From: alex (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Sun 19 Jun 1994 - 19:52:31 EEST
Lewis Jardine:
> S. Jones commented that the Greeks were not a Good model for Lunars,
> especially with regard to what their soldiers wore and their fighting style.
> I second this opinion and support the *well known* view that a Greek would
> rather fight with the but spike of his spear if iw was broken than use his
> sword. Their swords must have been awful!
Or their training very centred on their use of spears in close formation.
> I see the Greeks as a better
> model for Sun Dome Templars (Hoplite shield, bloody big spear and plate on
> exposed locations).
According to available info, the tactics and weaponry of the two is substantially similar.
> Obviously these heavy hoplite units need to be supported
> by lighter more mobile infanty (militia peltasts) and also missile troops
> (bow armed infantry and light cavalry),
This might be obvious, but it took the Greeks a long time to think it up. I think the Sun Domers rely fairly heavily on heavy infantry. Even militia units would generally be used in a similar role, since they are eqipped in the same way. The Sun Domers have no cavalry to speak of, though this isn't true for other Solar types.
> I do not see the SDers as using heavy cavalry
Indeed, not having any horses is a bit of a setback in this area.
> For the Lunars I would use Republican Romans with the three way mix of
> Hasta, Princeps and Triarii (have I got any of these right?) supported by
> Velites (peltasts) and other exotica. This gives the mixture of troop types
> which can be seen around the empire and underpins the flexibility of the Lunar
> military system.
I think that Lunar pike-using formations are actually very similar to Sun Dome/other Yelmic "hoplites", and don't represent a significant advance on that particular troop type. But I agree that where the Lunars have the advantage is in a greater and better mix of troops. (Not least using formations of magicians...) Many will be of obviously "ethnic" origin, from assorted provinces and allies.
> I am unconvinced about the ubiquity of the scimitar in the Lunar army.
> Sure all the Officers wear them, but can you imagine close order infantry
> using them?
Perhaps a smaller sidearm is more usual among the heavy infantry, such as the kopi someone suggested. I'd think a fair bit of the infantry do use scimitars, though, simply because pike formations are too specialised to form the overwhelming part of the infantry.
> I see expensive swords being used by cavalry and officers but
> not by rank and file close order infantry. Spears are much cheaper and more
> effective for close order troops. My idea about the lunars is that they
> are the first people in the region to combine infantry and heavy cavalry.
I don't think the Lunars have heavy cavalry. (This was Rome's weak spot, too.) With the odd exception like Lunarised animal riders, of course, and Carmanian "knights". Lots of light cavalry, certainly.
> Dara Happans had NO cavalry only chariots (both heavy and light).
> Yelmalians developed horse archers (or stole the idea from the Pentans) and
> also used to use light chariots (ref: Yamsur & the Dragon...) Perhaps the
> horse archers replaced the light chariots. There is no point in the using
> heavy cavalry in Prax or near Esrolia so perhaps they have never developed it.
I don't think one should exaggerate the difference between the Dara Happans and the Lunars as a whole. They are, after all, the backbone of the empire, not only in a literal geographic sense.
> On the subject of Dara Happans I believe that the Assyrians or
> Babylonians or Homeric Greeks are a good model. Heavy infantry armed with
> spears supported by lighted troops with Chariots used as the mobile strike
> force. And also the beards are a MUST.
What you suggest I'd broadly agree with for Dawn Age Dara Happa, with chariots being usable in their broad flat plains, and playing much the same role as cavalry. After defeat by, and incorporation into, the Lunar forces, the chariots would have been mostly abandonned, as they'd be fairly use in the much rougher terrain met by the expanding Empire. The same factors would mitigate against the development of heavy cavalry, which one would otherwise expect.
Bonus bogus analogy: unlike the Pentans, the Grazelanders seem to have significant infantry. I'd guess they were somewhat Persian in equipment and tactics. (One handed spear and shield, and very much second fiddle to the cavalry.)
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:35:16 EEST