NationStates Jolt Archive

I couldn't help but think of this in relation to the Lord of the Rings thread.

To put it simply, most film makers and a fair few writers seem to know next to nothing about tactics and strategy. This is no big deal if you're writing a romance, or a slapstick comedy, or a small scale drama. But if you're writing anything in a historical, sci-fi, action, or fantasy setting which involves law enforcement and/or military action, it can become a hell of a problem.

Of course, it may not bother everyone, but for those of us who a) value historical accuracy, and b) value stories that make sense and don't insult our intelligence, it can be very noticeble. So this thread is to discuss examples of court-martial worthy tactical and strategic incompetance in fiction, especially fantassy and sci-fi. (Note, I am mainly refferring to incompetency which goes unnoticed or is portrayed possitively or unrealistically, not incompetence that is portrayed realistically and acknowledged as such. Hence, Fararmir's charge in The Return of the King would not be a valid example, but the charge down a sloap into a line of pikes in The Two Towers probably would be.)

You sure those pike line charges weren't part of accepted real-world fighting?

Admittedly, medieval fighting isn't something I've studied a lot.

They were charging down a slope into pikes with a demi-god on their side. Nigh-suicidal tactical moves are acceptable when you have divine intervention on your side.

Though on the subject of the battle of Helm's Deep, if the uruk's had any sense they would have sent a dozen men with small lamps to slip through their lines to ignite the bomb, not one big fucker running with the Olympic torch.

Though on the subject of the battle of Helm's Deep, if the uruk's had any sense they would have sent a dozen men with small lamps to slip through their lines to ignite the bomb, not one big fucker running with the Olympic torch.

No, if they had any sense, they'd starve them out.

On the subject of Helm's Deep, the film adaptation at least, I never understood the decision to have all the archers sitting around doing not much while the Uruks were standing there making noise. That old fella who shot the first orc had the right idea.

Also has anyone noticed how embarrassingly shite all the non-title human characters are, particularly in the siege of Gondor? Me and my brother went through the whole thing - extended version mark you - meticulously counting up all the non-title-character kills, and it amounts to about seven; including the volley that Faramir ducks in Osgiliath. This is up until the arrival of the Rohirrim, of course.

Any tactic in Star Wars was idiotic. Take the Millenium Falcon against Star Destroyers.

Any tactic in Star Wars was idiotic. Take the Millenium Falcon against Star Destroyers.
I second this motion.

I second this motion.

I know, right? The movies present this, but the books, man, the books take it to new heights of ridiculousness.

I have to concur with you on the tactics in the Rings movies - RotK especially. I love the movies but the Battle of the Pellennor Fields was just a mess (and where was the Southron cavalry? The enemy had no cavalry in the movie - the mûmakil don't count really - whereas in the books there were umpty zillion screaming guys on horses!).

The way the MI worked in the Starship Troopers movie.

The way the MI worked in the Starship Troopers movie.
Yeah, they were total morons. They were much better in the book.

Any tactic in Star Wars was idiotic. Take the Millenium Falcon against Star Destroyers.

But they had the force on their side !!!!

But they had the force on their side !!!!

That doesn't take from the fact that the tactics, when it came to battles and to escaping, were incredibly ridiculous and the odds, well... laughable at best. Ignore the Force aspect and all.

Its not just in fiction, off the top of my head See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg on the Union side

or This:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickett%27s_Charge on the Confederate Side...

The way the MI worked in the Starship Troopers movie.

Yeah, they were total morons. They were much better in the book.

Cough, cough, that is how Paul Verhoeven intended it cough, cough. Sorry, must have had something in my throat.

That doesn't take from the fact that the tactics, when it came to battles and to escaping, were incredibly ridiculous and the odds, well... laughable at best. Ignore the Force aspect and all.

Vader Said it himself.
“Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.”

-10 nerd points for me just realized i confused star destroyer and death star.

That doesn't take from the fact that the tactics, when it came to battles and to escaping, were incredibly ridiculous and the odds, well... laughable at best. Ignore the Force aspect and all.

"OH NOES! THE STAR DESTROYERS ARE BLOCKING OUR PATH BY STAYING IN A LOOSE FORMATION IN 3-D SPACE! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?:("

Yeah...

Cough, cough, that is how Paul Verhoeven intended it cough, cough. Sorry, must have had something in my throat.
I know. That doesn't excuse him from destroying a great book, whether he did it on purpose or on accident.

I know. That doesn't excuse him from destroying a great book, whether he did it on purpose or on accident.

Exactly. He didn't even really make a point with the stupidity of the leadership. At least, not anything that wasn't hashed out in plenty of Viet Nam flicks.

Return of the Jedi was ... well, the ewoks taking down a battalion of the Emperor's best troops is inexcusable, really. But Revenge of the Sith is *also* brain-numbingly stupid in terms of tactics; the whole battle on Otiphar, and Kashyyk, has the clones displaying infantry tactics that would have been laughable in world war one; none of them use cover at all!

And that's not even going into the (very pretty, admittedly) silliness that is the Battle of Coruscant right at the start.

Return of the Jedi was ... well, the ewoks taking down a battalion of the Emperor's best troops is inexcusable, really. But Revenge of the Sith is *also* brain-numbingly stupid in terms of tactics; the whole battle on Otiphar, and Kashyyk, has the clones displaying infantry tactics that would have been laughable in world war one; none of them use cover at all!

And that's not even going into the (very pretty, admittedly) silliness that is the Battle of Coruscant right at the start.

Well, without true Mandalorians, whats the point?:p

Return of the Jedi was ... well, the ewoks taking down a battalion of the Emperor's best troops is inexcusable, really. But Revenge of the Sith is *also* brain-numbingly stupid in terms of tactics; the whole battle on Otiphar, and Kashyyk, has the clones displaying infantry tactics that would have been laughable in world war one; none of them use cover at all!

And that's not even going into the (very pretty, admittedly) silliness that is the Battle of Coruscant right at the start.

Don't forget the Walkers that can be destroyer by two logs smashing onto with a bare minimum of kinetic energy.

And the Armor that provides less protection than the cloak Leia wore.

And highly trained shock troops that can't even get back up after being thrown to the ground and having teddy bears put on their chests.

In fact, I don't think Lucas planned any of the battles. Just got a bunch of actors their costumes and said: "Here, make the good guys win. Ad-lib a little, you know?"

"OH NOES! THE STAR DESTROYERS ARE BLOCKING OUR PATH BY STAYING IN A LOOSE FORMATION IN 3-D SPACE! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?:("

Yeah...

You're not actually going IN to an asteroid field?
They'd be crazy to follow us, wouldn't they?

--------

I know. That doesn't excuse him from destroying a great book, whether he did it on purpose or on accident.

Whether he destroyed a great book or not isn't of any matter to me as I haven't read it. I enjoy the film and the satire that seems to pour from endlessly.

"OH NOES! THE STAR DESTROYERS ARE BLOCKING OUR PATH BY STAYING IN A LOOSE FORMATION IN 3-D SPACE! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?:("

Yeah...

Pretty much. *nod*

See: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodTactics
for examples.

Princess Leia: You're not actually going IN to an asteroid field?
Han Solo: They'd be crazy to follow us, wouldn't they?


1. That makes it even stupider.
2. I'm speaking of the battle of Endor.

Whether he destroyed a great book or not isn't of any matter to me as I haven't read it. I enjoy the film and the satire that seems to pour from endlessly.
Read the book, for me. *puppy dog eyes*

Pretty much. *nod*

I always thought their purpose was to follow if they ran away, and the rebels stayed there to buy time for the death star to go boom.

Rolling squid;14695010']See: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodTactics
for examples.

Damn you, now I'll be reading TVTropes all night.

--------



Whether he destroyed a great book or not isn't of any matter to me as I haven't read it. I enjoy the film and the satire that seems to pour from endlessly.

Ok, fair enough.

I always thought their purpose was to follow if they ran away, and the rebels stayed there to buy time for the death star to go boom.

Which, again, is an idiot tactic. I mean, aren't there any creative ways that do not reek of foolishness to depict battles in movies?

Which, again, is an idiot tactic. I mean, aren't there any creative ways that do not reek of foolishness to depict battles in movies?

What should they have done ?

Damn you, now I'll be reading TVTropes all night.

you're welcome

What should they have done ?

I am blank...:(

I am blank...:(

Your in am ambush. Statistically your worst chance of survival is to run away.
your best chance is to circle around and attack, and your next best chance is to charge.

Despite its many other flaws, I was mildly impressed by Prince Caspian because the Telmarines actually managed to form, and hold, an infantry line.

Despite its many other flaws, I was mildly impressed by Prince Caspian because the Telmarines actually managed to form, and hold, an infantry line.

Although the tactics in The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe left a lot to be desired. Surely even talking animals have more of a grasp than 'let's line up across a field from each other and run really fast'?

Any tactic in Star Wars was idiotic. Take the Millenium Falcon against Star Destroyers.

That's not entirely fair. The Rebel's tactics may seem stupid until you consider that they're doing the best the can with really shitty resources, and that they'd be quite happy to send cruisers instead of fighter against the enemy warships whenever that's an option. In fact, we generally see fine tactics from the Rebel side The fighters against the Death Stars was taking the best of a long list of crappy options, the tow cables at Hoth was unconventional but motivated by nessessity (and effective, though the cables must have been made of something very tough), and the point-blank engagement with Star Destroyers was motivated, again, by simply lacking any better options (points to Lando for having the biggest set of balls in the galaxy, as well).

On the Imperial side tactics are generally inferior. Palpatine screwed up an almost unloseable situation at Endor due to putting on his little show for Luke. The commander of the Endor bunker was grade A court martial material for opening the bunker (apparently) without a valid ID from Han. The best example of Imperial tactics is probably Hoth, but even their they were hampered by the obvious design flaws of the AT-AT walkers. Add to that the issues with their strategic doctrine (in the form of the Tarkin Doctrine), which advocated "rule through the fear of force rather than force itself" (to paraphrase). This lead to an emphesis on expensive superweapons rather than conventional fleet assets that could have patrolled the Empire's vast territory more effectively, and then backfired magnificently when the first Death Star was lost.

The worst tactics however are probably those of Mace Windu, who lead his Jedi into a hopeless trap. He managed to pull off a seemingly flawless ambush, but rrogantly confronted Dooku alone in the top box, then lost control of the high ground in the arena and allowed the fight to degenerate into free for all melee with little or no plan for escape or use of group tactics. Though this fits well with the theme of the Jedi being arrogant and "keepers of the peace, not soldeirs" in Windu's own words.

Despite its many other flaws, I was mildly impressed by Prince Caspian because the Telmarines actually managed to form, and hold, an infantry line.

Along with the costume and prop design, the tactics and coryography of the fight scenes are one of the few redeaming aspect of that film.

What should they have done ?

1. Ran. It's frigging Hyperspace, or light speed, I forget which. You aren't going to be mercilessly cut down, as you'll be going too fast.

2. Do an Orbital Bombardment of the shield place. Then attack the Death Star, disable the main laser, and go in to blow up the reactor.

They were charging down a slope into pikes with a demi-god on their side. Nigh-suicidal tactical moves are acceptable when you have divine intervention on your side.

