Use of Light Infantry in Classical Greek, Hellenistic and Roman Warfar

[Andreas Johansson]

So where do Irish kern fit into all this erudite classical analysis?

Since the thread specifically deals with classical warfare they don't. But they are interesting nonetheless: English accounts, mostly Tudor, almost exclusively describe them as skirmishers but Irish narratives show that they could fight as part of a more solid formation in pitched battle, usually when stiffened by nobles fighting on foot. The evidence suggests either/or for each mode so my inclination would be to treat them as line of battle troops (albeit not particularly effective ones by contemporary standards) when playing a pitched battle scenario, otherwise as skirmishers. I'm less happy nowadays with the conventional army list provision to field them as a mixture of LI/Ps and LMI/Ax

This of course ties into previous debates about "medium infantry" (like this one) and about whether they're genuinely tactically intermediate between heavy and light foot, or whether they're swing-role troops able to switch between heavy and light functions, or just second-rate heavy infantry.

[Keraunos]

Apologies once again for starting up a topic that has already been well covered.  I must use the search function more fully before posting.      I will digest the discussion in the classification thread as well as the various articles and see whether the questions I had still stand or can be reframed to support fresh thought rather than reboil old soup.

[Andreas Johansson]

Apologies once again for starting up a topic that has already been well covered.  I must use the search function more fully before posting.      I will digest the discussion in the classification thread as well as the various articles and see whether the questions I had still stand or can be reframed to support fresh thought rather than reboil old soup.

For what it's worth, I didn't mean to imply that Mick, and still less you, were retreading old ground. I merely wanted to call attention to that Mick's point is related to matters we've previously discussed.

[Keraunos]

For what it's worth, I didn't mean to imply that Mick, and still less you, were retreading old ground. I merely wanted to call attention to that Mick's point is related to matters we've previously discussed.

I appreciate that, thank you, but I still think on reflection that I have launched into some questions without really thinking through what I am trying to answer and without the benefit of having read what has gone before.  So, I will do a bit more homework and then return to the matter.

[Erpingham]

I think, Kim, you were prompted by myself, who should have recognised the connection earlier - I said enough in the other thread  That said, one of the reasons for going for a new topic was to collect together source information, which was legitimate.  One thing the other topic did bring out is being clear on what you mean when you say light infantry.  Are you thinking light-armed or are you thinking functionally e.g. skirmishing infantry?  Functionally is more useful rule-wise, IMO, but as the other discussion shows, it's not clear cut.