Nitpicking
- Thread starter WCH
- Start date
While the rest of this post was excellent, I have to strongly object this point. Being forced outside into a very dangerous area is quite close to capital punishment, which has never deterred crime. It only encourages violence in covering up your crimes. Like you said the "criminal" stigmata produces a "steal or starve" situation. Most likely you would still steal, but have a rather strong incentive to kill or threaten any witness or a guard trying to catch you. I mean if you are caught and anyone testifies your basically dead, so where is the reason not to?
The prison building (dungeon I think) could be renamed to something like city watch station. A city watch could have just the effects of the current building: Less crime (Watchmen presence makes crimes more dangerous) and less war weariness (who would speak out his objections in the presence of guards)
On Iron: Early iron was sometimes ridiculously expensive, I remember that the Hittites where envied for their iron throne, which at that time had a value far greater than gold.
Monkeyfinger
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,002
Crappy early iron which gets outperformed by bronze is represented in game by SMELTING, guys. You discover it, you can see and mine iron, but you can't give your guys iron weapons yet because your smiths don't know how to make a good sword out of iron.
You say iron needs to be properly worked to be made into a good weapon? Well GUESS WHICH TECH ALLOWS THE ACTUAL USE OF IRON WEAPONS?
You say iron needs to be properly worked to be made into a good weapon? Well GUESS WHICH TECH ALLOWS THE ACTUAL USE OF IRON WEAPONS?
@The prison thing:
We got a few problems, we can't use an modern sociological study of prisons on medieval times, at least not, when it wasn't aimed for their society.
Another problem is, that we're speaking about a wide term.
A Dungeon can be a lot of things, like a normal prison, or a prison with a lot of torture, and in fantasy even a location, filled with tons of monsters wich none entering will ever leave again.
And i guess, this is quite a difference to what the study looked at.
Also it's quite clear, that you need punishments to hold rules up. If you break a rule and dosen't get punished for it, you won't learn to respect the rule. So we need such things.
So what is a better punishment: Death sentence or Prison? A cut off limb or Prison? A day in the pillory (and what ever people did to them during this) or Prison? Banishment or Prison? A fine or Prison? Social Hours or prison and so on...
And i mean better for the society...
Right, it's not easy to answer, but i personally think, it's better than a lot of the punishments, i listed above.
We got a few problems, we can't use an modern sociological study of prisons on medieval times, at least not, when it wasn't aimed for their society.
Another problem is, that we're speaking about a wide term.
A Dungeon can be a lot of things, like a normal prison, or a prison with a lot of torture, and in fantasy even a location, filled with tons of monsters wich none entering will ever leave again.
And i guess, this is quite a difference to what the study looked at.
Also it's quite clear, that you need punishments to hold rules up. If you break a rule and dosen't get punished for it, you won't learn to respect the rule. So we need such things.
So what is a better punishment: Death sentence or Prison? A cut off limb or Prison? A day in the pillory (and what ever people did to them during this) or Prison? Banishment or Prison? A fine or Prison? Social Hours or prison and so on...
And i mean better for the society...
Right, it's not easy to answer, but i personally think, it's better than a lot of the punishments, i listed above.
JanusTalaiini
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2005
- Messages
- 340
WCH,
Your points about prisons are all dead-on, but only for our modern understanding of prison. The way I interpret the "dungeon" of FFH, it doesn't really have much in common with mere incarceration/branding.
All of your points run on the assumption that those thrown into the dungeon would eventually be released, on purpose, back into the general public. This is a characteristic less so with a "dungeon" than with a "prison." A dungeon was, in my understanding, usually a place that someone was brought either to be tortured and then killed, or to be kept permanently (if they were more valuable alive than dead).
Your points about prisons are all dead-on, but only for our modern understanding of prison. The way I interpret the "dungeon" of FFH, it doesn't really have much in common with mere incarceration/branding.
All of your points run on the assumption that those thrown into the dungeon would eventually be released, on purpose, back into the general public. This is a characteristic less so with a "dungeon" than with a "prison." A dungeon was, in my understanding, usually a place that someone was brought either to be tortured and then killed, or to be kept permanently (if they were more valuable alive than dead).
Well, the predecessor of the modern prison was reserved for political prisoners -- criminal citizens would generally be punished or warned and left at that; you'd only get locked up if you were seen as a threat to the government.
In which case it wouldn't lower crime rate, which is what I've been trying to nitpick. That it'd lower war weariness I'm in agreement with -- it's a tool for silencing critics.
