NationStates Jolt Archive

That explains why Leonidas has a funny accent.

and he keeps talking about FREEEEDDDDDOOOOMMM!!

and he keeps talking about FREEEEDDDDDOOOOMMM!!

They should have cast Mel Gibson, instead.

BTW, I still want a marshmallow Chumblywumbly.:wink:
Supply is limited, I'm afraid.

Great demand.

They should have cast Mel Gibson, instead.

*shudders*

They should have cast Mel Gibson, instead.

I hate that man.

I hate that man.

But...he saved America!

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/martin-copy.jpg

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

Meh, I liked it. But, that's because I only payed attention to the action scenes. Everything other than the action my reaction was basically: ''When the action gonna start again?''

Meh, I liked it. But, that's because I only payed attention to the action scenes. Everything other than the action my reaction was basically: ''When the action gonna start again?''

Same. Because I knew historically it was a bunch of shit, and the actors weren't that brilliant, I was just waiting for the fight scenes to start.

But...he saved America!

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/martin-copy.jpg

And he acts as if every single English person has kidnapped a member of his immediate family, raped them, and then tortured them to death. He's an Anglophobic bastard.

And he acts as if every single English person has kidnapped a member of his immediate family, raped them, and then tortured them to death. He's an Anglophobic bastard.

It is about as absurd as 300, which portrays all the Persians as filth. All the more reason Gibson should have been cast.

People need to stop masturbating over SPARTAAAAAAAAAA! as if they were a people of demigods. Sparta's primary legacy is that talking big is the way forward - their actual military achievements are in no way extraordinary. They were defeated again and again, be their opponents Thebans, Athenians or whatever, their victory in the Peleponnesian war was of a very short duration indeed, Thermopylae they lost, for Zeus' sake, and in the end they were all subdued by the Macedonians, and then eventually gobbled up by the Romans.

In short, Sparta's martial legacy is no greater than that of the rest of Greece. Their cultural legacy OTOH, sucks horribly. They were an impoverished, almost anachronistic society, the most backwards city in Greece, and for all their mouthig of, they never succeeded in taking down their oh-so-decadent neighbors, Athens quite happily kicking them off after just a few years, and proceeding to regain its status in Greece (Though not in the rest of the world), to name but one example.

Fuck Sparta.

It is about as absurd as 300, which portrays all the Persians as filth. All the more reason Gibson should have been cast.

It's not as if Gerard Butler has starred in other films where some sort of heroic, downtrodden character fights off the evil murderous Persians.

It's not as if Gerard Butler has starred in other films where some sort of heroic, downtrodden character fights off the evil murderous Persians.

:tongue:

:tongue:

I'm being serious.

Supply is limited, I'm afraid.

Great demand.

I saw the peanut butter ones are been sold quite well.

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.)

and thus you now know the difference between what looks good and what is tactically sound.

Tactically sound moves tend not to make for good action scenes.

and thus you now know the difference between what looks good and what is tactically sound.

Tactically sound moves tend not to make for good action scenes.

You are correct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97dBfdNrf9A

and thus you now know the difference between what looks good and what is tactically sound.

Tactically sound moves tend not to make for good action scenes.

But wouldn't these give more veracity to the film in question?

But wouldn't these give more veracity to the film in question?

Fat Americans munching on pop corn care not for Veracity.

Fat Americans munching on pop corn care not for Veracity.

Fat Americans munching of pop corn don't know a thing.

Fat Americans munching of pop corn don't know a thing.

But they have the money so the movies are made for them.

Fat Americans munching of pop corn don't know a thing.

They hate all the best films.

But they have the money so the movies are made for them.

Unfortunately, which is the reason why America's attention span is that of a flea.

But wouldn't these give more veracity to the film in question?

depends on what the filmmaker wants his film to be.

Flying by the seat of your pants makes for great arial dogfighting... but in space, where there is no 'up' and where spacial judgement is screwed... it's practically impossible. yet would Star Wars be as great a film if it was done 'realistically'?

think about all those action movies where you have the hero blazing away without reloading?

or all those car chase scenes where you have average drivers pulling off maneuvers that only professional drivers can do?

heck, even romance films were the characters make moving speeches that touch the heart of the audiences... without a speechwriter!

movies (fictional ones anyway) require a level of disbelief. because you are transporting yourself into a storybook world where cars explode when a bullet hits a gas tank... where people can punch through windows without getting cut up... where everyone knows kung fu fighting. where the hero/ine knows exactly what to say and when.

Unfortunately, which is the reason why America's attention span is that of a flea.

We have produced some fine films.

Unfortunately, which is the reason why America's attention span is that of a flea.