That makes it acceptable, though not very bright. Gandalf must have been using his powers on the horses too, since I've heard that its basically impossible to get horses to charge a pike line (admittedly I don't have a source).

Note also that Tolkien explicitely had the reinforcements advance down the slope on foot. Only Gandalf was described as mounted.

Though on the subject of the battle of Helm's Deep, if the uruk's had any sense they would have sent a dozen men with small lamps to slip through their lines to ignite the bomb, not one big fucker running with the Olympic torch.

If Legolas hadn't suddenly turned into a lousy shot at that precise point in the battle, it would have failed utterly.

Or maybe not. Another orc might just pick it up, and another, until Legolas ran out of arrows.

1. Ran. It's frigging Hyperspace, or light speed, I forget which. You aren't going to be mercilessly cut down, as you'll be going too fast.

Takes time to align have the Navi computer set up.
The star destroyers were likely prepped to follow,
So now you moved where you get blowed up a few light years away.

2. Do an Orbital Bombardment of the shield place. Then attack the Death Star, disable the main laser, and go in to blow up the reactor.

I think that was prevented just so the Ewoks could play. I still don't know why the star destroyer didn't have the shield mounted internally.

1. Ran. It's frigging Hyperspace, or light speed, I forget which. You aren't going to be mercilessly cut down, as you'll be going too fast.

Not an option. Both the Death Star and Endor's moon will create gravity wells, which interfere with Hyperspace travle. By the time you get out of the gravity wells, the Destroyers will have had plenty of time to shoot your ass to pieces.

Further, they had to hit the Death Star before it was completed. Upon completion, this much larger second Death Star would not have had the first one's vulnerabillity. It would have been all but unassailable by any concievable fleet. In short, the Rebellion had to take it out or what sane world would ever openly declare support?

Endor really was an example of the Rebels picking about the best course they could from a list of very bad options.

2. Do an Orbital Bombardment of the shield place. Then attack the Death Star, disable the main laser, and go in to blow up the reactor.

Again, not an option. In the briefing room on the command ship, you can see that the hologram of the moon shows the sheild projecting up in a sort of collumn that, on the ground, might be hundreds of miles across. In short, the generator was inside the shield, so bombardement (short of more or less frying the entire planet anyways) wasn't an option.

Takes time to align have the Navi computer set up.
The star destroyers were likely prepped to follow,
So now you moved where you get blowed up a few light years away.

Didn't take too long for Han to escape in episode IV, and they didn't trail him.

I think that was prevented just so the Ewoks could play. I still don't know why the star destroyer didn't have the shield mounted internally.

Sheer stupidity.
Not an option. Both the Death Star and Endor's moon will create gravity wells, which interfere with Hyperspace travle. By the time you get out of the gravity wells, the Destroyers will have had plenty of time to shoot your ass to pieces.

Further, they had to hit the Death Star before it was completed. Upon completion, this much larger second Death Star would not have had the first one's vulnerabillity. It would have been all but unassailable by any concievable fleet. In short, the Rebellion had to take it out or what sane world would ever openly declare support?

Endor really was an example of the Rebels picking about the best course they could from a list of very bad options.

Such open cruelty, to the point of BLOWING UP FREAKING WORLDS, would send most Planets into open rebellion.

Again, not an option. In the briefing room on the command ship, you can see that the hologram of the moon shows the sheild projecting up in a sort of collumn that, on the ground, might be hundreds of miles across. In short, the generator was inside the shield, so bombardement (short of more or less frying the entire planet anyways) wasn't an option.
Don't know about that.

I think the number of ill-conceived, poorly implemented, and downright stupid tactical decisions vastly outweigh the number of masterful ones, so I think it would probably be more unrealistic to have strategic masterminds efficiently and perfectly implementing genius plans against their enemies.

After all, there really haven't been many wars that were won due to tactical brilliance; in the end, it often boiled down to raw numbers and brute economic and military force. Of course, decent tactical skills are necessary to leverage those strengths, but good old fashioned human incompetence is a major part of war. Few, if any wars were won due to tactical brilliance but all of them were lost due to tactical blundering.

After all, there really haven't been many wars that were won due to tactical brilliance; in the end, it often boiled down to raw numbers and brute economic and military force.
See: The Roman Empire.:D

2. Do an Orbital Bombardment of the shield place. Then attack the Death Star, disable the main laser, and go in to blow up the reactor.

Could've been tricky with the huge fleet of Star Destroyers sat around. Also the generators were in a fairly solid-looking bunker - no guarantee that an orbital bombardment would've worked.

Also, on a side note, hooray for TVTropes - I just spotted my bit about Helm's Deep on there! I feel special now.

See, I think Star Trek is the worst, absolutely the worst offender.

For instance, every single time they have boarders. Rather than engaging them in the hallways, why don't they just lock onto them and beam them into space just outside the hull? You wouldn't even have to flash your shields since you're beaming them inside it.

I think the number of ill-conceived, poorly implemented, and downright stupid tactical decisions vastly outweigh the number of masterful ones, so I think it would probably be more unrealistic to have strategic masterminds efficiently and perfectly implementing genius plans against their enemies.

After all, there really haven't been many wars that were won due to tactical brilliance; in the end, it often boiled down to raw numbers and brute economic and military force. Of course, decent tactical skills are necessary to leverage those strengths, but good old fashioned human incompetence is a major part of war. Few, if any wars were won due to tactical brilliance but all of them were lost due to tactical blundering.

But then films do tend to be based on the most salient moments of warfare, which also tend to be rather tactically inspirational.

Could've been tricky with the huge fleet of Star Destroyers sat around. Also the generators were in a fairly solid-looking bunker - no guarantee that an orbital bombardment would've worked.

Of course, the other question is why the Empire didn't clear-cut the lands around the facilities on Endor to facilitate better defenses and visibility. Like any blunder, though, I imagined it boiled down to arrogance like most major screw-ups.

Though this does sum up my objections to episode 4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzoeEdW-EDQ

But then films do tend to be based on the most salient moments of warfare, which also tend to be rather tactically inspirational.

True. Of course, even in those moments there's usually a good amount of people screwing up in one way or another.

Such open cruelty, to the point of BLOWING UP FREAKING WORLDS, would send most Planets into open rebellion.

It wasn't such a big deal when the US used atomic bombs to win World War Two. German did not rebel against Hitler even at the bitter end, and Americans did not rebel when their government developed a massive nuclear arsenal (and they would have used it if the Soviets did). Considering Palpatine's propoganda, and the fact that everyone would have been too scared to be the first to start an open revolt, and it could have worked.

Also, one planet is a dust speck in a civilization with tens of millions. One planet in Star Wars is like a single house or apartment block on Earth, a neighborhood at most. Granted, its a lot more lives, but it would have less of an impact, obviously, due to shere scale.

But then films do tend to be based on the most salient moments of warfare, which also tend to be rather tactically inspirational.
Good tactics aren't inspirational. The 300 (which I thought was an absolutely wretched piece of racist trash, but that's not the point), for instance. The real Battle of Thermopylae just involved several thousand guys wedging themselves into a narrow pass and spending a couple days jabbing anyone who tried to come through with spears.
It was quite a clever move, but no one was in the remotest bit interested in making a movie about that. So instead the movie is about a bunch of half-naked body builders show a complete disregard for formation, organization, the proper use of their weapons, and anything else that might interfere with their individual sword-and-sandal antics.

Good tactics are often boring, unfair or unpleasant to the majority of people. That's why we have Hollywood Tactics.

It wasn't such a big deal when the US used atomic bombs to win World War Two.

Of course, there's the simple fact that being able to blow up planets with a seemingly invincible world-ship tends to discourage rebellion. After all, unless you've got a way to take that thing down, rebellion's just going to get your planet destroyed. The better question is whether or not the Empire would have been capable of fighting off those extended-universe threats like the Vong than the people that replaced them...

Of course, the other question is why the Empire didn't clear-cut the lands around the facilities on Endor to facilitate better defenses and visibility. Like any blunder, though, I imagined it boiled down to arrogance like most major screw-ups.

Environmentalist lobbying. Little known fact, but ecology-consciousness was rampant in the final days of the old empire. Turns out Palpatine was behind the whole movement - used to be a farm-hand, got a bit nostalgic in his old age.

Of course, there's the simple fact that being able to blow up planets with a seemingly invincible world-ship tends to discourage rebellion. After all, unless you've got a way to take that thing down, rebellion's just going to get your planet destroyed.

Makes me think of this:


http://www.amishdonkey.com/star-wars-rap.php#

Good tactics are often boring, unfair or unpleasant to the majority of people. That's why we have Hollywood Tactics.

Sort of like how people associate Germany with blitzkrieg but forget that the bulk of their fighting was done using conventional infantry. Hell, they even used a lot of horses...

Rolling squid;14695010']See: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodTactics
for examples.
How did we survive before this site? :D

Any tactic in Star Wars was idiotic. Take the Millenium Falcon against Star Destroyers.

episode one: what do the droids do when attacking the gunguns? line up in rows and go strait forward.

episode 3: when grevious's ship is attacking a republic ship what does it do? line up next to it and try to blow it out of space

these tactics seem a little too eighteenth century to me.

Environmentalist lobbying. Little known fact, but ecology-consciousness was rampant in the final days of the old empire. Turns out Palpatine was behind the whole movement - used to be a farm-hand, got a bit nostalgic in his old age.

I guess he always had Naboo on his mind. Maybe it explains why he was all pissy towards the Trade Federation and had it nationalized after the Clone Wars ended.

Emperor Palpatine: farm hand, family man, poet.

episode one: what do the droids do when attacking the gunguns? line up in rows and go strait forward.

these tactics seem a little too eighteenth century to me.

Of course, the Trade Federation was also embarassingly cheap when it came to most expenditures, so I guess they got what they paid for.

episode one: what do the droids do when attacking the gunguns? line up in rows and go strait forward.

episode 3: when grevious's ship is attacking a republic ship what does it do? line up next to it and try to blow it out of space

these tactics seem a little too eighteenth century to me.

I guess it all has to do with what influenced Lucas at the time. But yes, the tactics of SW are, well... idiotic.

episode one: what do the droids do when attacking the gunguns? line up in rows and go strait forward.
They're the robot army of a bunch of silly looking fish-people who ride around in spider chairs. Not only that, but these particular fish people are only taking a break from their day job as bureaucrats and merchants.
I was personally amazed that the droids didn't shoot each other in the back while marching straightforward in formation.

I guess he always had Naboo on his mind. Maybe it explains why he was all pissy towards the Trade Federation and had it nationalized after the Clone Wars ended.

Emperor Palpatine: farm hand, family man, poet.

We don't even know if he is from Naboo.

Damn you, now I'll be reading TVTropes all night.

And so I have been. >.>

episode one: what do the droids do when attacking the gunguns? line up in rows and go strait forward.

episode 3: when grevious's ship is attacking a republic ship what does it do? line up next to it and try to blow it out of space

these tactics seem a little too eighteenth century to me.

Star Wars uses Napoleonic tactics in Episodes 1 and 2 (albeit modified somewhat by the pressense of tanks and air support). Armies line up and advance across open battlefields, using massed infantry fire, perhaps with heavier guns behind taking the role of artillery. One difference though is that, probably due to the higher rate of blaster fire, they use more of a "fire at will" approach than massed volleys.

