Alternate history - What could tech 3 Gaul look like?

[AlexanderHowl]

The key defensive and offensive tool of raiders though is surprise. Lightly armored raider parties tend to retreat or die when they face a prepared defense, even if just a couple hundred peasants with farm tools.

[Rasna]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

There are numerous examples of formations classed as light infantry that are exactly equipped as their equivalent heavy infantry, because they are the same troops, differently deployed.

The point is that - depending on the entire setting - exist equipments well-suited and bad-suited for a determinate tactic, and tactics and equipments influence each other. Taking the example given by Dan, a cataphract can act as heavy cavalry and as light cavalry, but because his equipment, he'd be good heavy cavalry and not very brilliant light cavalry. A light horse archer would be better than a cataphract at scouting, flanking, skirmishing and pursuing routed enemies, but, because his equipment and training, he'd be very bad at frontally charging infantry phalanxes. So it make sense to define the first "heavy cavalry" and the latter "light cavalry", because is their primary role: their primary role is defined by tactics, and tactics are defined by settings - including training and equipment.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Rasna

The point is that - depending on the entire setting - exist equipments well-suited and bad-suited for a determinate tactic, and tactics and equipments influence each other. Taking the example given by Dan, a cataphract can act as heavy cavalry and as light cavalry, but because his equipment, he'd be good heavy cavalry and not very brilliant light cavalry. A light horse archer would be better than a cataphract at scouting, flanking, skirmishing and pursuing routed enemies, but, because his equipment and training, he'd be very bad at frontally charging infantry phalanxes. So it make sense to define the first "heavy cavalry" and the latter "light cavalry", because is their primary role: their primary role is defined by tactics, and tactics are defined by settings - including training and equipment.

A modern rifle platoon isn't necessarily better at patrol than it is at assault or defense, all else being equal. A mech platoon isn't necessarily better at assault or defense than patrol. The difference is primarily in operational and strategic scales, tactically they will fight more or less the same (except that the mech platoon has heavier organic fire support; although that gets fuzzier with things like CAT and MAP which I don't think that I completely understand why these formations are still light in that context, politics and service culture perhaps).

The difference between a modern armor platoon and an armored cavalry platoon is very minimal, but clearly one is a heavy assault formation and the other is a light scout formation.

At any rate, this subthread discussion seems to be about whether "heavy" or "light" is a either a description of equipment or deployment. So yes, often, but not always, "heavy" units will have equipment that is heavier than in "light" units, and units deployed as both will be primarily suited for one or the other, but that doesn't mean that you can look at a spearman, horseman, rifleman or tank and tell by the kit alone whether it is being considered a heavy or light unit in its current deployment, if you know nothing else.

[Rasna]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

At any rate, this subthread discussion seems to be about whether "heavy" or "light" is a either a description of equipment or deployment. So yes, often, but not always, "heavy" units will have equipment that is heavier than in "light" units, and units deployed as both will be primarily suited for one or the other, but that doesn't mean that you can look at a spearman, horseman, rifleman or tank and tell by the kit alone whether it is being considered a heavy or light unit in its current deployment, if you know nothing else.

To conclude, "light" and "heavy" can refer to:
- Tactical role (an unit can act as light or heavy infantry in different moments of the battle)
- Primary tactical role (an unit usually deployed and suited to be preferentially light/heavy infantry/cavalry because his equipment and training)
- Equipment

In my interventions, with "light" or "heavy" I mean always the primary tactical role.

[AlexanderHowl]

In my mind, equipment makes the soldier at TL3. An archer cannot function with arrows or bolts, cavalry cannot function without horses, and heavy infantry cannot function without large shields and heavy armor.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

In my mind, equipment makes the soldier at TL3. An archer cannot function with arrows or bolts, cavalry cannot function without horses, and heavy infantry cannot function without large shields and heavy armor.

Most historical heavy infantry didn't have full coverage armor, and didn't have the heaviest armor available. Armor is expensive and grunts are usually not supposed to be. Lots of examples, in fact, with only a spear or spear and shield, cloth or leather armor and a helmet. A pike square is a heavy formation, and at minimum only needs pikes.

[AlexanderHowl]

Swiss pikemen were quite heavily armored for their time.

[Rasna]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Swiss pikemen were quite heavily armored for their time.

Depends on period. This may be true in 1500's, not at the beginning, when the majority of them wore nothing more than clothing, shoes and a helmet. Most of them became mercenaries because Swiss was a poor land at the time.

[sjard]

<Moderator>
The circular argument about what is heavy or light units has been going for some time, with no resolution in sight as you keep going in circles. And it is now heavily derailing this thread.

Please return to the topic of the thread. Thank you.
</Moderator>