PCHighway said:
Hah, I'm willing to bet you never even saw them!
Saw it, but never took the time to look through all of the links, and then forgot about it. Gotta make up for lost opportunities, now, eh.
Okay, lets start slow:
PCHighway said:
They are the same horse models. What part of that dont you understand? They look and act exactly the same, except that the preview you can see does not have the attack or death animations. The horse still tosses its head in those scenes.
Maybe because one is wearing more trappings than the other, mrtn got fooled into thinking one looked more mad-cow than the other? Either way, I say they
both look like Lipizanners -- that's
why the comment still held, even after you pointed out they were the same model!
PCHighway said:
The first English longbows were used (by the English) around 1280 but did not formalize to their full potential until the 15th century. The most accurate time frame would be to put them in use when they were most used and at their zenith. In the case of the composite bow, since it was nearly always constantly evolving the most accurate time would be the present. Since we spontaneously decided to have Longbowmen in ME, and the longbow is better than the composite bow, therefore the Composite Bowmen would not be eclipsed until the longbowmen. The way this could be recognized in our mod would be by having a unit (group of soldiers) using the primitive bows (Bowman) then those upgrade to a unit which is more expansive and more organized, with some having composite bows and some using the primitive bows (Archers), which would then materialize into the group of only composite bowmen (Composite Bowmen) as they are far more organized than their predecessors. This makes about as much sense as your theory on novel introductions, which doesnt say much for either theory.[/i]"
Let me get you straight: the 21st century is the "zenith" of composite bowmanship?
I would have thought, maybe, Assyrian Siege Archery would have had that honour, or even Steppe Horse Archery (but the latter's a mounted unit and for our purposes, we're talking foot units).
So am I getting your scenario correct? First, there were guys who shot arrows from bent sticks copied from musical instruments called "Bowmen." Then, some guys got really good at shooting these things (and mixed it up a little bit with some fancier bits of tooling) called "Archers," the sharpshooters of their day. Then,
gradually realising the
radical improvement in efficiency offered by the composite-reinforced bows, they ditched the bent sticks entirely and dropped the "Archer" moniker in favour of "Composite Bowmen." This would have been roughtly the time of the Numenorean ascendancy, no? Finally, they moved on to really long bent sticks that kicked all kinds of @$$, and got called "Longbowmen" thereby. (By the way, the Battle of Crecy was in 1346 and Poitiers was in 1356, which is a century earlier than your zenith.)
Once I understand you properly, then we can talk.
PCHighway said:
15th Century, but that is irrevalant.
Eh? A 15th Century to Middle-Earth comparison is irrelevant? We're bickering about the appropriate analogical-historical context for Middle-Earth armouring, so the time period of your examples is quite relevant.
So we've got ceremonial classical cuirasses on one end, and 15th century cuirasses on the other. So far we can place Middle-Earth sometime in-between Classical Antiquity and the Renaissance. I gotta say, though, PCH, the Middle-Earth feel isn't quite togas on the one end and Venetian courtiers on the other.
PCHighway said:
I am having trouble about your stubborn refusal of a simple cuirass being in existence around 1066
Okay, try this: show me a plate cuirass on the Bayeux tapestry.
Oh no wait, show me such a
preponderance of breast
plates on the Bayeux tapestry that would justify the representation of the
generic cavalrymen of that time as so armoured,
in spite of the fact that the
next and final generic cavalry unit (in our line-up) is an exclusively mail-clad knight with a giant stove on his head, because his armourer had yet to figure out that a curvey bascinet would work better.
PCHighway said:
The idea behind the medieval Roman Empire, is more or less a large, advanced empire that gathers important culture and advancement, as opposed to the small kingdoms like Rohan, who are primarily exist for fighting, drinking, and surviving.
Hang on, so now the proper analogical-historical (i.e., this-Earth history) context for Middle-Earthen armoury is
hypothetical?
And you see Gondor (for example) as
gathering advancements?? Woah nelly, pull in the reins! This is Middle-Earth, not Civilisation III!
Tolkien was pretty much a Luddite, the Elves were buggering off, the West was failing, Gondor was back on it's heels and in it's twilight years desperate for help from beer-swilling neighbours, and even then it took the improbable event of a wasted-halfling chomping on a faltering halfling's hand to put an end to its immanent demise! Why did Tolkien give up on his story of the Fourth Age (i.e., "The New Shadow")? Because it was too damn depressing. All that future held was Satan worship and corruption. Conclusion?
Onwards and upwards! A few large advanced empires gathering culture and advancement as inexorably as the steamroller of progress itself! Yipee! :rant:
I think not, my good friend.