By The Clone Wars and Revenge of the Sith, however, they seem to be using a mix of WW1 and WW2 tactics, with trenches, charges against enemy trenches, etc, combined with tank charges and heavy use of air support. Fleet tactics are a bizzare mix of Napoleonic, WW1, and WW2 carrier tactics. This state appears to persist through the Original Trilogy.

Good tactics aren't inspirational. The 300 (which I thought was an absolutely wretched piece of racist trash, but that's not the point), for instance. The real Battle of Thermopylae just involved several thousand guys wedging themselves into a narrow pass and spending a couple days jabbing anyone who tried to come through with spears.
It was quite a clever move, but no one was in the remotest bit interested in making a movie about that. So instead the movie is about a bunch of half-naked body builders show a complete disregard for formation, organization, the proper use of their weapons, and anything else that might interfere with their individual sword-and-sandal antics.

Good tactics are often boring, unfair or unpleasant to the majority of people. That's why we have Hollywood Tactics.
Granted. However, there is also the problem of tactics so stupid that even by Hollywood Tactics standards, the audience is saying "Oh, my ass!"

Examples already mentioned herein, from LotR (because having been discussing it, it's fresh in my mind):

1) Theodin's cavalry charging the oliphaunts. Please. Just look at the horses, then look at the big elephant critters. What the fuck did he think he could against them? And then look at what they did do against them -- those attacks totally defied the laws of physics!!! I call shenanigans.

Meanwhile, it's not like the oliphaunts were the only forces on the field. There was the whole orc army, too. Why not go after them with the horses, especially considering that the Rohirrim had already won a major victory against them?

If I had been in charge of that reality, by the time Theodin's army showed up, the city's defensive forces would already be bombarding the oliphaunts with the city's catapults (nice big targets), leaving the orc ground troops for the cavalry to take care of.

2) And about that major victory against the orcs at Helms Deep. TvTropes said it best -- charging downhill at an enemy, especially with heavy cavalry, is not an unheard of tactic, but that particular hill was so ludicrously steep, that charging down it would have been physically impossible for a horse. The animals would have had to pick their way down much more slowly or else almost certainly take a header and go tumbling down like an avalanche. That might also have effectively taken out the orc forces, but not quite with that sense of heroism. So that was more defying the laws of physics.

I can handle fake. What I can't stand is stupid.

I guess it all has to do with what influenced Lucas at the time. But yes, the tactics of SW are, well... idiotic.

which reminds me of the Elite stormtroopers that couldn't hit the side of a barn.

For instance, every single time they have boarders. Rather than engaging them in the hallways, why don't they just lock onto them and beam them into space just outside the hull? You wouldn't even have to flash your shields since you're beaming them inside it.

:eek2:
You're a cold-hearted bitch, Gallo-dono. *shakes head*

which reminds me of the Elite stormtroopers that couldn't hit the side of a barn.

Oh yes, they were Elite indeed. Elite crap, which is why I will always think SW tactics are cartooney at best.

:eek2:
You're a cold-hearted bitch, Gallo-dono. *shakes head*

As deep space, pet.

Granted. However, there is also the problem of tactics so stupid that even by Hollywood Tactics standards, the audience is saying "Oh, my ass!"

Examples already mentioned herein, from LotR (because having been discussing it, it's fresh in my mind):

1) Theodin's cavalry charging the oliphaunts. Please. Just look at the horses, then look at the big elephant critters. What the fuck did he think he could against them? And then look at what they did do against them -- those attacks totally defied the laws of physics!!! I call shenanigans.

Meanwhile, it's not like the oliphaunts were the only forces on the field. There was the whole orc army, too. Why not go after them with the horses, especially considering that the Rohirrim had already won a major victory against them?

If I had been in charge of that reality, by the time Theodin's army showed up, the city's defensive forces would already be bombarding the oliphaunts with the city's catapults (nice big targets), leaving the orc ground troops for the cavalry to take care of.

Not going to work I don't think. The range is likely limited, and by that time in the film most of the city had been overrun (in the book the enemy never gets past the first level thanks to Gandalf confronting the Witch King at the gate).

A better approach for Theoden would have been to move arround the Oliphaunts, and use the Rohirrim's horse archers to shoot them full of arrows. Which they did, to a point. The mistake was in failing to take full advantage of range against enemies that could easily crush them in close quarters, and in wasting their cavalry against the Oliphaunts instead of leaving them to the horse archers and using the standard Riders to run down the fleeing orcs.

As deep space, pet.

Are you blaming deep space for your coldness, Gallo-dono? Or are you just projecting? You wish you had one of those tele-transporters, don't you?

Are you blaming deep space for your coldness, Gallo-dono? Or are you just projecting? You wish you had one of those tele-transporters, don't you?

Yeah. :(

Oh yes, they were Elite indeed. Elite crap, which is why I will always think SW tactics are cartooney at best.

And don't forget their fancy not-worth-shit-against-even-blaster-pistol armor.

And don't forget their fancy not-worth-shit-against-even-blaster-pistol armor.

Oh, don't get me started on that.:eek2:

Are you blaming deep space for your coldness, Gallo-dono? Or are you just projecting? You wish you had one of those tele-transporters, don't you?

Who doesnt?


Well, unless you end up like this guy:

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/3613/hugebutt.gif

Yeah. :(

Well... ST is an ongoing series, is it not? Can't you, you know, give this idea to the writers?

And don't forget their fancy not-worth-shit-against-even-blaster-pistol armor.

That doesn't mean the armor is worthless. It just means it can't take a direct hit from a blaster. It can still provide limited protection against vacume and bioweapons when sealed (or so I've been told), has communications equipment, and would protect against flying shrapnel from near misses. Its hardly perfect, but its hardly the worst designed piece of Imperial gear.

Who doesnt?


Well, unless you end up like this guy:

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/3613/hugebutt.gif

Oh, dear lord!:eek:

Well... ST is an ongoing series, is it not? Can't you, you know, give this idea to the writers?

They told me that it's "too cruel" for Federation tactics. Like shooting them is really any better. I go with what's effective.

Well... ST is an ongoing series, is it not? Can't you, you know, give this idea to the writers?

Beaming guys into space is a bit ruthless for the Federation. However, I'd like to see the Klingons or Romulans do it at some point.

They told me that it's "too cruel" for Federation tactics. Like shooting them is really any better. I go with what's effective.

Callous, so callous. *shakes head*

And don't forget their fancy not-worth-shit-against-even-blaster-pistol armor.

Real-life armor has been much, much worse. And, honestly, what kind of cheap, mass-produced armor could you make that would be effective when directly hit by a stream of burning plasma?

Beaming guys into space is a bit ruthless for the Federation. However, I'd like to see the Klingons or Romulans do it at some point.

I think it's a bit more ''humane'' than blasting them.

Not going to work I don't think. The range is likely limited, and by that time in the film most of the city had been overrun (in the book the enemy never gets past the first level thanks to Gandalf confronting the Witch King at the gate).

A better approach for Theoden would have been to move arround the Oliphaunts, and use the Rohirrim's horse archers to shoot them full of arrows. Which they did, to a point. The mistake was in failing to take full advantage of range against enemies that could easily crush them in close quarters, and in wasting their cavalry against the Oliphaunts instead of leaving them to the horse archers and using the standard Riders to run down the fleeing orcs.
I'm thinking of signing you up for this Weekly Thrashing service I know about. Once a week, a retired pro wrestler comes to your house and beats the living snot out of you. (I saw it on Space Ghost, Coast to Coast.)

Every time I talk about the movies, you answer me with the books. Any time I talk about one book, you answer me by referencing another book. Any time anything in one book or one of the movies won't match up with what you want to say, you start mixing the books and movies together. It really gives me the strong impression that you're just playing some kind of a literary criticism version of a shell game or 3-card monte to hide the fact that you're making at least half of this shit up as you go along.

Look, I told you what I would do if I was in charge the reality. I.e. if I was Teh Gawd Tolkein. If I was, don't you think I'd have equipped Minas Tirith a little better than it was IN THE FUCKING MOVIES?

Note: I specify the movies because I was complaining about Holly-fucking-wood Fucking Tactics, damn your eyes.

And don't forget their fancy not-worth-shit-against-even-blaster-pistol armor.So? Might just be their equivalent of NBC suits - supposed to protect you from nasty stuf, but not from being outright shot.

Though I do take offence at their armour looking like full-body diapers.

On a side note, since it came up early in this thread - Starship Troopers film > Starship Troopers book

Film has nudity, violence, GIANT BUGS, and is generally entertaining.

Book has pseudo-fascist philosophy without all the fun parts of it (Spiffy uniforms and a Triumph of the Will homage), and the author is wanking himself into a blissful state of post-orgasm over his powered armour as if he's running an International Incidents storefront.

Film wins. Flawless victory, in fact.

That doesn't mean the armor is worthless. It just means it can't take a direct hit from a blaster. It can still provide limited protection against vacume and bioweapons when sealed (or so I've been told), has communications equipment, and would protect against flying shrapnel from near misses. Its hardly perfect, but its hardly the worst designed piece of Imperial gear.
I don't know. Every time I look at that armor, I just imagine it chafing really, really badly. And there's an awful lot of opportunity for pinching in the crotch area.

Though I do take offence at their armour looking like ull-body diapers.



Just out of curiosity, spelling errors aside, Why does that offend you? :confused:

Just out of curiosity, spelling errors aside, Why does that offend you? :confused:I don't know about you, but an entire army of grown-ups still needing to be toilet trained is a bit... Out there.

I think it's a bit more ''humane'' than blasting them.

Do you know would happen to a human who was released in space?

I don't know about you, but an entire army of grown-ups still needing to be toilet trained is a bit... Out there.

Rule #34.

Do you know would happen to a human who was released in space?

What, exactly?

Do you know would happen to a human who was released in space?

Asphyxia and probably they could burst. I'm not sure.

I don't know about you, but an entire army of grown-ups still needing to be toilet trained is a bit... Out there.
Maybe they're pull-up pants. Maybe the stormtroopers are "big kids now!"

I don't know about you, but an entire army of grown-ups still needing to be toilet trained is a bit... Out there.

Im actually pretty sure we can arrange for an army of them right here on earth, lol

Do you know would happen to a human who was released in space?Yes. They die.

Maybe they're pull-up pants. Maybe the stormtroopers are "big kids now!"

Empire Pull-Ups!

What, exactly?

Ear drums, eyeballs, and plenty of blood vessels explode, along with any lung containing air. It is like what happens when a diver swims-up too rapidly.

Ear drums and eyeballs explode, along with any lung containing air. It is like what happens when a diver swims-up too rapidly.

Except much more rapidly and violently.

Except much more rapidly and violently.

It takes about three seconds, while one is being cut by fracturing teeth.

I'm thinking of signing you up for this Weekly Thrashing service I know about. Once a week, a retired pro wrestler comes to your house and beats the living snot out of you. (I saw it on Space Ghost, Coast to Coast.)

Careful. I could interperate that as a threat.;) Though Coast to Coast is not known for its reliability...

Every time I talk about the movies, you answer me with the books. Any time I talk about one book, you answer me by referencing another book. Any time anything in one book or one of the movies won't match up with what you want to say, you start mixing the books and movies together.

