Re: Glorantha digest, Vol 9 #302 - 3 msgs

From: Svechin_at_cs.com
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:49:51 EST

Terror quotes me:

> > TIM asked:

> > >Also I am interested in RW analogues for Carmanian war tactics esp wrt
> > >Cavalry tactics, armour etc. Could anyone help on this ?
>
> > Best period would be around 1150 Crusader states tactics mixed with a
> dollop of 14th & 15th century Burgundy under Charles the Bold (esp his
campaigns
> > against the Swiss), however due to the odd blend of stirrup wearing shock
> > cavalry mixed with actual hoplites, it is a bit difficult to put the
> > Carmanians into a direct RW analogy. The Carmanians also field
> Janissaries and city communal regiments of halberdeers and pikemen.
> >
> > Also it would help if you specified which period of Carmanian tactics you
> > were looking for, they have evolved a lot over the millenia or so they
> have been kicking around as a state.
> >
> > Books on Crusader tactics that are detailed yet a quick study would be:
> >
> > "Crusading Warfare 1097-1193" by R. C. Smail with the follow on to that
> work "Warfare in the Latin East 1192-1291" by Christopher Marshall both
> available from Cambridge or on Amazon.com.
> >
> > Verbruggen's "The Art of Warfare in Western Europe" is another excellent
> read with much information on infantry in a medieval period. The
Carmanians
> field a strong infantry. Verbruggen will show why only states with a
combined
> arms force were triumphant in the long run.
> >
> > Due to the influence of the Char-un on the Carmanians in the last 100
> years they also have a good comparison going for them with 13th century
Hungary.
> > The Osprey book "Hungary and the Fall of Eastern Europe" has some good
> info on a knightly culture interacting with the nomadic, though they
lacked a
> > large and well appointed infantry.
> >
> > Kelly Devries has a nice short book "Infantry Warfare in the Early
> > Fourtheenth Century" that has some great info on the Swiss and the
Catalan
> > Grand Company and how they defeated shock cavalry.
> >
> > I've an ongoing document on the Carmanian military which may see light of
> day
> > when I've finished working through their military evolution but it is a
> low
> > burn project when compared to the other things I am working on. Time!
Oh
> > for infinite time!
> >
> > Martin Laurie
> >

And then adds:   

> I don't intend to criticize Martin's idea about these analogies for I don't
> have ability to do so and I love his work.
> But...maybe I have vague misgivings that his Lunar is too Europeanized....
> Maybe.... Nick Brooke can help Martin greatly about the topic.

Terror, you really have to get over the hang-up about "Europeanization" of every topic, you are looking for bias when there is none and missing the point as a result. My use of crusade state analogy for the Carmanians has nothing whatsoever to do with a European bias, I have spent a small fortune on books on Asian military history and am fascinated by it (Eurasian military history is a spectrum not divisible into parts or places, they all impact on one another).

However, you have to look at the facts when coming up with analogy. The Syranthiran army was a merc force from the west, our best religous and cultural analogy for them in the RW is Christianity of the early medieval period.

On the other hand, the Persians were a nomadic people who rose to prominence after the defeat of the Parthians, also a nomadic people who rose to dominate the post Seleucid Iranian region. The Geopolitiks of Iran is not like Pelanda. The Syranthiri were not nomadic culturally and though there are some excellent religious parallels that Nick put together with Zoroastran thought, militarily they are not the same at all. Trying to shoehorn Sassanian military tactics into Carmanian history does not work because they have very different origins.

In religious terms what Carmanos did was unify a pantheistic culture with some monotheistic beliefs to create Carmanian dualism (which is still in many ways pantheistic as they accept gods into their religions as long as they are 'good'). Militarily the Carmanians were a fusion of Pelandan concepts with western ones. ie strong infantry and a powerful shock cavalry. The Sassanians had no such parallel, their infantry was, as Procopius points out, "was nothing more than a crowd of pitiable peasants" and at Dara they were slaughtered, throwing down their shields once the Clibinari were defeated. They had heavy cavalry but little infantry and certainly no significant heavy infantry. This is quite the opposite of the Carmanians who have their own Janissaries as well as the Pelandan auxiliary forces, many of whom are Daxdarian elites on the model of the Spartans and the Theban Sacred Band. The Sassanians also had swarms of nomad style horse archers which the Carmanians clearly did not. If an 'eastern' analogy is still sought then the best might well be the Ottomans of the reign of Mehmet II around 1453, the fall of Constantinople (minus the artillery) as an example of the modern Carmanian army but even there the nomadic element would have to be expunged. The Ottomans do at least have a decent infantry. To go back further, the Seleucids also have an attraction for analogy but they have no stirrup shock cavalry and again are supported by many nomadic auxiliaries which the Carmanians were not and have never been.

So to recap, the choice of Carmanian military anaolgy (as we were asked for suitable analogies) I made has nothing to do with a bias but a lot to do with analysing the region they live in, the influences they have on them (enemies and terrain) and then evolving that through the many wars and campaigns we know about with regard to their history.

Perhaps you can see where I am coming from now TI?

Martin Laurie

--__--__--