From: Alex Ferguson (abf@cs.ucc.ie)
Date: Thu 13 Apr 2000 - 01:14:15 EEST
Mikko Rintasaari:
> Dragon Pass left me feeling that phalanx warfare is a speciality of the
> Yelmalio cult and community (and of the older traditions they are built
> on).
> I don't like having phalanx warfare be a common thing, as it would be if
> it were the common strong arm of the Red Moon Empire.
This seems an odd statement if you Take As Your Text DP, which has
> I think the heavy infantry of the Army fight using cohort tactics, of
Without knowing what sort of lunar unit you're suggesting this for
In a pitch battle, I don't think any unit smaller than a regiment/
> The place for the greek/macedonian model warfare is the purely solar
Like for example, Dara Happa...
> Ah, and here's another thing. The great big roman legionaire shields vere
And what have we learned from this today, class?
Cheers,
------------------------------
Phalanx This and Phalanx That, left right and centre. Though it's
also clear that the army is a lot less phalanx dominated than a
Macedonian one would be.
> which unfortunately very little is known today. What is known is that the
> cohorts vere much smaller, more mobile units, than phalanxes, and that
> they trained in very complex manouvers. For instances front cohort could
> double the spaces between men, letting pilum throwers advance to the
> front, let fly and retreat through the cohort, which neatly closed up
> again to stand up to the enemy charge... and so on.
(surely not the phalanxes...), or which of the unknown tactics you
suggest as a model (surely not pilum-chucking...), it's hard to make
a detailed reply to this. I predict you'll get widely vilified
for being 'too Roman', though. ;-)
phalanx is supposed to be meaninfully 'operationally independent'.
Not the heavy infantry, at any rate. So I don't think there's
really a strong analogy with the cohort model. A lunar/dara happan
(or Pelandan) phalanx may be somewhat more flexibly organised
in some respects (certainly I see them being deployed in 'police
actions' by the square/century or so), but not really a whole lot.
Where the army as a whole is more flexible is having a wider mix of
forces, which given a skilled general can be a very great strength,
but equally could be a recipe for disaster if not done right.
> cultures.
> great for holding the line and shielding the unit. But... If the enemy
> charge could break the lines and a general melee ensued then a huge shield
> is a deadly hinderance. Try it some day... in a free melee you really
> don't want anything bigger than a target shield.
<in unison> Don't let the enemy break the line, sir!
Very good...
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:16:17 EEST