Maybe because when you're dealing with a large series, knowing the larger context in which an event occurs can be useful? Or because its interesting to compare different events? Or because I wish to clarify that I am talking about something in the films and that its different from the books?

You should also pay attention to the fact that the sole mention of the books was in brackets, thus clearly marking it as an aside from the main paragraph.

Everything else outside the brackets was a specific refference to the films.

It really gives me the strong impression that you're just playing some kind of a literary criticism version of a shell game or 3-card monte to hide the fact that you're making at least of this shit up as you go along.

I will not dignify this with any further response.

Look, I told you what I would do if I was in charge the reality. I.e. if I was Teh Gawd Tolkein. If I was, don't you think I'd have equipped Minas Tirith a little better than it was IN THE FUCKING MOVIES?

Ok, fine. I missread that as a description of what the defenders should have done given the existing situation.

Though I would point out that the Pelanor Fields were rather big, and that I haven't heard of any catapult, ever, that could hit all of that field from the walls. In either the books or the films. Leaving aside that a moving target with a catapult is probably pretty hard. You're complaining about impossible tactics in movies and then you this is what you come up with?

Note: I specify the movies because I was complaining about Holly-fucking-wood Fucking Tactics, damn your eyes.

See above.

Except much more rapidly and violently.

That is gory...

Ear drums, eyeballs, and plenty of blood vessels explode, along with any lung containing air. It is like what happens when a diver swims-up too rapidly.

So who cleans up the mess afterward? Scotty seeing as he did the vacuplosion or some menial red shirt because they are a red shirt?

So who cleans up the mess afterward? Scotty seeing as he did the vacuplosion or some menial red shirt because they are a red shirt?

A little blood on the hull would help deter further boarders.

It takes about three seconds, while one is being cut by fracturing teeth.Why would the teeth fracture?

That is gory...

And against the Geneva Convention.

Why would the teeth fracture?

Probably the pressure.

Why would the teeth fracture?

"Teeth (causing Barodontalgia[11][12][13][14] or dental fractures[15])"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barotrauma

And against the Geneva Convention.

Beaming people into space is against the Geneva convention? :confused:

And against the Geneva Convention.

True that, sir. But I don't think the GC would apply to space battles.

Beaming people into space is against the Geneva convention? :confused:

I wonder how they feel about slicing people up with a lightsaber. :p

True that, sir. But I don't think the GC would apply to space battles.

Why not?

Beaming people into space is against the Geneva convention? :confused:

Not that, Gallo-dono. But the unnecesary way of killing them is.

I wonder how they feel about slicing people up with a lightsaber. :p

Your new avatar looks like something...

Hmm... what is it...

I wonder how they feel about slicing people up with a lightsaber. :p

Yoda walks into the UN and uses the Jedi Mind Trick.

"Slicing people with a light saber, a violation is not."

Not that, Gallo-dono. But the unnecesary way of killing them is.

It would save my marines from harm, and is not cruel for the sake of being cruel. It is cruel simply because physics are that way.

Why not?

Because it's space battles, not necessarily between Earth people and Earth people. I mean, this is if you apply it to a SW or ST universe.

Your new avatar looks like something...

Hmm... what is it...

:eek:

:p

Beaming people into space is against the Geneva convention? :confused:

Rupturing sensitive parts of a body over the period of a few seconds? I think it would qualify in the 23rd Century; it certainly would be against whatever conventions Starfleet uses.

Yoda walks into the UN and uses the Jedi Mind Trick.

"Slicing people with a light saber, a violation is not."

The Jedi Mind Trick only works on the weak minded.

...


...okay, you win this round. :p

It would save my marines from harm, and is not cruel for the sake of being cruel. It is cruel simply because physics are that way.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the GC would state that it is indeed quite cruel, regardless of physics, master.

Because it's space battles, not necessarily between Earth people and Earth people. I mean, this is if you apply it to a SW or ST universe.

SW never had a Geneva Convention. ST describes a peace-oriented and highly enlightened Earth. They would not use napalm, and they would not kill by rupturing internal and external organs.

SW never had a Geneva Convention. ST describes a peace-oriented and highly enlightened Earth. They would not use napalm, and they would not kill by rupturing internal and external organs.

Then GC would apply to ST and not SW.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the GC would state that it is indeed quite cruel, regardless of physics, master.

I'm just saying, if we're going to make sudden depressurization against the Geneva convention, it would be illegal to breach the hull of any ship, and that would make space battles quite boring.

They would not use napalm, and they would not kill by rupturing internal and external organs.
They would if it resulted in Kirk getting his leg over.

I'm just saying, if we're going to make sudden depressurization against the Geneva convention, it would be illegal to breach the hull of any ship, and that would make space battles quite boring.

Until someone invents space pie. :)

I'm just saying, if we're going to make sudden depressurization against the Geneva convention, it would be illegal to breach the hull of any ship, and that would make space battles quite boring.

Hence why I say the GC doesn't apply to this, master. Despite it not amusing you.:wink:

Until someone invents space pie. :)

We can retrofit a photon torpedo. They do that every third or fourth episode.

They would if it resulted in Kirk getting his leg over.

Kirk would never need help.

http://reluctantoptimist.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/kirk-inspirational-awesome2.jpg

Real-life armor has been much, much worse.
Anything to back up this statement?


On a side note, since it came up early in this thread - Starship Troopers film > Starship Troopers book

Film has nudity, violence, GIANT BUGS, and is generally entertaining.

Book has pseudo-fascist philosophy without all the fun parts of it (Spiffy uniforms and a Triumph of the Will homage), and the author is wanking himself into a blissful state of post-orgasm over his powered armour as if he's running an International Incidents storefront.

Film wins. Flawless victory, in fact.
You.... Didn't actually read the book, did you? Or did you skim, which is like reading, but without comprehension?

Kirk would never need help.

http://reluctantoptimist.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/kirk-inspirational-awesome2.jpg

Of course, he is fuckin' cap'n Kirk!

We can retrofit a photon torpedo. They do that every third or fourth episode.

A photon tor-pie-do! Brilliant!

Anything to back up this statement?

Try the lack of it during the American Revolution. Or, for that matter, try most bullet-resistant vests against armor-piercing bullets.

A photon tor-pie-do! Brilliant!
Does anyone know the Klingon for "banana cream"?

Also, before anyone else does it:

Today is a good day to pie.

Try the lack of it during the American Revolution. Or, for that matter, try most bullet-resistant vests against armor-piercing bullets.

But this is about movie tactics.

Anything to back up this statement?Given that blaster shots caused smoke to erupt from walls...

How many RL armour pieces who'd survive shots from a gun that VAPORISES (Admittedly small amounts of, but a couple kilojoule are a safe minimum) metal do you know?You.... Didn't actually read the book, did you? Or did you skim, which is like reading, but without comprehension?Oh, I've read it. That's part of the problem. Wish I hadn't.

I fail to see how anyone could enjoy it. It's tedious, boring, filled with self-gratification and a healthy dose of BOOTS OF JUSTICE.

It's just... Terrible in every respect.

Try the lack of it during the American Revolution. Or, for that matter, try most bullet-resistant vests against armor-piercing bullets.

The stronger stuff works well.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2434162/2/istockphoto_2434162-swat-team-in-action.jpg

Try the lack of it during the American Revolution.
Submarines don't work!
Why not?
Because they didn't use them during the American Revolution!

Try the Civil War, 'Nam, Modern Day Iraq...
Or, for that matter, try most bullet-resistant vests against armor-piercing bullets.
AP bullets? So that's what we're talking about now? Changing Goalposts I see.
'Armor doesn't work!'
'Oh really?'
'Erm... AGAINST AP BULLETS!'

The stronger stuff resists well.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2434162/2/istockphoto_2434162-swat-team-in-action.jpg

Oh shyte! SWAT's here!:eek2:

Try the Civil War, 'Nam, Modern Day Iraq...

...World War I....

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K4-M/SZUkDEk1itI/AAAAAAAA55Q/dtWOdoHGikM/s640/sdfgdsfgsdfgsdfg.jpg

Iraq stuff is pretty crummy, but we can make better.

Oh shyte! SWAT's here!:eek2:

Yes. And their stuff is strong as Hell, whereas most police/military vests cannot resist more than a couple of 9mm rounds.

Ok, fine. I missread that as a description of what the defenders should have done given the existing situation.

Though I would point out that the Pelanor Fields were rather big, and that I haven't heard of any catapult, ever, that could hit all of that field from the walls. In either the books or the films. Leaving aside that a moving target with a catapult is probably pretty hard. You're complaining about impossible tactics in movies and then you this is what you come up with?



See above.
So you are under the impression, based on your encyclopedic knowledge of the canon, that the oliphaunts were rooted to the ground of the Pelanor Fields, just out of range of the city's defenses and never to get any closer? Then what was the point of bringing them? Show and tell? Were they hoping the defenders of Minas Tirith would die of pet envy?

The way the animals were outfitted, it seemed pretty clear they were a kind of living seige tower cum seige machine. As the offensive forces had come to attack a walled and fortified city, that would make sense, wouldn't it? So why would they keep what was obviously the primary or secondary (after the catapults/trebuchets at the back) assault tool so far from the walls they meant to assault that the defenders would not have been able to shoot at them?

Clearly, the plan should have been to bombard the city with the long-range catapults to cover the approach of the units with the oliphaunts, which would then strive to breech the walls.

Otherwise, why bother bringing those enormous beasts and bear the burden of having to feed and water them the whole long way? Hannibal is famous for crossing the Alps with his elephants, but in fact, none of his elephants survived the journey to fight the Romans. If the oliphaunts were going to be brought along, there must have been a better use in mind for them than swatting horses around -- horses that hadn't even been expected to the party, btw.

EDIT: Now, considering again the movie, because I am talking about Hollywood Tactics and the difference between fake and stupid, we can say that the above tactic is exactly what the orc general was doing -- bombarding the walls to cover the approach of the oliphaunts.

But I say this only worked as well as it did until the Rohirrim showed up because Minas Tirith had a lousy defense. I can understand that they lacked leadership -- from the way the regent was portrayed in the movie -- but are we to believe there was no military commander in the whole city capable of organizing their forces until Gandalf showed up? The defensive catapults did take out a section of the rear of the orc army, which was a very long range shot, indeed. I fail to see why they would not have been targeting the oliphaunts as well, considering they were actually coming closer to the city.

Given that blaster shots caused smoke to erupt from walls...

How many RL armour pieces who'd survive shots from a gun that VAPORISES (Admittedly small amounts of, but a couple kilojoule are a safe minimum) metal do you know?
You'd think that with all that technology, they'd figure out something to defend against it. Reflective siding, and paint perhaps.
Oh, I've read it. That's part of the problem. Wish I hadn't.

I fail to see how anyone could enjoy it. It's tedious, boring, filled with self-gratification and a healthy dose of BOOTS OF JUSTICE.

It's just... Terrible in every respect.
I cannot argue taste with someone who has none.:p

Yes. And their stuff is strong as Hell, whereas most police/military vests cannot resist more than a couple of 9mm rounds.

Those guys are just... plain... scary.

Submarines don't work!
Why not?
Because they didn't use them during the American Revolution!

Try the Civil War, 'Nam, Modern Day Iraq...

AP bullets? So that's what we're talking about now? Changing Goalposts I see.
'Armor doesn't work!'
'Oh really?'
'Erm... AGAINST AP BULLETS!'