@stp
I'm not saying that I'd advise throwing people outside the city walls; it's essentially a less brutal form of execution. All I said is that it's A) more realistic and B) more effective. A is true... that's what happened when we had walled cities. Romeo & Juliet has a good example of it, where Romeo is exiled for murder. B is also true... the big problem with prisons is that released prisoners tend to reoffend; executions, whether based around exile or not, don't. Also, since execution is more of a last resort, it means that you wouldn't be punished at all unless you stepped too far over the line, one too many times. Since punishment tends to be ineffective as a social control, that's an improvement. Further, since prison, in a modern context, actually increases crime, even a measure which has no effect, positive or negative, will be "more effective" than it.
In which case it wouldn't lower crime rate, which is what I've been trying to nitpick. That it'd lower war weariness I'm in agreement with -- it's a tool for silencing critics.
@stp
I'm not saying that I'd advise throwing people outside the city walls; it's essentially a less brutal form of execution. All I said is that it's A) more realistic and B) more effective. A is true... that's what happened when we had walled cities. Romeo & Juliet has a good example of it, where Romeo is exiled for murder. B is also true... the big problem with prisons is that released prisoners tend to reoffend; executions, whether based around exile or not, don't. Also, since execution is more of a last resort, it means that you wouldn't be punished at all unless you stepped too far over the line, one too many times. Since punishment tends to be ineffective as a social control, that's an improvement. Further, since prison, in a modern context, actually increases crime, even a measure which has no effect, positive or negative, will be "more effective" than it.
Clear to you. Psychosocial analysis of the matter is anything but.
@WCH - Bansihment is not really a form of execution. Napoleon got banished twice, the first time he came back for 100 days, and got banished again. He wouldn't have come back, if banishment would be some sort of execution... Banishment is the early version of imprisonment...
Right, in modern context prisons might be bad, but we're not in modern context. We're not even in Renissance context, so to say. So again wecan't use modern studies of modern times for old times, especially we've to look from the time that were before.
About the 'punishment' might not work.
So please tell me, what modern analysis says about building up a rule-system. As far as i know, children and so on are brought onto line through positive and negative reactions toward their acting. And a negative reaction is nothing other, then a 'punishment' in the widest term.
I'm really interested in it, because i also think we got a lot of good examples for the might of punishments in reality, and in a few experiments.
Nazi-Germany and Stalin's UDSSR had very hard punishments and as far as i know, this worked pretty well for them.
Also we got experiments like: Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment.
In both of this experments people got told that they won't get punished for what happens (more or less explicit) and they did things, or at least thought to do things, that they normally would have thought of as crimes.
But i think we should (if you're interested in speaking with me about it) in private messages.
Right, in modern context prisons might be bad, but we're not in modern context. We're not even in Renissance context, so to say. So again wecan't use modern studies of modern times for old times, especially we've to look from the time that were before.
About the 'punishment' might not work.
So please tell me, what modern analysis says about building up a rule-system. As far as i know, children and so on are brought onto line through positive and negative reactions toward their acting. And a negative reaction is nothing other, then a 'punishment' in the widest term.
I'm really interested in it, because i also think we got a lot of good examples for the might of punishments in reality, and in a few experiments.
Nazi-Germany and Stalin's UDSSR had very hard punishments and as far as i know, this worked pretty well for them.
Also we got experiments like: Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment.
In both of this experments people got told that they won't get punished for what happens (more or less explicit) and they did things, or at least thought to do things, that they normally would have thought of as crimes.
But i think we should (if you're interested in speaking with me about it) in private messages.
Sofista
Deity
Banishment worked in ancient societies where it was both a) momentous: being banished from a Greek city state meant losing the all-important citizenship; remember as a rule outsiders had no formal positions in those city states, and b) unharmful for the country, which of course was limited. Take the system today and you'd have the crmiinals banned from East Smallburg free to take up their activity again in West Smallburg, or Smallstan expecting Punystan to accept their criminals without a protest.
In Erebus I find it hard to think citizens have ID cards, and a criminal expelled from city A could resume his activities in city B of the same empire. Not viable; and expelled criminals, as mentioned, would eventually join the barbs/form bands to rob on the open roads. Since today it's etymology day for me
I'll add that "bandit" comes from Italian bandito, participe-turned-noun of bandire, which means "to ban, exile".
In Erebus I find it hard to think citizens have ID cards, and a criminal expelled from city A could resume his activities in city B of the same empire. Not viable; and expelled criminals, as mentioned, would eventually join the barbs/form bands to rob on the open roads. Since today it's etymology day for me
I'll add that "bandit" comes from Italian bandito, participe-turned-noun of bandire, which means "to ban, exile".I'm not an expert on metallurgy, but I do know something about the use of these materials and the societies that use them. I'm pretty good with Greco-Roman, so I can offer some views from their world.
