in a wall building contest.

Michael
>Except in our case we have two groups of fighting troops, not something as
>different as in your (rather frivolous) example.

Far from frivolous (ever had your plumbing blocked?) both are groups of tradesmen as comparible in their trades as Phalanx & Fyrd are in their style of combat. My point being that to line the two groups up head to head on ground that specificly favours one is a nonsense in trying to determine the better unit. To consider fighting divorced from season, weather , terrain, culture, strategy & technology is futile. This is why armies have always had specialist units.

Me
>> 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.

Michael
>You might think so, but there seem to have been a few battles like that.
>So how many Saratar princes had this trait?

Those who engaged in such guaranteed losses. Either terminally overconfident or manuvered into a position where they had to give battle or lose something which would make their position untenable. As it turns out their positions were never as untenable as they thought; but then thats hindsight. It is undoubted that Lunar generalship is (barring a few right drongos) of a higher standard.

>It's easy to say the losers in any fight were stupid to take part.

Yes it is; but to deliberatly commit your troops to a battle where you know you are attacking the enemy strength, such as frontal assault on a formed Phalanx, is a tactic of either stupidity or desperation, particularly when that Phalanx is at the end of an increasingly attenuated supply line.

Me
>> 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.

Michael
>The Germans didn't need it,

Non sequiter
The point being that the Romans could find & neutralise German power centers far more easily than than the Lunars can the O/i power centers. Thus the Legions could force the Germans to battle on ground of Roman choosing with greater ease than the Lunars *should* be able to force the O/i. The fact that they manage to bring the O/i to battle so often reflects poorly on the O/i generals (or whatever their equivalent is) but not on the training & tactics of the O/i in general.

>Discipline and training to deal with a situation are two different things.

Once again you miss the point. Dicipline is relative to technology, tactics & culture. 19C Infantry were diciplined to hold a tight formation regardless, 20C infantry were diciplined to spread their formations as far as practical given the terrain. This is both technological, due to an increase in the destructiveness of weaponry, & cultural, due to an increase in the value placed on the life of the individual soldier. A value relevent to the L-O/i conflict. The Lunar Phalanx stands to the end, providing the dicipline holds. The O/i break off & flee. The Lunars are proffessional soldiers recruited from those parts of society that are no loss in terms of production. Unemployed urban poor & a warrior caste aristocracy or auxiliary troops from without the core (DH) culture. The O/i have other productive roles in the society & so their loss hurts more. Far better to dicipline your troops to break off losing engagements into small kinship groups that will stay together as a result of their organic dicipline thus providing harder targets to pursuing forces. This dicipline is not accomplished on the drill square. Its a result of the lifestyle of the troops involved. It has evolved over generations of doing precisely this. **This does not mean it is not dicipline**. Indeed modern armies are increasingly trying to reproduce this flexible dicipline by giving the soldier more information & initiative & by greater application of Small Group Theory.

Darvall
madamx_at_mikka.net.au
>From quiet homes & first beginnings

Out to the undicovered ends
Theres nothing worth the wear of winning But laughter & the love of friends.
Hilare Belloc


End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #159


Powered by hypermail