Considering that the guns are firing streams of burning plasma and making armor to defend against them, then yes. We're talking about armor piercing ammunition.

And reflective paint? When's the last time you saw reflective paint work against what amounts to a stream of fire being shot at you?

Those guys are just... plain... scary.

I think they are supposed to be.

I think they are supposed to be.

I can understand imposing, imposing bastards, you know, but scary? Is it even necessary? Those guys got snipers that can nail you in the head from 3 blocks down! I mean, that alone is enough, there's no need to make it so scary.

Considering that the guns are firing streams of burning plasma and making armor to defend against them, then yes. We're talking about armor piercing ammunition.


Plasma? I don't remember Star Wars lasers being plasma. I was under the impression they were energy (With a few exceptions)

And reflective paint? When's the last time you saw reflective paint work against what amounts to a stream of fire being shot at you?
When's the last time I saw a stream of fire being shot at me?:p

So you are under the impression, based on your encyclopedic knowledge of the canon, that the oliphaunts were rooted to the ground of the Pelanor Fields, just out of range of the city's defenses and never to get any closer? Then what was the point of bringing them? Show and tell? Were they hoping the defenders of Minas Tirith would die of pet envy?

No, obviously not, but you were talking about when they were fighting the Rohirim in the field. At that point, I doubt siege engines could have made much difference. In fact, their'd be a good chance of hitting the Rohirrim rather than the Oliphaunts.

The way the animals were outfitted, it seemed pretty clear they were a kind of living seige tower cum seige machine. As the offensive forces had come to attack a walled and fortified city, that would make sense, wouldn't it? So why would they keep what was obviously the primary or secondary (after the catapults/trebuchets at the back) assault tool so far from the walls they meant to assault that the defenders would not have been able to shoot at them?

Those flimsy things on their backs couldn't have breached the walls any easier than Sauron's siege towers full of orcs and the massive ram already had. They were clearly best suited to being used as a counter-cavalry unit, which is exactly how they were used.

Clearly, the plan should have been to bombard the city with the long-range catapults to cover the approach of the units with the oliphaunts, which would then strive to breech the walls.

Thus indeed exposing them to catapult fire, and risking the chance of them stampeding among the orcs and siege engines. Though in the book (which I know you don't want to discuss, but regardless), they actually did use the Oliphaunts to pull siege engines, I think.

Otherwise, why bother bringing those enormous beasts and bear the burden of having to feed and water them the whole long way? Hannibal is famous for crossing the Alps with his elephants, but in fact, none of his elephants survived the journey to fight the Romans.

I'm pretty sure that's false, actually. But I'll have to check to be sure.

Oh, and thanks for editting right when I posted this.

If the oliphaunts were going to be brought along, there must have been a better use in mind for them than swatting horses around -- horses that hadn't even been expected to the party, btw.

Oh come on. Sauron knew by then that Rohan had beat Sauruman, and he would have been foolish not to prepare for the possibility that they would win and then come to the aid of their main ally. No doubt the Oliphaunts could have aided in the seige, but they don't show up until the seige is all but over.

I can understand imposing, imposing bastards, you know, but scary? Is it even necessary? Those guys got snipers that can nail you in the head from 3 blocks down! I mean, that alone is enough, there's no need to make it so scary.

Eh. The White Death was much worse.

Eh. The White Death was much worse.

I'm inclined to go with The Never Ending Story's Nothing death. That was bitching.

I can understand imposing, imposing bastards, you know, but scary? Is it even necessary? Those guys got snipers that can nail you in the head from 3 blocks down! I mean, that alone is enough, there's no need to make it so scary.
Maybe they should put Hello Kitty stickers on those black shields.

History Channel repeatedly claims that ancient Greek hoplite armor, which was a linen/leather laminate, was about as strong as modern Kevlar. Not as scary as SWAT perhaps, to modern eyes, but as impenetrable.

Does anyone know if that's true?

Maybe they should put Hello Kitty stickers on those black shields.

History Channel repeatedly claims that ancient Greek hoplite armor, which was a linen/leather laminate, was about as strong as modern Kevlar. Not as scary as SWAT perhaps, to modern eyes, but as impenetrable.

Does anyone know if that's true?

No idea if it's true, but I can always check. Gimme a few.

Plasma? I don't remember Star Wars lasers being plasma. I was under the impression they were energy (With a few exceptions)

Nope. They're not lasers at all. Star Wars "lasers" fire plasma. In effect, they're armed with plasma cannons.

It's not talked about in the movie with them being such, but I think it's mentioned in more than one book and I know I saw it on the official website.

When's the last time I saw a stream of fire being shot at me?:p

Very good point!

I think the main problem they have with the suits is a need for shields. The problem is, I don't think they can actually make shield generators that work on human armor due to bulk issues. On droids, this isn't a problem. Which makes me wonder why they don't shield more droids (which is the one thing the Trade Federation got right).

I'm inclined to go with The Never Ending Story's Nothing death. That was bitching.
Except the White Death was real. And he killed over 400 people with an old-fashioned hunting rifle. In the Finnish Wilderness. Alone. In temperatures below 20 Celsius. And then killed another 200 with his submachine gun. In about 100 days. When the Soviets shot him in the jaw with an exploding bullet, he got his rifle and killed the guy who did it.

It's the knowledge that people like him CAN exist that keeps me up at night.

Ok, Mura, according to this (http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=201501), Greek armor was indeed quite resistant, but it could still be breached on certain points by a good sword.

11 pages later, and no mention yet came on the closest, which also is among of the largest collections of this thread subject:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1230

Maybe they should put Hello Kitty stickers on those black shields.

I think that would make it even worse.

Nope. They're not lasers at all. Star Wars "lasers" fire plasma. In effect, they're armed with plasma cannons.

It's not talked about in the movie with them being such, but I think it's mentioned in more than one book and I know I saw it on the official website.

I read a few of the books (Actually, skimmed, read without comprehension :p), and was under the impression that they drew their power source from Tibanna Gas. Which would make them a kind of lasers, if you don't think about whatever other words would describe such a weapon.:D

Very good point!

I knew I'd get through to you.:D

I think the main problem they have with the suits is a need for shields. The problem is, I don't think they can actually make shield generators that work on human armor due to bulk issues. On droids, this isn't a problem. Which makes me wonder why they don't shield more droids (which is the one thing the Trade Federation got right).
Cost, most likely.

I think that would make it even worse.

I was told it may cause the perps to laugh too hard and to be unable to concentrate. It could aid the SWAT.:tongue:

No, obviously not, but you were talking about when they were fighting the Rohirim in the field. At that point, I doubt siege engines could have made much difference. In fact, their'd be a good chance of hitting the Rohirrim rather than the Oliphaunts.
Two different stupid moves. (1) Not using artillery against the oliphaunts. This is the fault of the defenders of the city. (2) The Rohirrim charging the oliphaunts. This is the fault of Theodin.

Those flimsy things on their backs couldn't have breached the walls any easier than Sauron's siege towers full of orcs and the massive ram already had. They were clearly best suited to being used as a counter-cavalry unit, which is exactly how they were used.
Try to visualize this: The height of the animals delivers fighters to the tops of the city's outer walls. The weight/strength of the animals may be capable of breeching walls that had been compromised by artillery. The maneuverability of the animals allows them to move seige weapons around the field in the flimsy structures on their backs. They are clearly better suited for attacking big things like buildings than small things like horses.

Thus indeed exposing them to catapult fire, and risking the chance of them stampeding among the orcs and siege engines.
You keep forgetting about the whole suppressing fire via catapults from the orc forces at the rear of the battle field thing.

Though in the book (which I know you don't want to discuss, but regardless), they actually did use the Oliphaunts to pull siege engines, I think.
Which only reinforces my argument that the movie was stupid. Not only could they not figure out what would make sense with the tools they had, they couldn't even follow the book.

I'm pretty sure that's false, actually. But I'll have to check to be sure.

Oh, and thanks for editting right when I posted this.
Take it up with History Channel. I was surfing past it a few days ago, and hit an hour show on great battles of history just as they were telling me that none of Hannibals elephants made it to his ultimate destination.

And you're welcome.

Oh come on. Sauron knew by then that Rohan had beat Sauruman, and he would have been foolish not to prepare for the possibility that they would win and then come to the aid of their main ally. No doubt the Oliphaunts could have aided in the seige, but they don't show up until the seige is all but over.
Do you really think the oliphaunts were brought to Minas Tirith to combat the Rohirrim?

Just where are all these lands and kingdoms located, relative to each other? Across the street? Do you have any idea how long it would take to march armies of such a size, toting those giant fucking pachyderms, from wherever they originally were to Minas Tirith? Do you think they didn't start out until after the orc defeat at Helms Deep, to be a response to the strength of the Rohirrim?

Obviously, they set out before Sauron had any idea his orcs would come running home with their asses in their hands from Helms Deep. And obviously, if they brought oliphaunts, they had a plan for how to use the oliphaunts. And obviously, if they had planned to use them against cavalry, they would have deployed them in a cavalry-rich zone, like Rohan, not against a fortified city like Minas Tirith, where, apparently, they had planned to attack before the city could light its beacons (which of course, there was a very promising delay in doing, due to the madness of the acting ruler).

So, they're at a place with no cavalry. There's no cavalry there when they arrive. The city isn't calling for cavalry to come and help them. Yet you maintain that they brought oliphaunts to Minas Tirith for the purpose of fighting the cavalry of Rohan. Sure.

I was told it may cause the perps to laugh too hard and to be unable to concentrate. It could aid the SWAT.:tongue:

It might make the SWAT team look psychotic, too. Just add clown makeup, and hatchet in one hand.

http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv348/TRAGICPHILL/hello-kitty-killer.jpg?t=1239591991

It might make the SWAT team look psychotic, too.


Small children will be forever scared by watching 'Hello Kitty'

It might make the SWAT team look psychotic, too.

http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv348/TRAGICPHILL/hello-kitty-killer.jpg?t=1239591991

:D
That could help them too!

Small children will be forever scared by watching 'Hello Kitty'

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/funny-pictures-cat-dresses-as-hello-kitty-by-day.jpg

I read a few of the books (Actually, skimmed, read without comprehension :p), and was under the impression that they drew their power source from Tibanna Gas. Which would make them a kind of lasers, if you don't think about whatever other words would describe such a weapon.:D

And create all kinds of nightmares if you never clarified it further :D

Cost, most likely.

That, I don't buy. The Trade Federation did it, and they did it with thousands of droids.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/funny-pictures-cat-dresses-as-hello-kitty-by-day.jpg

I'd ask where you find all these pictures, but I'm laughing too hard!:tongue:

Ok, Mura, according to this (http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=201501), Greek armor was indeed quite resistant, but it could still be breached on certain points by a good sword.
Oh, thanks so much! I didn't mean for you to have to do my research for me. I just threw it out there in case anyone happened to know offhand. But thanks for doing that for me. :fluffle:

And create all kinds of nightmares if you never clarified it further :D

Only if you have a degree in Physics.:p

That, I don't buy. The Trade Federation did it, and they did it with thousands of droids.
Out of Billions, possibly more.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/funny-pictures-cat-dresses-as-hello-kitty-by-day.jpg

Rofl! :D

I'd ask where you find all these pictures, but I'm laughing too hard!:tongue:

http://stuff.orly.ch/img/blog/hello%20kitty%27s%20real%20face.jpg

And here is an article of the new SWAT gear:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2337/2201136211_c5c20242d1.jpg

Oh, thanks so much! I didn't mean for you to have to do my research for me. I just threw it out there in case anyone happened to know offhand. But thanks for doing that for me. :fluffle:

No problem, sweetheart.:fluffle:
I got curious too.