First, it is true that bronze is harder than most irons. Unfortunately, I think that statement is taken out of context. Hardness in absolute terms may not be that important; metals have a lot of important properties, including their strength to weight ratio, their abiltiy to avoid shattering, (brittleness), their abiltiy to be cast and formed (ductility), resistance to rust, nad potentially other properties. Although strong, bronze is heavy, very heavy, and shatters, so its hardness is only part of its overall use.
Indeed, bronze is so heavy that it is most useful in formation approaching hoplite warfare, where the strength was in formation. Greek soldiers running away would throw off their panoply, breaking formation. About the worst thing you could possibly call a hoplite warrior was a 'shield thrower', as they would shed their shields as they ran away. The famous saying was that Spartan women would tell their sons. 'Return with your shield, or on it!'. Meaning you die rather than throw your shield! Hoplites caught out of formation were vulnerable because of their lack of mobility.
For bronze, weight also was a problem in its attachments. Real life weapons (not fantasy settings) were usually 1 -3 pounds during the Peloponnesian War. Having a heavy 'weapon' attached to a wooden platform could be problem. Bronze swords tended to be poor weapons, and hoplite armies were dominated by spearmen.
Brass does not make good weapons. Brass is terrific in terms of rust resistance, but it isn't strong enough for weaponcraft.
As stated by others, iron and steel and forms can be complex. Bronze came from tin and copper. Iron was complicated. Iron (like copper) is found naturally as an oxide. If the oxide is burned off, the burned off material produces slag. Taking the oxide from the metal is indeed the process of smelting. It takes about 1000 degrees centigrade to melt copper; tins melting point is very low. Even the lowest melting point irons require 1300 degrees or so (I may be a little off here.) Since oxidation occurs at higher temperatures, the key to smelting good iron weapons, making them steel like, was to apply the heat with minmal oxidation. Obviously, this isn't easy and is the key to making the process work.
Smelting used charcoal, and the Romans deforested a substantial amount of the forests in the ancient Mediterranean producing it. Mixing some slag in small percentages could be good for industrial applications as it makes the metal more rust resistant.
The smith then hammered the resulting metal into shape. If all of the oxide is removed, the resulting metal is called pig iron. Pig iron has a high carbon content.
The carbon gives steel its hardness. Generally, pig iron in pure form is harder than steel. (Again, don't put too much emphasis on hardness!) The steel we talk about today has carbon that is up to about 2% by weight, which has a wonderful combination of tensile strength, rust resistance, ductility, and hardness. The more carbon, the harder and the lower the melting point but again the more britlle. Higher carbon irons are sometimes called 'cast iron' since they are easier to melt and therefore cast into shape.
At the molecular level, the carbon makes the iron harder by keeping iron atoms from sliding through to the crystal structure. In industrial applications, the amount of carbon added depends on which properties are most important.
The Romans produced good iron weapons and armor. They obviously had some good smiths. Armor, in particular, had to be light, hard, and not brittle. Apparently, the Romans after the pig iron was created banged the carbon out on a small flame with low oxygen.
Roman armies were far more flexible than Greek armies intheir phalanx formations. They had iron weapons and armor and worked in flexible formations. However, a Greek phalanx with bronze spears and armor moving forward had greater straight on power.
My view is that iron was the superior weapon for warmaking if the smiths had the ability and energy to melt it and cast it well.
As I said though, I'm not a matallurgist and I may be guilty of assuming their success. But iron is a lot harder to work, and I doubt they (the Romans) would have used it if it weren't better, especially after they conquered enough of the world to use either.
Best wishes,
Breunor
First, it is true that bronze is harder than most irons. Unfortunately, I think that statement is taken out of context. Hardness in absolute terms may not be that important; metals have a lot of important properties, including their strength to weight ratio, their abiltiy to avoid shattering, (brittleness), their abiltiy to be cast and formed (ductility), resistance to rust, nad potentially other properties. Although strong, bronze is heavy, very heavy, and shatters, so its hardness is only part of its overall use.
Indeed, bronze is so heavy that it is most useful in formation approaching hoplite warfare, where the strength was in formation. Greek soldiers running away would throw off their panoply, breaking formation. About the worst thing you could possibly call a hoplite warrior was a 'shield thrower', as they would shed their shields as they ran away. The famous saying was that Spartan women would tell their sons. 'Return with your shield, or on it!'. Meaning you die rather than throw your shield! Hoplites caught out of formation were vulnerable because of their lack of mobility.