That I blame on commercials. :p

Fat Americans munching of pop corn don't know a thing.

oh really? nitpicking movies is one of this 'Fat American's' hobbies.

oh really? nitpicking movies is one of this 'Fat American's' hobbies.

You're an exception to the rule, JuNii-kun, and you sir, know this. :wink:

depends on what the filmmaker wants his film to be.

Flying by the seat of your pants makes for great arial dogfighting... but in space, where there is no 'up' and where spacial judgement is screwed... it's practically impossible. yet would Star Wars be as great a film if it was done 'realistically'?

think about all those action movies where you have the hero blazing away without reloading?

or all those car chase scenes where you have average drivers pulling off maneuvers that only professional drivers can do?

heck, even romance films were the characters make moving speeches that touch the heart of the audiences... without a speechwriter!

movies (fictional ones anyway) require a level of disbelief. because you are transporting yourself into a storybook world where cars explode when a bullet hits a gas tank... where people can punch through windows without getting cut up... where everyone knows kung fu fighting. where the hero/ine knows exactly what to say and when.

Which is why I largely disregard movies nowadays.

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

Military body armor isn't supposed to protect you from bullets, its supposed (and does) protect you from shrapnel.

I miss the days when the bow and arrow was the greatest military weapon.

Military body armor isn't supposed to protect you from bullets, its supposed (and does) protect you from shrapnel.

Right, my point is that there is armor that can protect one from bullets.

1. If memory serves correctly, tolkien served in ww1 in a combat role.
|
\ /
world war i

the united kingdom was then engaged in fighting world war i, and tolkien volunteered for military service and was commissioned in the british army as a second lieutenant in the lancashire fusiliers.[37] he trained with the 13th (reserve) battalion on cannock chase, staffordshire, for eleven months. He was then transferred to the 11th (service) battalion with the british expeditionary force, arriving in france on 4 june 1916.[38] he later wrote:

Junior officers were being killed off, a dozen a minute. Parting from my wife then ... It was like a death.[39]

tolkien served as a signals officer during the battle of the somme, participating in the battle of thiepval ridge. He came down with trench fever, a disease carried by the lice which were common in no man's land, on 27 october 1916. According to the memoirs of the reverend mervyn s. Evers, anglican chaplain to the lancashire fusilliers:

On one occasion i spent the night with the brigade machine gun officer and the signals officer in one of the captured german dugouts ... We dossed down for the night in the hope of getting some sleep, but it was not to be. We no sooner laid down than hoards of lice got up. So we went round to the medical officer, who was also in the dugout with his equipment, and he gave us some ointment which he assured us would keep the little brutes away. We anointed ourselves all over with the stuff and again lay down in great hopes, but it was not to be, because instead of discouraging them it seemed to act like a kind of hors d'oeuvre and the little beggars went at their feast with renewed vigor.[40]

tolkien was invalided to england on 8 november 1916.[41] many of his dearest friends, including gilson and smith of the t.c.b.s., were killed in the war. In later years, tolkien indignantly declared that those who searched his works for parallels to the second world war were entirely mistaken:

One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead.[42]

the weak and emaciated tolkien spent the remainder of the war alternating between hospitals and garrison duties, being deemed medically unfit for general service.

Unfortunately, which is the reason why America's attention span is that of a flea.

Hey! I take...

What were we talking about?

Right, my point is that there is armor that can protect one from bullets.

True

Hey! I take...

What were we talking about?

:fluffle:

Best Tactic Ever: Put Jar-Jar Binks in the middle of a battle and watch the enemy fall while laughing your ass off.

Best Tactic Ever: Put Jar-Jar Binks in the middle of a battle and watch the enemy fall while laughing your ass off.

either that or the battle ends after everyone shoots it to shit and basks in the feeling of finally killing off Jar-Jar and no one would want to ruin that moment.

either that or the battle ends after everyone shoots it to shit and basks in the feeling of finally killing off Jar-Jar and no one would want to ruin that moment.

Fair enough.

either that or the battle ends after everyone shoots it to shit and basks in the feeling of finally killing off Jar-Jar and no one would want to ruin that moment.

The way to establish peace in Iraq. I need a giant JarJar costume and a volunteer that can do his voice ASAP.

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.

(1) What parts of "probably out of range," " hard to hit a moving target with a catapult" and "friendly fire casualties" don't you understand?

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.

I don't think using them as living siege towers would work unless they were pretty close in height to the wall. As for breaching the wall, in the book Gondor's outer wall was more or less unbreakable, but using the film, I don't know.

And those things on their back were kind of small to move any seige engine sufficiently powerful to breach the walls of Gondor (especially considering they'd have to carry ammo). Given their height, though, they might have been useful in firing arrows over the tops of the walls.