We find ourselves, then, in a period after the Golden Ages have waned (prime historical analogue: the Fall of the Western Roman empire at the hands of illiterate
Germanic tribesman, which is a
good long while since the fall of Greek civilisation to those sterile Latin engineers [sorry Xen!]), and long-before the rediscovery of such ages were to take hold again (i.e., the Renaissance is not even in view) -- if ever! That period sounds an awful lot like the "Dark" Ages to me (unless you view the heights of civilisation as the true darkness, as a Luddite would), which was when the German barbarian ruled the Continent (and paid the crumbling Byzantines more than a few favours) -- long before Anglo-Saxon got infected by Norman French and turned into the language we know call "English." Ever heard of a coney before you read Tolkien? Yep, it's one more of them earthy Germanic words we've forgotten (compare with Dutch, "konijn," High-German "Kaninchen"). If you want to write a myth about England when it was still England and not a kingdom with a claim on the French throne, when they still spoke Anglish-Sachsisch, then this is your time. It is the time of "Northness," and that is the feel Tolkien
explicitly wanted to convey (which attracted the attention of the Nazis, whom he promptly told to **** off).
PCHighway said:
Many literary critiques (such as Tom Shippeys) point out how Tolkien used the Hobbit as a modern-era link to his universe. ... But this whole argument is pointless, as it is not going to change anything.
Nuh-uh! We are talking the proper analogical-historical context for Middle-Earthern armoury, not whether or not Tolkien's writing style (drawing on more Old-Anglish-Germanisms than you can shake a stick at) allows you the modern reader to relate to the text. Or do you mean to imply that we should use the World Wars of the 20th century as a technological model for our mod? I should think not! So the Beowulfian
context I've been arguing for still stands, and that means
no plate armour.
PCHighway said:
The technology of the Elves never waned. It simply stopped advancing. The immortal elves did not forget how to make corslets.
In a sense, it did. Gondolin blades that glowed when enemies approached weren't being made any more. Nobody was carving magic inscriptions onto mountain doors, or writing in moon letters. These were all relics of the past that were remembered, but not practiced by the immortal elves. You're really missing my point, therefore, as I made no intimation that elves forgot how to make corselets. Far from it! Rather, the Noldoin Elves -- the Deep elves, the delvers, the makers of weapons since time immemorial, the most powerful warriors ever known, the teachers to Men of
all the lore they ever knew -- these craftsmen NEVER made anything BUT mail. If that's the case, then I find the existence of breastplates, plate armour, cuirassess etc. the most improbable things possible in Middle-Earth.
PCHighway said:
We dont have a whole whack of alternative knights to use. We have one other knight that I know of for this role. One has to be used, and thats what the debate was.
Sure we do. I was in the midst of doing a really nice post with pictures and everything on the nine generic cavalry units (not including flavours and UUs) when this plate armour stuff started. You used to tell me to get my head out of the Third Age. Well it's time for you to get your head out of the End of the Middle Ages and back into their depths!
PCHighway said:
Just like in real history, such technology never simply disappears.
Wrong! Romans didn't wear such ridiculous bronze fake muscles, probably because it was too bleeding inconvenient. Neither did most hoplites, for that matter (see my buddy
Lloyd on this
). You do get lorica segmenta when the Romans could afford it (when they couldn't, right back to chain mail they went!), you do get centurions in cuir-boulli, you do get ceremonial pieces for marching in parades (coupled with them horrid Attic helmets). And then what?
PCHighway said:
Breastplated and helmets were the most common type of plate-mail. You can find many sites reference how such armor was quite common int he medieval ages. There is a difference between plate-mail, such as a breastplate, and a entire suite of armor.
Did I say "and then what?" Oh yeah. Answer: NO PLATE until, oh,
1327,
1347,
1398. Good Lord, of course plate armour was around in "the middle ages"! The point I've been hammering away at is that plate armour only showed up towards the latter half of the middle ages, a good 300 years after the Norman Conquest. Yer quote there is talking about jousts for pete's sake! (By the way, Google "plate mail" and tell me how many sites come up that are
not about Role-Playing Games.)
Here are my search results on "iron breatplates" (excepting the numerous references to the Book of Revelation):
Breastplate: Originally evolving out of the cote of plates as the size on each individual plate increased and the front plate was increasingly globular, the breastplate was fully formed by 1360 or so but was not in wide use until the 1380s. This globular design provided an effective glancing surface that deflected both hand and missile weapons.
Cote of Plates, Pair of Plates, Plates: A cloth or leather covered armour for the body with several large plates riveted underneath for the defense of the body. The most famous examples were unearthed at the Battle of Wisby site, dating from the mid-14th century. For the first half of the century they were made of flat plates, but gradually the breastplate was dished to conform to the shape of the body and the waist was drawn in for the characteristic "wasp-waisted" element of transitional style.
Then some references to Cromwell, the American Civil War, Roman lorica segmenta, "some" of Alexander's companion cavalry, your quote from
a modern composite fibre anti-ballistics body armour company (not exactly a historical authority, I might add), a thing out of a Del-Rey fantasy book, a fantasy wargaming site, and that's just the first two pages. Still looking for that magical 1100 AD date. Anyhow...
...okay. I'll take a break now. Enjoy! (By the way, I gotta commend you, PCH, on the great job you're doing with the biq, adding all the units and everything. It's a heck of a lot of work, and there's no way I could do it, so I do want to express my gratitute -- in spite of all the arguing I've been doing bout your AoK graphics pics!
)
Cheers,
Mithadan
(Edited once for grammar)
.
And no, that isn't a shotgun, it's a sword. 
