I picked up a slightly used copy of Soldiers and Ghosts (I would say a college student owned it last, judging by the interesting notes and doodles in the margins) and have been chugging through it with the combined arms of insomnia and far too much time on my hands - I've just finished Alexander's chapter and we're on to one-eyed Antigones and boyish Eumenes now.
If you don't mind me borrowing your thread for a sub-topic, I'll try to relate it to the main topic where possible. I'm sorry, but after recommending and thus condemning me to this admittedly excellent book, you've earned this, Seredain. Everyone else, feel free to skip this wall of text and continue with the tactical discussion. :3
I'm enjoying the book a lot, even though I'm not sure I agree 100% with the authors interpretation of the Iliad - he has a very modern, reductionist, scientific, A to B, straight-line appreciation of progress and why people do or did the things they did that I feel lacks totality or holism. In any case, I certainly enjoy reading about his ideas. He clearly puts the puzzle pieces down and assembles them well, but I think a few of them aren't necessarily facing the right way up... or they have a picture on both sides... or he's finished only half the picture? I don't know... my metaphor is falling apart... listen at how arrogant it sounds for me to give opinions on something this author has spent his life learning about - perhaps I'm missing the point. I certainly agree with his interpretation of how the Greeks interpreted it though.
To clarify, I think I disagree more with the Greeks interpretation of the Iliad that he presents - the idea of simplification and homogenization that led to armies consisting purely of hoplites and a General, usually integrated in the lines, is very similar to the line of frustrating thinking that leads to people taking nothing but ranked hordes of infantry in 8th, and then complaining about the state of the game when its boring! The Greeks did it because being a Hoplite and standing in line was the true, standardized test of bravery, while with 8th, people do it to conserve points with the dead or fled rule, but the result is much the same - armies with little to no versatility and no replay value. I wish, like the Greeks, people would simply hurry up and exhaust themselves on this train of thought so we can get back to the game.
As I see it in relation to Warhammer, The Iliad itself is more 5th edition hero-hammer with some combined arms, then later in history, Greeks misinterpreting the book for their own concept of what is a correct demonstration of a fair fight between cities should be (almost like 6th or fluff-gamers really, claiming to want armies of nothing but infantry... and then the tourney gamers getting upset that all you can do is push it forward), Iphacrates using Skirmishers effectively to combat this (bait and flee 7th), and then you have Alexander, who demonstrated what combined arms could do - which is probably the reason you had me read this book, I think.
I knew that you were recreating Alexander and his companions with your Silver Helm tank, but I have a better appreciation of the depths of how far you've gone - I couldn't help but laugh as I thought of Darius as a Slann, and I couldn't help think Alexander himself would have done far better if he could have found the extra 60 points for a Giant's Blade. I don't feel like I'd be too far off the mark if I said that Alexander must be one of your inspirations in life as well as in Warhammer?
I'm more inclined to play as the Macedonians in Rome:TR after reading this far, and I'll continue reading more, though conversely I'm less likely to use cavalry, and I think my motivation to train as closely as I can manage to that of a historical hoplite this Spring has diminished a lot - I'll explain.
I think the truly inspiring thing about Alexander, and the part that makes him a character I can relate to, as ego-maniacal as that is, is the fact that he was completely batshit insane, and ego-maniacal as well. He had several qualities I find admirable, such as being a historian, intelligent as well as physical, a hero-worshiper, an aesthetic, and then found a way to make it actually work in his own time, such as riding pell-mell for the enemy general and killing him himself with his mates. Hilarious, elegant, dynamic, awesome, and effective. The author makes a comment questioning whether Alexander was really as cerebral as people give him credit for (are you a cerebral player Seredain?), and I think he certainly was, but the genius he demonstrated is often in the simplicity. Why use a ten-hit combo when kicking someone in the junk will suffice and save a lot more time and resources? Cut the head off and the rest will follow (maybe I should use Death more often... hm). His formations were brilliant in their simplicity, and the fact the organization of the line encouraged a sense of competition in his men was brilliant - it's too bad formations in Warhammer don't effect moral as much, although there certainly is some with some mental gymnastics and abstraction, such as distance to leaders and ranks and such, exact troop numbers and magic equipment, etc.
I think I'm actually a bit jealous that it seems you have such a shining example of what you want for your army in Alexander... or maybe its the other way 'round, and you've made your army around Alexander? In either case, I felt a bit jealous for a bit that you do while I was reading about him, while my own perception of the Greek Hoplite has fallen a bit by the wayside as I read more about them. Their one-track mind, their lack of tactics, the fact that it truly was a grind and many of them not only not trained, but believed it was the antithesis of a fair fight... it sounds so familiar to southern duels with smoothbore pistols... or these people that throw deathstars at one-another. What is the point of it?
Of course, the hoplite had better training later, and started cross-training with other weaponry but... there's something in the mentality of the hoplite that bothers me. I think its the concept of a citizen soldier, fighting in line with his lover-brothers for his city, whereas I've always felt like an outsider... not like an emo, goth kid outsider (although my hair is long and I do wear a lot of black leather!), but I've always spent more time by myself or in the woods than I have with others. With a deeper understanding of what a hoplite is, I'm starting to connect them with concepts that define them - citizen, patriotism, altruism, philanthropy... In my more arrogant and selfish moments, I wonder how Alexander would have felt in this age.
I'm sure many of you reading this are wondering what I'm on about, and why it matters in the context of Warhammer, but the truth is I view Warhammer as yet another form of self-expression and a microcosm of myself, the same as talking, writing, dressing, martial arts or anything else. Whereas other people strain endlessly to create a perfect list that performs well, I honestly believe that if I create a list that demonstrates my particular ethos well, I'll find that I can not only win reliably, but also lose comfortably when it happens. Its a matter of aesthetics and taste more than anything, because I've since reached a point where I can win fairly reliably if I take a hard list and simply play in the most scientifically critical way possible. Similarly, it makes martial arts worth pursuing, because if I just wanted to win, I'd just carry an automatic rifle with me everywhere... instead, learning to use a Colt SAA, or a Longbow, is more of an acceptable compromise and demonstrative of myself in this age of missile warfare.
I sometimes realize that while I'm searching as I do in history, or reading the Iliad, I'm looking for a place that I would fit in better. Even if its just escapism, I would like to be able to point to a place in history and say 'That is where I should be, if only I was born in a different time and place', so that I could join in conversations with other people who do the same more easily, and so that if I said something strange I could give a book about Greeks or Romans or Samurai to someone and after reading it, they'd suddenly gain a bit more understanding of what I was talking about, even if they didn't agree or relate themselves. It would be very nice if I had that shield of patriotism, religion, science or whatever to hide behind... but perhaps in the end, I'm hiding behind being an aesthetic.
I suppose, in that sense, I'm not all that different from those Greek Hoplites and their own aesthetics, or fluff gamers who sometimes render themselves impotent, but at the same time I find aesthetics that detract too much from effect to be ugly, as well as ineffective... again, Alexander charging off towards the enemy general, although dicey, is as effective as it is hilariously archaic and therefore beautiful! Other writers may have scorned him for it, but I don't think the concept of death or glory ever even enters into these people. In Alexanders, I'm sure he either expected to win big or die, in which case there wasn't much use in feeling bad about it, being dead and all.
When something someone puts heartfelt feeling into fails, it can be very pathetic or even feeble... which is something I try to avoid. When however, something blends form and function in such a way, when it works, it creates that spark of life in a game or an event that is often times more important than the context alone should dictate... such as a glorious cavalry charge... similarly, when it fails, it creates a much more meaningful impact... that same cavalry charge turning into 'Charge of the Light Brigade' or the Spartan 300, that can often seem like a victory in and of itself because of its poignancy and impact. The difference between tragic failure and pathetic failure is a hairsbreadth, but infinitely important, and based firmly on perspective.