You keep forgetting about the whole suppressing fire via catapults from the orc forces at the rear of the battle field thing.

You keep forgetting that the Oliphaunts arrived after the city was breached.

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.

Did Jackson screw with the book's battle scenes in needless and sometimes detrimental ways? Undoubtably.

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.

I recall hearing that elephants were used in battle against the Romans, I think it was by Hannibal, though maybe not. Anyway, they might not have made it to their "ultimate destination," but that doesn't mean they didn't fight.

All this is of course a tangent from the main topic, though.

Do you really think the oliphaunts were brought to Minas Tirith to combat the Rohirrim?

I think that is one possible use for them, and given the fact that they didn't arrive until after the city had all but fallen, either something or someone screwed up Sauron's logistics royally, or they were never intended to assault the city.

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?

I'd suggest doing a google search on maps of Middle Earth. Rohan is on the plains to the northwest of Minis Tirith, and its capital is three days away on horseback according to Theoden. Harrad, from which the Oliphaunts come, is to the southeast across the great river (or south of Mordor, to put it another way). I think its about the same distance, from my vauge recolections of the maps. But that's the books again.

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).

Some at least probably did set out before Helm's Deep, since Frodo saw some in Ithillian. However, Sauron might not have counted on Sauruman to completely smash Rohan (pure speculation, but not all that unreasonable), and since it looks to be about a week in the film between Helm's Deep and the Pellenor Feilds, that might be long enough to rush some more Oliphaunts up from Harad (which would fit with them apparently arriving right in the middle of the battle). In any case, Sauron might have been expecting stronger resistance in the field from Gondor. Note that he had reason to think the Ring was in Gondor, and that Gondor's defense was badly botched. Gandalf asks Denethor "where are Gondor's armies?," implying that he had additional forces that he failed to call up. Also, they had at least some cavalry until Denethor pissed it away charging Osgilliath.

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.

How was Sauron to know that Denethor was being retarded and hadn't called for cavalry? (Ok, possibly through the Palantir.) The rest has been answered already.

The Lord of the Rings films had some terribly questionable tactics, but I can't find fault with using the Oliphaunts as anti-cavalry units. They probably shouldn't have been so close together, though, since at least two collided.;)

<snip>

Did Jackson screw with the book's battle scenes in needless and sometimes detrimental ways? Undoubtably.

<snip>
And am I talking about the movies or the books? Oh, that's right, the MOVIES, as I've told you over and over and over again. Yet you persist in telling me I'm wrong about the MOVIES because of what's in the BOOKS.

I think it's time for me to stop talking to you.

Idiotic tactics in books? How about everything Tom Clancy has ever written.

And am I talking about the movies or the books? Oh, that's right, the MOVIES, as I've told you over and over and over again. Yet you persist in telling me I'm wrong about the MOVIES because of what's in the BOOKS.

I did not do that.

I am tired of this game. I am sorry if you found my post confusing or unclear. Sometimes, I may go off-topic in a post because it reminds me of something else. I'm sorry if you find that dificult to follow (though I don't see anyone else whining). But don't ever try to claim any dishonesty on my part unless you can back it up with something better than that. I am not responsible for your lack of comprehension.

I never denied that you were talking about the films. Nor did I ever try to claim that you were wrong about the films by citing the books. In fact, I agreed with your prior acknowledgement that Jackson screwed them up. How you take that comment and turn it into some sort of dishonest attempt to refute your claims about stupidity in the films is beyond my abillity to comprehend at this time.

I think it's time for me to stop talking to you.

In light of the utter failiur to reply to the other points I made directly relating to the film, I will take that as a concession on your part. Good day to you.

I did not do that.

I am tired of this game. I am sorry if you found my post confusing or unclear. Sometimes, I may go off-topic in a post because it reminds me of something else. I'm sorry if you find that dificult to follow (though I don't see anyone else whining). But don't ever try to claim any dishonesty on my part unless you can back it up with something better than that. I am not responsible for your lack of comprehension.

I never denied that you were talking about the films. Nor did I ever try to claim that you were wrong about the films by citing the books. In fact, I agreed with your prior acknowledgement that Jackson screwed them up. How you take that comment and turn it into some sort of dishonest attempt to refute your claims about stupidity in the films is beyond my abillity to comprehend at this time.



In light of the utter failiur to reply to the other points I made directly relating to the film, I will take that as a concession on your part. Good day to you.
I really don't have anything polite to say to this, so I will just say that I stand by what I said, and 'bye. If as you claim, you agreed with my criticisms of the movies, then I fail to see why you continued to tell me how I needed to understand the books better. If you wanted to talk about the books instead of or in addition to the movies, then I fail to see why you needed to quote my posts in yours at all. If anyone has fueled confusion here, it has been you. I will welcome distance from you. Ciao.