So, they're at a place with no cavalry. There's no cavalry there when they arrive. The city isn't calling for cavalry to come and help them. Yet you maintain that they brought oliphaunts to Minas Tirith for the purpose of fighting the cavalry of Rohan. Sure.
Is there even any indication Tolkien (a) had any knowledge of battle-tactics, or (b) applied it to his writings?

EDIT: I know he served in WW1, but that didn't exactly include elves, did it...

And here is an article of the new SWAT gear:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2337/2201136211_c5c20242d1.jpg

*rolls around the floor, laughing her ass off*

Geez-gods, TPE, you're killin' me with that stuff! :D

Is there even any indication Tolkien (a) had any knowledge of battle-tactics, or (b) applied it to his writings?

EDIT: I know he served in WW1, but that didn't exactly include elves, did it...
*grabs that Hello Kitty gun and waves it at Chumbly*

I'm talking about the goddamned movies, for fuck's sake!!!!

EDIT: First off, RR already acknowledged that it is likely that the books used the oliphaunts more intelligently than the movies did, and anyway, let's say Tolkein did use them just as was shown in the movies -- I maintain that that would not suggest that he lacked military expertise, so much as it would suggest he was a frigging idiot. I actually don't think he was an idiot. Do you?

*rolls around the floor, laughing her ass off*

It should be standard Government issue.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wnelIGZ0xII/R3vHcmRv1vI/AAAAAAAAAHA/NlX0lmYErWQ/s400/CD080102.JPG

Is there even any indication Tolkien (a) had any knowledge of battle-tactics, or (b) applied it to his writings?

1. If memory serves correctly, Tolkien served in WW1 in a combat role.

2. I believe the book is quite detailed in it's description of what happened in the battles, although I'm not sure if what happens is entirely realistic within a medieval fantasy setting.

I'm talking about the goddamned movies, for fuck's sake!!!!

Most Tolkien fans would agree that the movies were fucktarded. A rare few will say that they enjoyed the movies (But they will add that they were nowhere near the books).

Is there even any indication Tolkien (a) had any knowledge of battle-tactics, or (b) applied it to his writings?

Link (http://www.tolkiensociety.org/tolkien/biography.html#2)

Tolkien finally enlisted as a second lieutenant in the Lancashire Fusiliers.For many months Tolkien was kept in boring suspense in England, mainly in Staffordshire. Finally it appeared that he must soon embark for France...

Eventually he was indeed sent to active duty on the Western Front, just in time for the Somme offensive. After four months in and out of the trenches, he succumbed to "trench fever", a form of typhus-like infection common in the insanitary conditions, and in early November was sent back to England, where he spent the next month in hospital in Birmingham...


...During these last few months, all but one of his close friends of the "T. C. B. S." had been killed in action...

...Throughout 1917 and 1918 his illness kept recurring, although periods of remission enabled him to do home service at various camps sufficiently well to be promoted to lieutenant...

So he had some type of battle experience but not a great deal..

edit: also curse your editing skills!

Also bow check abow wow
...It was when he was stationed at Hull that he and Edith went walking in the woods at nearby Roos, and there in a grove thick with hemlock Edith danced for him...

Geez-gods, TPE, you're killin' me with that stuff! :D

I am pleased. :D

I'm talking about the goddamned movies, for fuck's sake!!!!
Yes, but, even with differences, the movies are based on the books, and the basic elements of the battles are the same.

My point being, it's a bit odd critiquing or praising the battle tactics of made-up units of fighters (with largely unknown skills and martial prowess) involved in a film based upon the writings of a man whose apparent military experience was trench-warfare, not laying siege to castles.

Most Tolkien fans would agree that the movies were fucktarded. A rare few will say that they enjoyed the movies (But they will add that they were nowhere near the books).
I know, but we've been discussing fictional tactics in this thread, not Tolkein per se. I only mention the movies as examples of what I see as egregiously bad Hollywood Tactics. So I'm criticizing the movies on their own (lack of) merits, not in relation to anything Tolkein may have done.

Yes, but, even with differences, the movies are based on the books, and the basic elements of the battles are the same.

My point being, it's a bit odd critiquing or praising the battle tactics of made-up units of fighters (with largely unknown skills and martial prowess) involved in a film based upon the writings of a man whose apparent military experience was trench-warfare, not laying siege to castles.
You know what? I'm going to invite you to actually read my posts in this thread so that you will have any idea at all of what I am talking about and what points I have already made. If you do that, you might tread less already trod ground. When you have done that, I'll gladly engage in discussion with you.

This isn't really a military tactic, but Poseidon (the new one) was ridiculous. No one notices that a rogue wave is bearing down on the ship, and when they finally do, they go full astern and forget to fire the bow thrusters until the last minute? Nice one.

As for militarily, Red Dawn is just a treasure trove of idiocy. I don't even need to go into the specifics for that one. World in Conflict is entertaining, especially if you think about a Soviet fleet getting to Southern France from Murmansk and then managing to stay supplied.

It should be standard Government issue.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wnelIGZ0xII/R3vHcmRv1vI/AAAAAAAAAHA/NlX0lmYErWQ/s400/CD080102.JPG
Reminds me of a story I heard about the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia after the crushing of the Prague Spring in 1968. It was the Affair of the Pink Tank.

There was this big-ass Soviet tank parked intimidatingly in front of the senate house in Prague. So some artist decided to sneak in during the night and paint the whole thing pink. So comes the dawn, and the tank is pink. Apparently painting things pink was a hallmark of this artist, I guess, because the Russians went right out and arrested him. Then they repainted their tank, camo-color. But a group of Czech senators decided that the artist should not have been arrested for painting the tank pink. So to protest his arrest, they snuck out in the night and painted it pink again. The Russians left it that color after that. I don't know how loudly they sighed and muttered when they saw it, though.

You know what? I'm going to invite you to actually read my posts in this thread...
It's not all about you, Mura.

I find the whole discussion of tactics involving fantasy units, particularly the kind of discussion you and RR have been having, as rather odd, seeing as we don't really know (all) the capabilities of fantasy units, or the tactics of (in this case) Sauron.

EDIT: For example, you guys are talking about the use of oliphaunts, with direct reference to real-world elephants. But for all we know, oliphaunts are markedly different to elephants in a specific tactical use (perhaps they're particularly effective at combating mice). Tolkein nor Jackson don't say.

Reminds me of a story I heard about the Soviety occupation of Czechoslovakia after the crushing of the Prague Spring in 1968. It was the Affair of the Pink Tank.

There was this big-ass Soviet tank parked intimidatingly in front of the senate house in Prague. So some artist decided to sneak in during the night and paint the whole thing pink. So comes the dawn, and the tank is pink. Apparently painting things pink was a hallmark of this artist, I guess, because the Russians went right out and arrested him. Then they repainted their tank, camo-color. But a group of Czech senators decided that the artist should not have been arrested for painting the tank pink. So to protest his arrest, they snuck out in the night and painted it pink again. The Russians left it that color after that. I don't know how loudly they sighed when they saw it, though.

Congratulations, you have just won the "Best Anecdote of the Year" award!

It's not all about you, Mura.
That's what I keep telling people, and yet a few just keep bothering me.

I find the whole discussion of tactics involving fantasy units, particularly the kind of discussion you and RR have been having, as rather odd, seeing as we don't really know (all) the capabilities of fantasy units, or the tactics of (in this case) Sauron.

EDIT: For example, you guys are talking about the use of oliphaunts, with direct reference to real-world elephants. But for all we know, oliphaunts are markedly different to elephants in a specific tactical use (perhaps they're particularly effective at combating mice). Tolkein nor Jackson don't say.
Well, of course, that rather begs the question of why you jumped into question what either of us was saying at all, doesn't it?

Second, there is this thing in fiction -- they call it "verisimilitude." That's when, even when what you are writing is entirely made up (as in fantasy), you still try to make it sound reasonably realistic.

When writing fantasy -- even the kind that has magic in it -- you achieve verisimilitude by making what you describe relevant to things like physics, time, and other "natural laws", and by making sure that if you tweak those laws for your fictional reality, you do so 100% consistently.

So, things that work in your book or movie the same way they do in real life, have to actually work the way they do in real life. Therefore, in the movie, the downhill charge of the Rohirrim at Helms Deep was bad because the hill in the movie was way too steep for horses to gallop down it the way they were shown doing.

And, further, things in your book or movie that are similar to things in real life should either work in a manner similar to their real life counterparts or have the different ways they work fully explained. So the oliphaunts resemble elephants. They also resemble seige towers and other very large war machines. They are outfitted similar to war elephants and seige towers. They are deployed in war. It is not unreasonable to assume they should be used in a manner similar to real-life elephants and/or seige towers. If Tolkein or the moviemakers wanted them to be used differently, they should have done a better job of expressing that.

There are somethings we cannot guess at, but many other things we can easily guess at and will naturally guess at by default. Things like physics and logistics. We may not know what an oliphaunt can or can't do, but we can easily envision the physical issues in pitting an animal the size of an oliphant against animals the size of horses. We can compare that against a plan of pitting the oliphant against a fortified structure. And we can make a decision about what seems the more effective use of the oliphaunt.

Writing fantasy is not a license to god-mode.

EDIT: For another example: I am writing a story set in a magical world dominated by elves, dwarves, goblins and fairies, in which magic is omnipresent, but guns and explosives are primitive and rare. My hero is, among other things, a naval commander who will engage in combat at sea. Now, because of the magical elements of the story, I can give myself quite a bit of leeway in how he damages his opponents, how he protects his own ship, etc., but there are strict limits to what I can get away with. Because of the lack of cannons for his ship, I'm going to have to invent some other type of ranged weapon for him to use in ship-to-ship combat. Fine -- I can do almost whatever I like. But I cannot create a weapon that, in its firing, would interfere with the ship's stability, or its sails or rigging, etc. I cannot posit a weapon that has a real-life counterpart that works a certain way at a certain speed (like a ballista, for instance), and have it magically work 100 times faster and more lethally, etc. Whatever I invent, I'm going to have be mindful of how it is affected by the movement of the ship, by weather, etc. My character may be able to use magic to manipulate the wind for his ship, but I have to be careful not to god-mode it so much that it seems as if he can arrange the water anyway he wants it, at his whim. That would not only be unbelievable but also not dramatic.

You see what I mean? Fantasy in what I make up, but realism in how what I make up works.

My argument is that the movies -- for the sake of cheap thrills and using up their CGI budget -- destroyed the realism of how stuff worked in the story.

Well, of course, that rather begs the question of why you jumped into question what either of us was saying at all, doesn't it?
I don't know, why don't you tell me?

Second, there is this thing in fiction -- they call it "verisimilitude." That's when, even when what you are writing is entirely made up (as in fantasy), you still try to make it sound reasonably realistic.

