African Foot?
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:14 am
I speak here with the objectivity of ignorance of the relative capabilities of the infantry of the various African powers in this period. My question is whether the relative competencies of the infantry in particular of the various lists are already well reflected by the relative gradings.
This is prompted by the Funj and Fur list, where the italicized notes indicate the "Spearmen" foot were considered inferior, and it is unclear whether they used close order, thus they were classified Light Spear Swordsmen. These, however, are slightly better overall than Spearmen, and a point more expensive. If there were inferior in fact (and not just in relation to their mounted arm), should these not then be Light Spear alone (which is an inferior classification? Or do they merit Light Spear Swordsmen in relation to their foes? This is worth making clear in the text.
This is prompted by the Funj and Fur list, where the italicized notes indicate the "Spearmen" foot were considered inferior, and it is unclear whether they used close order, thus they were classified Light Spear Swordsmen. These, however, are slightly better overall than Spearmen, and a point more expensive. If there were inferior in fact (and not just in relation to their mounted arm), should these not then be Light Spear alone (which is an inferior classification? Or do they merit Light Spear Swordsmen in relation to their foes? This is worth making clear in the text.