Anything with 2-legged vehicles.

Anything with 2-legged vehicles.

Um, Battletech is awesome, and if you disagree you will be introduced to my ignore list.



Im kidding about the second part.

I really don't have anything polite to say to this, so I will just say that I stand by what I said, and 'bye.

A pity, then, that you're vocabulary is so limited.

If as you claim, you agreed with my criticisms of the movies, then I fail to see why you continued to tell me how I needed to understand the books better.

Insinuating I'm a lier to hide your abject failiur to comprehend or refute my points?:D

In any case, don't you realize that: a) I disagreed with some of your points for reasons completely unrelated to the books, and that: b) their is absolutely no contradiction between agreeing with your criticisms of the movies, and thinking that you need to understand the books better?

If you wanted to talk about the books instead of or in addition to the movies, then I fail to see why you needed to quote my posts in yours at all. If anyone has fueled confusion here, it has been you. I will welcome distance from you. Ciao.

Its possible some of what I posted was confusing (to you at least), but if so it was utterly unintentional. I will make this final attempt to explain my position, just incase your confusion is genuine as opposed to dishonest.

I agree that their was some dumb shit in the films. I do not agree that the Oliphaunts could not have been intended as an anti-cavalry force, and consider your arguments in favor of that position highly questionable for reasons that I have stated previously, the bulk of which to my recolection do not originate from the books. I have reffered to the books, either to discuss/clarify differences between them and the films, as an aside, perhaps to fill a gap in information available in the film, or whatever. When I have, you will often note that I clearly specified that I was talking about the books, but if I failed to properly do so, or in any way am to blame for any needless confusion, I apologise.

However, I will not tolerate slander, and I have nothing but contempt for those who use lies to win a debate they cannot win honestly, as I am starting to suspect is the case here. Once again, what I see looks like no more than the telltale whining of someone who has nothing to refute my points with and wants to withdraw with pretentions of victory.

Anything with 2-legged vehicles.
Aw, but two-legged vehicles are like ... you know... riding ostriches. And isn't that...like...intimidating or something? ;)

Um, Battletech is for brigands and communists
Fixed :D
Aw, but two-legged vehicles are like ... you know... riding ostriches. And isn't that...like...intimidating or something? ;)
Until they fall on their arse aye.

A pity, then, that you're vocabulary is so limited.



Insinuating I'm a lier to hide your abject failiur to comprehend or refute my points?:D
<snip>

However, I will not tolerate slander, and I have nothing but contempt for those who use lies to win a debate they cannot win honestly, as I am starting to suspect is the case here. Once again, what I see looks like no more than the telltale whining of someone who has nothing to refute my points with and wants to withdraw with pretentions of victory.
You won't tolerate slander -- and by the way, "slander" is not the word you want -- but you will perpetuate it. You claim I questioned your honesty. Well, you have repeatedly insinuated that I am stupid.

Now, you appear intent on escalating this to a tit-for-tat word-war in which you will continue to call me stupid throughout.

Don't. You would only bore everyone with your one-sided attacks, because if you persist, you will get no responses from me at all. Actually, after this post, you will not be getting any responses from me, no matter what you say to me, so, as you will be failing to lure me into a flamewar, you will be the only one guilty of flaming if you keep this up.

You won't tolerate slander -- and by the way, "slander" is not the word you want -- but you will perpetuate it. You claim I questioned your honesty. Well, you have repeatedly insinuated that I am stupid.

Which I probably should not have. After all, it is possible that my posts were genuinely confusing. But given that no one else is complaining about my posts being unclear, it is hard to resist the conclusion that either they are especially hard for you to comprehend for whatever reason, or you are being deliberately dishonest. If you'd rather be thought a lier than stupid, though, I'm fine with that.

Now, you appear intent on escalating this to a tit-for-tat word-war in which you will continue to call me stupid throughout.

If that is the direction this conversation has taken, I don't think I'm entirely to blame. When you insinuate dishonesty on my part, and refuse to respond to the bulk of my actual arguments, it leaves me little recourse for pursuing an intelligent conversation.

As for calling you stupid, I will refrain from doing so. However, if you do not wish to be called stupid, do not dismiss your opponent's points by citing a tiny fraction of their post, misrepresenting it, and then suggesting dishonesty on their part as an excuse to avoid refuting the rest of their arguments.

Though do be fair, that doesn't make you stupid. Merely disreputable.

Don't. You would only bore everyone with your one-sided attacks, because if you persist, you will get no responses from me at all. Actually, after this post, you will not be getting any responses from me, no matter what you say to me, so, as you will be failing to lure me into a flamewar, you will be the only one guilty of flaming if you keep this up.

