>Me> To be heavy infantry,
> > one has to have expensive weapons and armour to survive (whereas
> > the lights can do with slings and other cheap weapons) and most
> > infantry provided their own equipment. Ergo the heavy infantry has
> > better status, expertise and professionalism than the light infantry
> > does.
>Not really
>IMHO
>for instance it was the state-towns in the greek period (Sparta,
>Athen, etc..) which gave the holpites armours and swords to have a
>very heavilly armoured infantry.
The hoplites (in Athens at least) were drawn from a class with a property qualification and provided their own armour and weapons. The peltasts and skirmishers came from a poorer class (which had no property qualification).
The Roman legions used to provide their own arms until Marius started enlisting proles. Even after that time, the legionary had more status and better equipment than the auxiliary (simply because their gear was more expensive).
Oh, to put it on relevancy for the list: the Pelandans follow the Greek method while the Dara Happans follow a psuedo-roman parallel.
>In the romanan period the veterans were always in second line
>(reserve) and so not necessarily more heavilly equiped but I would
>say very well equipped (better arnours but light)
I do not consider the veterans of a legion to be light infantry. That description fits the auxiliaries better (Baleriac Slingers etc).
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail