For these purposes, yes. Analogy. Not being used to determine social
structure of the Lunar Army at all, this is the 10-second view from the
outside.
"This guy who's turned up to take my cows as "tax", what's he look like?
"Like a Roman soldier, only with Moon runes on."
That picture doesn't tell us the interesting history of his regiment. It
tells us he's got heavy armour, a big shield, and a short sword. Oh, and a
lot of mates to back him up who are used to working in formation. So yes,
technology - sword, not rifle.
> I understand that technology is a factor in any continuum of
> analysis of a given military, but many social factors are pretty
> robust and transferable.
Sure, but now we're getting down to serious analysis, not the 10-second intro. Wrong list! :)
> For example, even putting the Garrison and Satrapal forces aside,
> the Lunar Army is a glorious and polyglot mix of forces.
Which is another reason why I think of it as Roman.
> If you want to look at the development of these factors, of
> individual regimental cultus, of military patronage and
> proprietorship, of territorial recruitment and its consequences, of
> the often curious mix and competition of public and private military
> enterprise, and of how a nascent 'standing army' might operate in a
> limited fiscal and bureaucratic system, then I can't think to hand
> of a better period that illustrates this than the late medieval and
> early modern. Add/mix in/replace with regimental cults, myths and
> magic to the concept, and you're off.
Sure, add all that in as well, once you're looking deeper. As we've said elsewhere, just one cliché/source is not going to be enough. But for the first-glance look at ana approaching enemy, "Roman" is the closest well-known image I can think of.
Powered by hypermail