A sad attempt to claim the high ground in a debate you are unwilling (or unable) to continue.

I'm not trying to bait you into a flamewar. A civil discussion would be prefferable, and I was having one until you went on this bizzar rant. At that point I may have responded too rudely, in which case I apologise.

If at any point you should wish to have a civil and honest discussion, I will do so. Should you missrepresent me, I shall endevor to correct the record. If you attack me, I will defend myself. And if you refuse to defend your arguments over an inflated point of confusion or a fabricated excuse, I will accept your concession.

If, however, you feel I have flamed you innapropriately, or violated any rule whatsoever, put your money where your mouth is and go to the mods. I will accept their opinion on the matter.

On the subject of the siege of Gondor; If I were a military commander I wouldn't even consider something like a Mûmak (aka Oliphaunt) as a potential offensive weapon, its too damn big; it would destroy any kind of subtle movement in almost any area, and it would eat to damned much: totally not worth taking it with me on a several hundred (or thousand) mile march.

Totally useful as a shock troops while defending you home though.

at the battle of Pelennor Fields where was the the infantry support for the cavalry charge I though you dont go forward with cavalry without infantry support and nice some nice missile fire

at the battle of Pelennor Fields where was the the infantry support for the cavalry charge I though you dont go forward with cavalry without infantry support and nice some nice missile fire

That's the best way to do it but not always the way it was; Agincourt was a class A example of reckless cavalry charges.

Most often though, yes. They would a lot of times use the Infantry to pin someone down and then charge from behind or the side of an enemy for maximum effect.

In fiction (movies especially) they use huge masses of cavalry in an army for the ahh inspiring effect it has on the audience... whats cooler... 5,000 men on horseback charging straight into the enemy lines, armor shining, lance tips catching the light; at the moment before impact they form a wedge shape and smash into the enemy formation - obliterating them entirely.
Or the way it happened in reality... which was slow, usually very loud, bloody, and brutal.

When the Reavers didn't run away from River. That was just suicide.

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

Indeed, from the sections I've read (I'm currently working my way through "The Peleponnesian War") the Athenians seem, if anything, worse than the Spartans.

at the battle of Pelennor Fields where was the the infantry support for the cavalry charge I though you dont go forward with cavalry without infantry support and nice some nice missile fire

The Rohirrim didn't do infantry, and couldn't have moved any there in time. Remember, also, that they were smashing into the rear of the besieging Orcs, which is a slightly different situation to a normal pitched battle.

On the subject of the siege of Gondor; If I were a military commander I wouldn't even consider something like a Mûmak (aka Oliphaunt) as a potential offensive weapon, its too damn big; it would destroy any kind of subtle movement in almost any area, and it would eat to damned much: totally not worth taking it with me on a several hundred (or thousand) mile march.

Totally useful as a shock troops while defending you home though.

You're conducting a freaking siege/all out assault on the enemy capital. Why, exactly, do you care about subtlety? Meanwhile, it has all the advantages of an elephant in this world - very big, very scary, quite hard to kill, easily capable of doing damage while attacking. When used carefully, it's a potentially devastating weapon.

When the Reavers didn't run away from River. That was just suicide.

Maybe if they had seen this (http://xkcd.com/311/) movie, they would have known better.

Maybe if they had seen this (http://xkcd.com/311/) movie, they would have known better.

Somehow I knew where that was linking without even clicking it.

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

Bomb them with plague-infected corpses. It's more fun.

Bomb them with plague-infected corpses. It's more fun.

Biological warfare for the win!:D

Vlad Tepes was well known for that.

You're conducting a freaking siege/all out assault on the enemy capital. Why, exactly, do you care about subtlety? Meanwhile, it has all the advantages of an elephant in this world - very big, very scary, quite hard to kill, easily capable of doing damage while attacking. When used carefully, it's a potentially devastating weapon.

it also eats, sleeps, and shits. Judging form their size, a whole fucking lot of all three. Try to imagine the logistics of taking care of them.

it also eats, sleeps, and shits. Judging form their size, a whole fucking lot of all three. Try to imagine the logistics of taking care of them.
This has been my argument against using the oliphaunts in this campaign at all. They are a grossly inefficient weapon for the purpose. As you pointed out, they'd be great for defense. They would also be worth bringing if you were going to actively lay waste to every single settlement in your path along the march route, in a Sherman-esque scorched earth campaign. But in the movies, we are not told that they did that. We only saw them marching quietly along on their way to Minas Tirith, getting harrassed by Faromir's guerillas. I think that's ridiculous and would mark, if not Sauron himself, then the commanders of that particular force as idiots.