*slapped* Right! Back to Warhammer!
I think that's what I find interesting about this thread, is that just as you've said, you've created your very own Alexander, and it works for you so well. It feels very similar to the Mage Knight thread I started with Siegfried - there's a form and fuction at play. I can't comment on the deeper points of your list any more than you'll talk about, though I sometimes think I see flashes of similarity between us in list construction and the inspiration behind it... although I may be putting words in your mouth, and if I have, I apologize.
I think at this point, as I've done so many times in the past, I've reached a point where the concept of a Mage Knight in my army no longer exists in stark terms (needing the Radiant Gem), but it always exists more in my lists as a concept of balance or versatility. It is demonstrated by the Archmage, with his ability to tank for damage and heal in the manner of a Paladin in an MMO, even though he's technically a Mage. It is also in my Seaguard, which act as a central hub around which the rest of my army rotates, holding that crucial axis in the manner of Hoplites but also contributing to the missile fire. Similarly, the archers primary role is missile fire, but they can move and keep pace and participate in late game flank charges.
The White Lions demonstrate many concepts as well - it stands to reason that a black and white, (though very effective!) unit like Swordmasters, who excel in short close combats and little else, would be weak against missile fire, or attrition. In the 'Lions however, that concept of duality, balance, form and function exists in the opposite natures of their axes and their cloaks - as well as in their background - the concept of a strong, masculine, viking warrior/hunter/bodyguard with an axe and a pelt, contrasted against the culture, and yes, even femininity of elves is part of their appeal (form) and their versatility (function) to me. The Swordmasters can fit into my lists of course, but they require support in a similar way Spearelves do.
The reason I keep coming back to elves and Warhammer, as opposed to historical races of humans and a more realistic game like Warhammer Ancients, is that within this one race, their exists so many races, as well as deep contrasts in character that are confusing or fearful or weird to most people. In the Iliad, you have a cavalcade of different and opposing fighting styles, mentalities, and relations that exist in the pre-greek, Mycenaean world - I firmly believe that this chaos is the true face of mankind, without its veneer of civilization.
The Greeks on the other hand, with their infinite logic, tried to create a world where the Hoplite was exonerated as the principle, bravest warrior to the exclusion of all else - hence they got screwed at times - they were creating unbalanced lists. I'm sure they felt it was a tragic failure rather than a pathetic failure, but my own particular bias towards versatility obscures that - as I see it, they were not able to 'struggle well' even when as they failed, as they simply had no answer for peltasts and skirmishers, though the Spartans came close - their fitness being very high, they were able to give chase. Spartans, Silver Helm Tanks, Mage Knights, and White Lions are similar in that respect.
The antithesis of my army would probably be the gunline. It is the gunline because, firstly, I'm playing elves, and secondly, I have a stalwart (Greek?) opinion not to use cavalry, at least of the the heavy type. This comes from fluff - my elves live in the mountain pine forests with deep snow, where heavily armored horses would suffer - and my own feelings about fighting - I have no idea how to wield a lance in a charge, and would therefore have to dismount before fighting, so I don't kill the animal in my foolishness (horse archers are fine, as they're not charging in the manner of lance armed cavalry). Chariots are fine as well, as I would be on my feet, and probably using them as battle-taxi.
Despite all this stuff that seemingly gets in the way of my defeating gunlines (all other army-types being something I can fight on more or less equal terms with with successes and failures in respectable ratio), I'm still able to struggle quite well against them. Between the elements such as lion cloaks, the slight bonus in speed of elves, my heavy counter-shooting (which unlike a gunline, seeks to eliminate only certain elements), and the healing of my mage, is still able to do quite well - its almost never a foregone conclusion, and I think that is what I'm trying to stress with this drivel - the concept that form, as well as function, is a very good thing for many, many reasons.
Once again, I've typed far too much and revealed way too much about myself than I'm 100% comfortable with doing on a forum, so I think I'll stop and see what parts get replies and go from there. This has been a catharsis.
|