Lunars vs. Romans

From: Nick Brooke (Nick_Brooke@btinternet.com)
Date: Fri 07 Apr 2000 - 10:55:25 EEST


It is a Generally Accepted Pseudo-Gloranthan Truth (one of the things both
Greg and Sandy would agree to, I believe) that the Lunar Army (with magic)
is better than the Roman Army, and that the Lunar Army (without magic) is
worse. So the Lunars aren't better than the Romans.

I would add that IMO the weapon mix for Pelorians in the Genertelan Players'
Book is lazy and wrong: the typical Lunar infantryman simply ain't a Roman
legionary (with pilum and gladius). Roll back to Hellenistic or Classical
Greek if you want a look at what's going
on.

The Greek 'kopis' sword used as a sidearm by hoplites is kinda betwixt and
between a shortsword and a scimitar (look at a piccy some time), so I don't
have problems with Lunar hoplites carrying a scimitar for use in
emergencies. The primary offensive weapon of the hoplite is his spear, not
his scimitar. He uses the scimitar when something has gone horribly wrong.
(NB: that great big shield he carries is also important as a secondary
offensive weapon, useful for slamming opponents aside and inflicting broken
bones).

It is unusual IMO for a Lunar Army unit to use scimitars as its primary
weapon in massed combat, although some cases are known (these include the
famous Steel Swords Legion, an all-Yanafali elite force who fight en masse
using iron scimitars and look really cool on the battlefield). But Yanafali
officers would almost always carry a scimitar, as a matter of honour and a
symbol of their rank. A Yanafali without a scimitar is only slightly more
common than a Humakti without a sword.

:::: Email: <mailto:Nick_Brooke@btinternet.com>
Nick
:::: Website: <http://www.btinternet.com/~Nick_Brooke/>

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:14:55 EEST