Of course, if they had been attacking every settlement between their starting point and Minas Tirith, then (a) their march would have taken longer and (b) it is likely the forces of Gondor and Rohan would have gone out to meet them en route, not waited for them to arrive at Tirith. Provided, of course, that Gondor and Rohan were not led by idiots.

EDIT: By the way, it is perfectly possible and realistic for both sides to be led/commanded by absolute morons. See, for example, World War I. But even if the story is made that way, I don't see any merit in the storytellers and/or audience pretending that such tactics are not stupid.

it also eats, sleeps, and shits. Judging form their size, a whole fucking lot of all three. Try to imagine the logistics of taking care of them.

One would be okay a useful scare you weapon.

This has been my argument against using the oliphaunts in this campaign at all. They are a grossly inefficient weapon for the purpose. As you pointed out, they'd be great for defense. They would also be worth bringing if you were going to actively lay waste to every single settlement in your path along the march route, in a Sherman-esque scorched earth campaign. But in the movies, we are not told that they did that. We only saw them marching quietly along on their way to Minas Tirith, getting harrassed by Faromir's guerillas. I think that's ridiculous and would mark, if not Sauron himself, then the commanders of that particular force as idiots.

Of course, if they had been attacking every settlement between their starting point and Minas Tirith, then (a) their march would have taken longer and (b) it is likely the forces of Gondor and Rohan would have gone out to meet them en route, not waited for them to arrive at Tirith. Provided, of course, that Gondor and Rohan were not led by idiots.

EDIT: By the way, it is perfectly possible and realistic for both sides to be led/commanded by absolute morons. See, for example, World War I. But even if the story is made that way, I don't see any merit in the storytellers and/or audience pretending that such tactics are not stupid.

On another note when they are marching on their way to Gondor all nice and packed in and ready to be ambushed by the only person who seems to have a clue of what at all he is doing in this war there are guys standing in front of, around, behind, and underneath those Mûmaks. You wouldn't catch me anywhere near the front or back of that thing!

On another note when they are marching on their way to Gondor all nice and packed in and ready to be ambushed by the only person who seems to have a clue of what at all he is doing in this war there are guys standing in front of, around, behind, and underneath those Mûmaks. You wouldn't catch me anywhere near the front or back of that thing!

That's for sure. It might look all very evocative and WW1-esque to have the soldiers marching along with the tanks that way, but seriously, it was BS.

Also, that business of, "Hey, here's this really narrow passage hemmed in by forest and/or cliffs providing lots of cover to our enemies but none to us. Let's cram our entire force into it, with no way to maneuver, and move through it really, really slowly, so the other side can get in some good shots." is a classic Idiotic Hollywood Tactic. I need more fingers to count the number of movies I've seen that in and cried, "What morons!"

Of course, in military history, that has actually happened, but it was done by idiot commanders and always ended in the slaughter of the force in question.

Try to visualize this: The height of the animals delivers fighters to the tops of the city's outer walls.Were the ones in the films actually tall enough for that? I'm pretty sure that the ones in the books weren't...

Do you really think the oliphaunts were brought to Minas Tirith to combat the Rohirrim?

*(snip)*

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,

*(snip)*

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. SureI think that they brought the oliphaunts along to deal with Imrahil (of Dol Amroth) and his cavalry troops... but as Jackson apparently dropped those from the version of the story that he filmed (according to a post in the current LotR thread) he had to find some other use for the oliphaunts instead.

Anything with 2-legged vehicles.Don't we already have a reasonably recent thread, somewhere around here, on the subject of why 'Mecha' are a ridiculous concept?

On the subject of the siege of Gondor; If I were a military commander I wouldn't even consider something like a Mûmak (aka Oliphaunt) as a potential offensive weapon, its too damn big; it would destroy any kind of subtle movement in almost any area, and it would eat to damned much: totally not worth taking it with me on a several hundred (or thousand) mile march.

Totally useful as a shock troops while defending you home though.

Yes, so useless are large elephants in offensive campaigns that Hannibal - roundly acknowledged as one of the greatest of classical-era generals - went to the trouble of marching a small herd from Spain to Northern Italy.

In fairness,

A) So few of them survived that they weren't necessarily worth the effort from a tactical or strategic standpoint.

B) By the time Hannibal was using them as shock troops to defend Carthage, Scipio Africanus had worked out how to deal with them at the Battle of Zama, and simply had his troops step aside, let the Elephants charge through their lines, and then reform.

C) Early classical north African elephants weren't as big as the Tolkein versions.



Anyway, as long as we're talking about stupid tactics and strategy in cinematic fiction, can I raise a vote for Braveheart? Not technically fiction, but so riddled with inaccuracies it might as well be.

From a battle tactics perspective, from what I remember, the film not only gets its tactics wrong, but shows unsuccessful tactics being used to win battles, and vice versa. Specifically:

1) Stirling Bridge - The tactics shown being used successfully here in the film (pikemen facing a cavalry charge) were in fact the tactics used by Wallace when he lost the Battle of Falkirk - the English archers simply picked off the immobile Scottish pikemen.

No mention is made of the actual rather clever Scottish tactics of destroying the English army as they crossed a bridge bottleneck; apparently they weren't 'cinematic' enough.

2) Falkirk - Among the tactics shown being used unsuccessfully here (pits to break the English cavalry charge) were those used successfully by Robert I at Bannockburn.

3) Bannockburn - Portrayed in the film as an infantry charge across an open plain against mounted knights supported by archers. HA! Talk about suicidal...

Historically, Robert I made excellent tactical use of the natural marshy terrain to overcome the advantage of the large English army.

C) Early classical north African elephants weren't as big as the Tolkein versions.

And therein lies the reason I wouldn't lug those Mûmak fuckers around, they are big, really really big, really too big, big big big big, and huge... did I mention big? They are not in any way shape or form practical to have around because of their size, the logistics behind keeping them in good condition are damn near impossible. You'd likely have to feed those things several tons of food and water in a day just to sustain them, and that's just for starters.

Were the ones in the films actually tall enough for that? I'm pretty sure that the ones in the books weren't...
The movie ones were the size of (guesstimating) brontosaurs.

Except of course, they appeared smaller when they had close-ups of actors sitting on top of them.

I think that they brought the oliphaunts along to deal with Imrahil (of Dol Amroth) and his cavalry troops... but as Jackson apparently dropped those from the version of the story that he filmed (according to a post in the current LotR thread) he had to find some other use for the oliphaunts instead.

Exactly. And he opted for Idiotic Hollywood Tactics.

EDIT: There's this Orbitz ad that has a guy delivering good news to a customer by flying into his backyard on a hovercraft. When asked why he didn't just mail the thing, the guy says, "Um..we have a hovercraft," because you know, a hovercraft is too cool not to use.

I think Jackson just reasoned that he had big honking oliphaunts, and dammit, he was gonna use 'em, even though they had actually been written out of the script. So he just stuck them in where they did not belong. He should have gone to more effort to rewrite the battle scenes for them.

Yes, so useless are large elephants in offensive campaigns that Hannibal - roundly acknowledged as one of the greatest of classical-era generals - went to the trouble of marching a small herd from Spain to Northern Italy.

In fairness,

A) So few of them survived that they weren't necessarily worth the effort from a tactical or strategic standpoint.

B) By the time Hannibal was using them as shock troops to defend Carthage, Scipio Africanus had worked out how to deal with them at the Battle of Zama, and simply had his troops step aside, let the Elephants charge through their lines, and then reform.

C) Early classical north African elephants weren't as big as the Tolkein versions.
So, in other words, they actually weren't that useful for a foreign campaign, after all.

Anyway, as long as we're talking about stupid tactics and strategy in cinematic fiction, can I raise a vote for Braveheart? <snip>
Seconded for the reasons you list.

So, in other words, they actually weren't that useful for a foreign campaign, after all.

Although they would be a damn sight more reasonable when you aren't marching most of the way around the Mediterranean, and crossing a few mountain ranges. Like, say, marching from Harad to Gondor via Minas Ithil.

So, in other words, they actually weren't that useful for a foreign campaign, after all.

I think the Hannibal situation is more nuanced. They weren't much use for the specific campaign against Rome, but only because he lost 34 of his 37 elephants crossing the Alps, not necessarily because elephants were an intrinsically bad idea. The crossing of the Alps - where Hannibal also seems to have lost half of his men - was the basic logistical problem, not the offensive worth of elephants if he could just get them into Italy.

Elephants had been effective enough for the Carthaginians in Spain, - and that was an offensive overseas campaign for Carthage - that Hannibal clearly thought it worth making the attempt, and generals with Hannibal's acknowledged tactical and strategic insight don't invest that much effort into a tactical element of their army unless they think it's worth the effort.

As noted previously, until Scipio Africanus hit on the brilliantly simple idea of just letting the (c.80 )Carthaginian elephants pass through the defending line at the Battle of Zama - which was a defensive battle in North Africa for the Carthaginians, not an offensive campaign - the Romans didn't really have an effective consistent defence against a full-scale elephant charge.


But glad to see someone agrees with me over Braveheart.

I think the Hannibal situation is more nuanced. They weren't much use for the specific campaign against Rome, but only because he lost 34 of his 37 elephants crossing the Alps, not necessarily because elephants were an intrinsically bad idea. The crossing of the Alps - where Hannibal also seems to have lost half of his men - was the basic logistical problem, not the offensive worth of elephants if he could just get them into Italy.

Elephants had been effective enough for the Carthaginians in Spain, - and that was an offensive overseas campaign for Carthage - that Hannibal clearly thought it worth making the attempt, and generals with Hannibal's acknowledged tactical and strategic insight don't invest that much effort into a tactical element of their army unless they think it's worth the effort.

As noted previously, until Scipio Africanus hit on the brilliantly simple idea of just letting the (c.80 )Carthaginian elephants pass through the defending line at the Battle of Zama - which was a defensive battle in North Africa for the Carthaginians, not an offensive campaign - the Romans didn't really have an effective consistent defence against a full-scale elephant charge.


But glad to see someone agrees with me over Braveheart.

Hannibal may be a lesson in how we live and learn. Perhaps it is since Hannibal that we have figured out that moving armies and elephants over the Alps is actually not all that do-able.

Elephants are a nuanced strategic asset. Against foes unfamiliar with, or undisciplined enough to counter them, elephants worked just fine at intimidating and destroying spanish armies. the Roman army under Scipio Africanus, however, was anything but. Add to the fact that all roman soldiers were equipped with two pilae (throwing spears) and you have a block of men that elephants, an animal easily intimidated, pose little threat to. Hannibals fault was that he really should have realised this, having fought the romans for 10 years.

I would put some zombie films (ahem, Resident Evil), but I'd like to wait until after Hollywood destroys World War Z. Then I would have something to bitch about.

EDIT: Seriously, though, walling in a city to contain an infection? Doomsday was a bit more practical with the automated turrets.

Hannibal may be a lesson in how we live and learn. Perhaps it is since Hannibal that we have figured out that moving armies and elephants over the Alps is actually not all that do-able.

The battles of Trebia, Trasimene and particularly Cannae, produced a lot of roman soldiers who would perhaps disagree with your assertion

Elephants are a nuanced strategic asset. Against foes unfamiliar with, or undisciplined enough to counter them, elephants worked just fine at intimidating and destroying spanish armies. the Roman army under Scipio Africanus, however, was anything but. Add to the fact that all roman soldiers were equipped with two pilae (throwing spears) and you have a block of men that elephants, an animal easily intimidated, pose little threat to. Hannibals fault was that he really should have realised this, having fought the romans for 10 years.


I think that's both A) slightly unfair on Hannibal's situation at Zama and B) slightly unfair on Scipio Africanus' tactics at the same battle.

Hannibal had successfully fought the Romans for a considerable amount of time without any war elephants - and done very nicely, thank you, at the battles you've previously cited yourself. His army at Zama wasn't entirely his own, however, but was a combination of his own war veterans and the home army put at his disposal by the Carthaginian senate. Whether he still felt elephants were necessary or effective isn't recorded, but it wasn't necessarily his decision to field them at Zama.

Your implication that the intimidation factor of Roman pilae was decisive at overcoming the 80 war elephants at Zama is mistaken, and underplays Scipio Africanus' decisive tactics in arranging the Roman army in squares with gaps so that the elephants could charge straight through. Intimidation had little to do with it. The Romans simply picked the elephants off once the not so wee beasties had harmlessly charged through the Roman lines, as planned. All Scipio Africanus did - though it was a crucial tactical innovation - was work out that it's damned hard to turn around a charging war elephant.

But the real reason the Romans won Zama, which was a very close-run thing, had nothing to do with elephants, and everything to do with temporary Roman cavalry superiority thanks to their Numidian allies. Despite the last minute desperate cobbled-together nature of Hannibal's army at Zama, his third line of core Italian veterans were still holding their own against Scipio Africanus' Roman army. But just as the Carthaginians seemed on the verge of victory, the Roman/Numidian cavalry, which had earlier chased the Carthaginian cavalry from the field, attacked the rear of Hannibal's line, finally causing it to collapse.

It's doubtful that any other general would have stood a chance at Zama - Hannibal at least gave it a red hot go.

Apparently my last points about the mumaks was ignored?

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.
Stop!
Lego time!
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19a.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19b.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19c.html

Historically accurate?
The world may never know.

Apparently my last points about the mumaks was ignored?

No, no... not ignored. Your point about the fictional mumaks being so large so as to make them logistically unsupportable (which would have been especially true if they were being temporarily kept in the wasteland of Mordor prior to the Pelennor Fields) was a fair one.

It's just that, as an archaeologist and an academic, I found the subsequent discussion about the respective tactics of Scipio Africanus and Hannibal at the Battle of Zama a bit more my speed. ;)