When writing fantasy -- even the kind that has magic in it -- you achieve verisimilitude by making what you describe relevant to things like physics, time, and other "natural laws", and by making sure that if you tweak those laws for your fictional reality, you do so 100% consistently.

So, things that work in your book or movie the same way they do in real life, have to actually work the way they do in real life.
Exactly my point: we don't know whether the oliphaunts, to continue using them as an example, work in the same way they 'do' in real life, as neither Tolkien nor Jackson have to my knowledge commented on the 'reality' of these things, and thus discussing whether they in fact are realistic is rather odd.

Especially with a writer and director that use such liberal amounts of deus ex machina (or whatever the plural for that term is), as you have rightly pointed out. Verisimilitude's all well and dandy, but with fantasy/sci-fi technology or tactics, I'm inclined to give massive benefit of doubt.

Why does Galactica have gravity? Because it does. Why can the Rohirrim charge down a near-vertical slope? Because they can.

Otherwise we get to the point of decrying Godzilla because a monster of his size wouldn't be able to have a skeleton capable of supporting his frame.

COUNTEREDIT: I think you are positing a perfectly valid, and IMO rather admirable theory of fiction-writing, but I don't think it's sacrosanct.

I don't know, why don't you tell me?


Exactly my point: we don't know whether the oliphaunts, to continue using them as an example, work in the same way they 'do' in real life, as neither Tolkien nor Jackson have to my knowledge commented on the 'reality' of these things, and thus discussing whether they in fact are realistic is rather odd.

Especially with a writer and director that use such liberal amounts of deus ex machina (or whatever the plural for that term is), as you have rightly pointed out. Verisimilitude's all well and dandy, but with fantasy/sci-fi technology or tactics, I'm inclined to give massive benefit of doubt.

Why does Galactica have gravity? Because it does. Why can the Rohirrim charge down a near-vertical slope? Because they can.

Otherwise we get to the point of decrying Godzilla because a monster of his size wouldn't be able to have a skeleton capable of supporting his frame.

COUNTEREDIT: I think you are positing a perfectly valid, and IMO rather admirable theory of fiction-writing, but I don't think it's sacrosanct.
You are missing the point that the degree to which we can ignore reality is in direct proportion to how far from reality our subject is. Godzilla is so egregiously fake to begin with -- the whole idea of it -- that we can break just about any physical law with that critter and be forgiven for it. On the other hand, normal, natural, non-monstrous, non-magical horses charging at full gallop down an incline that no horse would ever be able to manage at that speed just is not going to work. It will always be a pothole in the road of the story.

Note that there were also problems in the movies with the appearance of the Nazgul in flight. Their wings just did not appear to work right. Yet that animal was so clearly not natural and without any clear natural counterpart that created in my mind an expectation of how its wings should work, that although there was something about it that annoyed me, I was able to shrug it off in a way that I could not with the horses and the hill.

We might say the oliphaunts were as non-natural as the Nazgul, but to my eye, the oliphaunts, although dinosaur-sized, were still similar enough in appearance to elephants and war machines that it created in my mind an expectation of how they were supposed to operate. For them to be used differently, that would have had to be explained or suggested to me, the audience, in some way.

But nothing would save the horses charging the oliphaunts, in my opinion, because of the size difference between them. (And also because I'd seen Star Wars before LotR and recognized the near detail-for-detail swipe from that movie.)

As for whether my rule is sancrosanct -- all rules can be broken, and sometimes to good effect, but I think what you are saying only makes excuses for poor storytelling.

Is there even any indication Tolkien (a) had any knowledge of battle-tactics, or (b) applied it to his writings?1. If memory serves correctly, Tolkien served in WW1 in a combat role.So he didn't.

W.r.t the current discussion of Helm's Deep, that particular cavalry charge is the fault of the films only. The books have Erkenbrand and 1000 men on foot arriving with Gandalf, a much more reasonable and useful force. And the huorns, which doesn't help matters for the Uruk Hai.

You sure those pike line charges weren't part of accepted real-world fighting?

Admittedly, medieval fighting isn't something I've studied a lot.

You cannot break a coherent pike line with a frontal cavalry charge. It's complete suicide.

Ear drums, eyeballs, and plenty of blood vessels explode, along with any lung containing air. It is like what happens when a diver swims-up too rapidly.

From this (http://www.geoffreylandis.com/vacuum.html), that's not quite accurate. You lose consciousness in about 10 seconds, can survive if repressurised in about 90 seconds, and die after that.

Ok, Mura, according to this (http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=201501), Greek armor was indeed quite resistant, but it could still be breached on certain points by a good sword.

I don't like that article, some of the mistakes it makes are a little elementary. There is debate about the linothorax, which is the piece of armour that Murv mentioned. I don't know enough to go into the various details, but the most popular suggestion is that it was made from 15-20 layers of linen, laminated together with glue. Some experiments on plausible reconstructions of this have been done, and show it would have resisted arrows and sword slashes fairly effectively, although a solid spear thrust could still do serious damage (see this webpage (http://www.uwgb.edu/aldreteg/Linothorax.html) for some details). They broadly supplanted bronze armour, being both tougher and cheaper to make.

It should be standard Government issue.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wnelIGZ0xII/R3vHcmRv1vI/AAAAAAAAAHA/NlX0lmYErWQ/s400/CD080102.JPG

Oh gods!:D

Maybe they should put Hello Kitty stickers on those black shields.

History Channel repeatedly claims that ancient Greek hoplite armor, which was a linen/leather laminate, was about as strong as modern Kevlar. Not as scary as SWAT perhaps, to modern eyes, but as impenetrable.

Does anyone know if that's true?

Not quite as strong as kevlar, but the armor was able to stop an arrow from causing a lethal amount of damage even fired from only a few yards away; a well made melee weapon like a sword or spear could pierce through it but it required a lot of effort on the part of the attacker; it was used in the early and middle bronze age so it was quite capable of defeating the weapons of the day.

Saw it on the History Channel: Ancient Discoveries, they actually try to recreate ancient machines to see how they worked.

I don't like that article, some of the mistakes it makes are a little elementary. There is debate about the linothorax, which is the piece of armour that Murv mentioned. I don't know enough to go into the various details, but the most popular suggestion is that it was made from 15-20 layers of linen, laminated together with glue. Some experiments on plausible reconstructions of this have been done, and show it would have resisted arrows and sword slashes fairly effectively, although a solid spear thrust could still do serious damage (see this webpage (http://www.uwgb.edu/aldreteg/Linothorax.html) for some details). They broadly supplanted bronze armour, being both tougher and cheaper to make.

You may not like that article, but it answered Muravyet's question swiftly. She was, in any case, going to do more research on her own. Was that armor able to be breached? Yes, it was.

What I know of that armor is not much, but what I could gleam from that article and others I read last night, is that it had linen and it was inlaid with metal plates, chain links to be more specific, of either bronze or another metal.

Surprised this thread has gone this far without mentioning the film Troy.

Precisely how did Agamemnon and the Greeks intend on successfully besieging Troy without any siege equipment of any kind? The ridiculous line charge that the Greeks made after Hector killed Menelaus: what the hell would the Greeks have done had they made it all the way to the Trojan walls? Chopped them down with their swords? Completely obnoxious.

See, I think Star Trek is the worst, absolutely the worst offender.

For instance, every single time they have boarders. Rather than engaging them in the hallways, why don't they just lock onto them and beam them into space just outside the hull? You wouldn't even have to flash your shields since you're beaming them inside it.

Forget beaming them into space - just purge the transporter buffer!

Now I am imagining a Schlock Mercenary-style Star Trek where space battles are won by the ship with the biggest reactor and best transporting capability. And it's pretty nice.

Submarines don't work!
Why not?
Because they didn't use them during the American Revolution!

IIRC, there was at least one barrel with hand-cranked propellers and a drill on top. Yeah, that didn't work well.

Surprised this thread has gone this far without mentioning the film Troy.

Precisely how did Agamemnon and the Greeks intend on successfully besieging Troy without any siege equipment of any kind? The ridiculous line charge that the Greeks made after Hector killed Menelaus: what the hell would the Greeks have done had they made it all the way to the Trojan walls? Chopped them down with their swords? Completely obnoxious.

They figured Ajax and Achilles would just knock the gates down with their bare fists and lead the army to glorious victory.

Surprised this thread has gone this far without mentioning the film Troy.

Precisely how did Agamemnon and the Greeks intend on successfully besieging Troy without any siege equipment of any kind? The ridiculous line charge that the Greeks made after Hector killed Menelaus: what the hell would the Greeks have done had they made it all the way to the Trojan walls? Chopped them down with their swords? Completely obnoxious.

Hmmm... now that you mention it, yes. That was poorly brought to the big screen. I'm sure the phalanx must've been something quite impressive and, maybe, I don't know, the film didn't do any justice to it. I wish there was a better record of the battle of Troy than the one from The Iliad, aside from the Trojan horse, were there any other tactics they could've used?

They figured Ajax and Achilles would just knock the gates down with their bare fists and lead the army to glorious victory.

Achilles has always struck me as a rather stupid figure. I mean, a man as strong as him, quite the warriro, able to be brought down to his knees and killed by shooting an arrow at his heel. Of course, I also know tragedy was a sport for the Greeks, but really...

You may not like that article, but it answered Muravyet's question swiftly. She was, in any case, going to do more research on her own. Was that armor able to be breached? Yes, it was.

What I know of that armor is not much, but what I could gleam from that article and others I read last night, is that it had linen and it was inlaid with metal plates, chain links to be more specific, of either bronze or another metal.

Can you give me a cite on the metal inlay please - it contradicts most of what I've been able to find?

To the best of my knowledge, there is one piece found of similar appearance but made from iron, and various illustrations showing small patches of scale on the sides. Both of these are in a minority, however: most illustrations and records show no metal serving protective purposes. The two main suggestions are laminated linen over a leather core, and laminated linen.

Hmmm... now that you mention it, yes. That was poorly brought to the big screen. I'm sure the phalanx must've been something quite impressive and, maybe, I don't know, the film didn't do any justice to it. I wish there was a better record of the battle of Troy than the one from The Iliad, aside from the Trojan horse, were there any other tactics they could've used?

The movie made the whole fiasco out to make less sense than what the bible says is Joshua's plan to capture Jericho.

At the time period.. the Greeks would have likely used ladders and ropes to try and climb the walls as well as battering rams to pound open the gates. I do not believe that the Ballista has been invented yet at that time. However, its more likely that historically the Greeks surrounded the Trojans and tried to starve them out, the Trojans would make occasional forays out into the open to fight the Greek invaders and they would line up in phalanxes in a wide open area and try to out flank one another until both sides got sick of the battle and one retreated.
Also, at this time period most wars were only fought in the summer, so in the 7 years that the city was supposedly besieged there was actually only about 21 months of actual fighting. The Greek Armies consisted of pretty much any able bodied man able to carry a spear and a shield; they would leave their trades behind at home to fight against the enemies of Greece for a few months, then when winter came they would get back in their ships, sail back across the Aegean Sea, and go about doing what they usually do. Someone had to plant the fields, herd the goats, make the clay pots that were oh so necessary to the Greek way of life, and et al.

Maybe Stormtrooper armour merely makes it so they fall down rather than die horribly? Except for that one guy who fell in that bottomless pit, of course. But nobody liked him, anyway.

