Re: Dragonrise arc

From: Chris Lemens <chrislemens_at_...>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:40:49 -0700 (PDT)

Jane:

> I'd also assumed that anything non-British English-speakers know about history before their own history started
> would be from a British base, since that's where their ancestors would have been from. Not true?

Definitely not true here. History comes in three flavors in high school:

1.    2 years of world history, starting with cavemen and ending somewhere between WWII and the fall of the Berlin wall.
2.    1 year of American history, starting with conquistadors, but without any European context
3.    An optional year of European history, which most people avoid like the plague because it's taught only as a college-level course by a teacher who really looooves history.

Nowhere do we get British history, unless you take it in college. Even then, the history departments encourage specialization. I have a history degree and never took any British history as such, because I specialized in economic history. So, while I can talk endlessly about the effect of the black plague on rural-urban terms of trade, the processes by which commons came under the control of individual landlords, etc., I have to look it up on wikipedia to remember the difference between the English Revolution and the Glorious Revolution. I hope I got those names right.

Donald, responding to Jane on that point:
> From what I've seen and heard general knowledge of US history start
> with the Pilgrim Fathers. There wasn't anything before that.

Correct. America formed from an empty, lightless void of history. It was like the big bang, or divine creation -- take your pick.

> In any case those with a British ancestry aren't anywhere near the majority.

That's one of the political reasons why our textbooks start where they do. Historically, it was because of a desire for assimilation. When teaching history in Boston, do your history books take the side of the English or the Irish? Best ignore all that stuff and teach the immigrants about George Washington. Now, there are different politically driving factors, plus tradition.

Jane, responding to Jeorg:
> > The majority of Fazzur's command (as I envision it) are medium cavalry
> > similar to that of the city confederation militias of Sartar,
>
> (blinks) Cavalry? You see Sartarites as having that much cavalry, too?

That was my reaction, too. I see the clan's and tribe's weaponthanes having horses, which they mainly use for patrol. I don't really see them fighting from horseback. They'd be dismounted, in the front of the shieldwall.

Donald:
> I see peltasts as the most truly Lunar of all units in the army.
> Being both effective skirmishers and capable close order spears
> is unique to the Lunar way. One big problem - there aren't anything
> like enough of them so other less suitable units have to substitute.

I concur with this, except that I think the spears are javelins for a substantial number, probably depending on local tradition. I also agree with whoever said that the garrison troops are likely to be hoplites. In the field, they'd use pikes. On garrison duty, they'd have shield and short sword, much like the Roman legions. Since they are the heaviest infantry available, you would put them in places where they need to out-muscle the opponent head to head.

Jane:
> But we still have this Lunar saying the hoplite is the true soldier. Still, he's a hoplite himself...

Yeah, the snobbery of a well-drilled close-formation soldier over someone whose job is to skirmish, then retire to the side of the real fight, until the phalanx breaks the enemy.

Chris Lemens

Powered by hypermail