Can you give me a cite on the metal inlay please - it contradicts most of what I've been able to find?

To the best of my knowledge, there is one piece found of similar appearance but made from iron, and various illustrations showing small patches of scale on the sides. Both of these are in a minority, however: most illustrations and records show no metal serving protective purposes. The two main suggestions are laminated linen over a leather core, and laminated linen.

According to this (http://www.ncl.ac.uk/shefton-museum/greeks/armour.html), Greek armour:

Greek soldiers also wore breastplates made of bronze to cover their chest and back. Sometimes these would be large enough to completely cover the body of the soldier. Other armour was made of leather, with a small bronze breastplate - like this - stitched onto it. If you look carefully, you can see a line of holes around the edge. These were so that the bronze plates could be stitched to its backing which held the armour together.

So what you've read is right, but I wasn't mistaken either.

The movie made the whole fiasco out to make less sense than what the bible says is Joshua's plan to capture Jericho.

LMAO!

At the time period.. the Greeks would have likely used ladders and ropes to try and climb the walls as well as battering rams to pound open the gates. I do not believe that the Ballista has been invented yet at that time. However, its more likely that historically the Greeks surrounded the Trojans and tried to starve them out, the Trojans would make occasional forays out into the open to fight the Greek invaders and they would line up in phalanxes in a wide open area and try to out flank one another until both sides got sick of the battle and one retreated.
Also, at this time period most wars were only fought in the summer, so in the 7 years that the city was supposedly besieged there was actually only about 21 months of actual fighting. The Greek Armies consisted of pretty much any able bodied man able to carry a spear and a shield; they would leave their trades behind at home to fight against the enemies of Greece for a few months, then when winter came they would get back in their ships, sail back across the Aegean Sea, and go about doing what they usually do. Someone had to plant the fields, herd the goats, make the clay pots that were oh so necessary to the Greek way of life, and et al.

Thanks for that, B-tan.

LMAO!



Thanks for that, B-tan.

No problem. This stuff is a hobby of mine.

No problem. This stuff is a hobby of mine.

Yes, I can see that. History is always so interesting, and the Greeks were magnificent in all they did.

Surprised this thread has gone this far without mentioning the film Troy.

Precisely how did Agamemnon and the Greeks intend on successfully besieging Troy without any siege equipment of any kind? The ridiculous line charge that the Greeks made after Hector killed Menelaus: what the hell would the Greeks have done had they made it all the way to the Trojan walls? Chopped them down with their swords? Completely obnoxious.

My history lessons from the Age of Empires series tell me this is completely possible.

Yes, I can see that. History is always so interesting, and the Greeks were magnificent in all they did.

Including slavery, invasion and unfair colonising?

Including slavery, invasion and unfair colonising?

Besides that. They were pioneers in philosophy, human thinking and both art and architecture. What's your point?

Besides that. They were pioneers in philosophy, human thinking and both art and architecture. What's your point?

That the Spartans were the best the Greeks had to offer.

That the Spartans were the best the Greeks had to offer.

I completely disagree. Check the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_architecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_warfare

That the Spartans were the best the Greeks had to offer.

Militarily yes, society wise no.

Militarily yes, society wise no.

I actually liked the militarized society. Besides what did all that cultural get the Athenians when the Spartans were at the gates ?

Including slavery, invasion and unfair colonising?

The Greeks she is referring to are the intellectual ones. There were those who wrote poems about the burning of Troy that depict such things as quite unnecessary and brutal. In Homer's Iliad, the traditional Greek morals and Gods are mocked, shown as barbaric and stupid, and Hector, who was mainly the villain in Greek legend, is really the only admirable character.

Very few ancient societies did not use slavery, invasion, and colonialism. To impugn them for it would be like impugning 14th Century Japan for not legalizing same-sex marriage.

Militarily yes, society wise no.

They were culturally bereft, but they also tended to be far more progressive than the Athenians, especially in regards to women's rights and mercy to non-combatants.

I completely disagree. Check the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Philosophy
Spartan view that everyone is more moral when in military service is my retort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_architecture
the best walls and pillars for a city is the courage of the men who defend it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_art

whats the point with the foppishs tuff when there are towns to burn?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_warfare

yeah notice Sparta defeated Athens.

Spartan view that everyone is more moral when in military service is my retort.
the best walls and pillars for a city is the courage of the men who defend it.

whats the point with the foppishs tuff when there are towns to burn?


yeah notice Sparta defeated Athens.

And once again, we keep disagreeing. Check Parkus's post.

Spartan view that everyone is more moral when in military service is my retort.

Their military encouraged stealing and cheating at the Olympics; of course, if one was caught in either of these activities one was severally punished.

Overall, I suppose the Spartans had more of a "code" than the other city-states: They showed more loyalty and kindness in war.

yeah notice Sparta defeated Athens.

And Athens started it.

Still, the point is that although Sparta might have been fairly enlightened in many respects, it lacked flourishing art and philosophy.

Surprised this thread has gone this far without mentioning the film Troy.

Precisely how did Agamemnon and the Greeks intend on successfully besieging Troy without any siege equipment of any kind? The ridiculous line charge that the Greeks made after Hector killed Menelaus: what the hell would the Greeks have done had they made it all the way to the Trojan walls? Chopped them down with their swords? Completely obnoxious.

It did get mentioned briefly on page 1 or 2, but was skipped over for the Big Oliphaunt Fight, apparently. Thanks for bringing it back up. The screwing up/over of actual history (if not the battle at least the manner of fighting) is always even funnier than idiotic made-up stuff.

And once again, we keep disagreeing. Check Parkus's post.

Unfortunate My Spartans are now invading Spain to set you Spanish fops right.

Unfortunate My Spartans are now invading Spain to set you Spanish fops right.

Did you just call me a fop, you uncivilized Yankee rabble? This calls for a duel!:mad:

Unfortunate My Spartans are now invading Spain to set you Spanish fops right.

http://www.blakeneymanor.com/images/carryon/fop.jpg

I say, your ruffians lack proper skill with modern weapons.

Did you just call me a fop, you uncivilized Yankee rabble? This calls for a duel!:mad:

Sweet I am the challenged party. My choice of weapons.
LG bring us some pies.

Overall, I suppose the Spartans had more of a "code" than the other city-states: They showed more loyalty and kindness in war.
Not if I remember my Thucydides correctly; he paints both the Athenians and the Spartans as having bloodthirsty moments.

http://www.blakeneymanor.com/images/carryon/fop.jpg

I say, your ruffians lack proper skill with modern weapons.

We will see about that. We have invented a nuclear weapon Phalanx doctrine.

In re Sparta vs Athens, I think the point is that, at their height, each was a sovereign state with its own culture and therefore only nominally comparable to each other. Each had its high points and low points, and each made its own contribution to history. In military history, one cannot understate the importance of certain key victories won by Sparta. On the other hand, in terms of political, philosophical, and social history, I think it should be obvious that Athens had a far greater influence on the rest of the world (if only because the Romans envied their arts and letters more than Sparta's military prowess, of which the Romans had plenty of their own).

not if I remember my Thucydides correctly; he paints both the Athenians and the Spartans as having bloodthirsty moments.

Sure, they both did. Both also cruelly used slaves. Spartans still tended to be less expansionist and less likely to burn neighboring cities than the Athenians.

Sweet I am the challenged party. My choice of weapons.
LG bring us some pies.

Bring it on!http://icons.iconator.com/998/ICONATOR_9831b6d2547477de0cbf18ce5975ae87.gif

In re Sparta vs Athens, I think the point is that, at their height, each was a sovereign state with its own culture and therefore only nominally comparable to each other. Each had its high points and low points, and each made its own contribution to history. In military history, one cannot understate the importance of certain key victories won by Sparta. On the other hand, in terms of political, philosophical, and social history, I think it should be obvious that Athens had a far greater influence on the rest of the world (if only because the Romans envied their arts and letters more than Sparta's military prowess, of which the Romans had plenty of their own).

They were different cultures, alright. Doric invasion, anyone?

We will see about that. We have invented a nuclear weapon Phalanx doctrine.

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs013.snc1/2929_1120768627262_1468456659_30289947_3690882_n.jpg

They were different cultures, alright. Doric invasion, anyone?

Are you talking about the Dorian invasion?

Sure, they both did. Both also cruelly used slaves. Spartans still tended to be less expansionist and less likely to burn neighboring cities than the Athenians.

Also the Athenians discouraged slavery of other Greeks. Where as the Spartans were far more equal opportunity. Points to a more racist sexist society in Athens.

Also the Athenians discouraged slavery of other Greeks. Where as the Spartans were far more equal opportunity. Points to a more racist sexist society in Athens.

You still fail to see the contributions of Athens to the world of art, architecture and human thinking. Yes, Greek society was sexist, women were breeding machines, but that's not all the Greeks were.

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs013.snc1/2929_1120768627262_1468456659_30289947_3690882_n.jpg

Oh go take a Yacht around Somalia you FOP.

Are you talking about the Dorian invasion?

Yes--and their occupation of Sparta. Supposedly, Sparta was one of the few states that stayed under their rule, which explains why the Spartans were such dorks.

Oh go take a Yacht around Somalia you FOP.

Away with you, dandiprat! We coxcombs only enjoy the company of the finest.

Yes--and their occupation of Sparta. Supposedly, Sparta was one of the few states that stayed under their rule, which explains why the Spartans were such dorks.

Ah yes, although the invasion did take other parts of the Peloponnese, Crete and Rhodes and went furter down into Sicily and Epirus. Although historically, the emphasis is given to the Doric dialect.

Ah yes, although the invasion did take other parts of the Peloponnese, Crete and Rhodes and went furter down into Sicily and Epirus. Although historically, the emphasis is given to the Doric dialect.

It explains the artistic discrepancy between Sparta and other cities, as the Dorian culture cared little for such things.

Ah yes, although the invasion did take other parts of the Peloponnese, Crete and Rhodes and went furter down into Sicily and Epirus. Although historically, the emphasis is given to the Doric dialect.

Dorians the best of Greece. Sparta the best of the best of Greece.

Dorians the best of Greece. Sparta the best of the best of Greece.

Though they are responsible for a fairly shitty film.

Though they are responsible for a fairly shitty film.

No that was hollywood. It was a really good comic. I swear hollywood could fuck up a wet dream.

It explains the artistic discrepancy between Sparta and other cities, as the Dorian culture cared little for such things.

Indeed. Dorian culture was more about getting things done. I mean, look at Doric art. It's lackluster, to say something, and more practical and, yes, boring. And we all know Spartans were known for practicality.

Although historically, the emphasis is given to the Doric dialect.
This amuses me greatly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_dialect_(Scotland)).

This amuses me greatly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_dialect_(Scotland)).

Yes, it's amusing. I came across that too. But this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_Greek) is what me and Parkus were referring to.

BTW, I still want a marshmallow Chumblywumbly.:wink:

This amuses me greatly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_dialect_(Scotland)).

The Spartans moved to Scotland after the Romans took over :eek:.
That actually explains so much.

No that was hollywood. It was a really good comic. I swear hollywood could fuck up a wet dream.

:tongue:

One of the reasons I have yet to see Watchmen is because that moron is directing.

This amuses me greatly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doric_dialect_(Scotland)).

That explains why Leonidas has a funny accent.