For bronze, weight also was a problem in its attachments. Real life weapons (not fantasy settings) were usually 1 -3 pounds during the Peloponnesian War. Having a heavy 'weapon' attached to a wooden platform could be problem. Bronze swords tended to be poor weapons, and hoplite armies were dominated by spearmen.
Brass does not make good weapons. Brass is terrific in terms of rust resistance, but it isn't strong enough for weaponcraft.
As stated by others, iron and steel and forms can be complex. Bronze came from tin and copper. Iron was complicated. Iron (like copper) is found naturally as an oxide. If the oxide is burned off, the burned off material produces slag. Taking the oxide from the metal is indeed the process of smelting. It takes about 1000 degrees centigrade to melt copper; tins melting point is very low. Even the lowest melting point irons require 1300 degrees or so (I may be a little off here.) Since oxidation occurs at higher temperatures, the key to smelting good iron weapons, making them steel like, was to apply the heat with minmal oxidation. Obviously, this isn't easy and is the key to making the process work.
Smelting used charcoal, and the Romans deforested a substantial amount of the forests in the ancient Mediterranean producing it. Mixing some slag in small percentages could be good for industrial applications as it makes the metal more rust resistant.
The smith then hammered the resulting metal into shape. If all of the oxide is removed, the resulting metal is called pig iron. Pig iron has a high carbon content.
The carbon gives steel its hardness. Generally, pig iron in pure form is harder than steel. (Again, don't put too much emphasis on hardness!) The steel we talk about today has carbon that is up to about 2% by weight, which has a wonderful combination of tensile strength, rust resistance, ductility, and hardness. The more carbon, the harder and the lower the melting point but again the more britlle. Higher carbon irons are sometimes called 'cast iron' since they are easier to melt and therefore cast into shape.
At the molecular level, the carbon makes the iron harder by keeping iron atoms from sliding through to the crystal structure. In industrial applications, the amount of carbon added depends on which properties are most important.
The Romans produced good iron weapons and armor. They obviously had some good smiths. Armor, in particular, had to be light, hard, and not brittle. Apparently, the Romans after the pig iron was created banged the carbon out on a small flame with low oxygen.
Roman armies were far more flexible than Greek armies intheir phalanx formations. They had iron weapons and armor and worked in flexible formations. However, a Greek phalanx with bronze spears and armor moving forward had greater straight on power.
My view is that iron was the superior weapon for warmaking if the smiths had the ability and energy to melt it and cast it well.
As I said though, I'm not a matallurgist and I may be guilty of assuming their success. But iron is a lot harder to work, and I doubt they (the Romans) would have used it if it weren't better, especially after they conquered enough of the world to use either.
Best wishes,
Breunor
Ur_Vile_Wedge
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 416
Ooh, a nitpick thread. I was once one of Hacki Dragon's crew, nitpicking the Ultima series......
Sorry design team, you're going to hate me for this......
Saverous is described as being something on the order of nine feet tall. People with Giantism usually have their upper bodies break their legs, or very least ankles, when they hit around eight feet or even less. Someone that tall should have trouble standing, let alone becoming a warrior of great fame.
Also, there is the Doviello "meat flail" that I brought up once before http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6424086&highlight=Saverous#post6424086 I still maintain that a freshly slain foe (or friend) is simply far too soft and heavy to make any sort of effective weapon, no matter how strong you are.
Furthermore, Kael has said that the Doviello are much bigger than other people, courtesy of evolution in their climate and culture. Well if the Age of Ice lasted 1000 years, and the age of rebirth only a few hundred, there isn't *that* much time in an evolutionary sense to change a species that drastically. Anyway, real life peoples in cold, harsh climates tend towards the short and stocky.
And here's a *Major* contradiction.
First thread/comment http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=259729
Second thread/comment. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=262869&page=2
They can't both be true........
I'll probably come up with a few more if I really think about it.
Sorry design team, you're going to hate me for this......
Saverous is described as being something on the order of nine feet tall. People with Giantism usually have their upper bodies break their legs, or very least ankles, when they hit around eight feet or even less. Someone that tall should have trouble standing, let alone becoming a warrior of great fame.
Also, there is the Doviello "meat flail" that I brought up once before http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6424086&highlight=Saverous#post6424086 I still maintain that a freshly slain foe (or friend) is simply far too soft and heavy to make any sort of effective weapon, no matter how strong you are.
Furthermore, Kael has said that the Doviello are much bigger than other people, courtesy of evolution in their climate and culture. Well if the Age of Ice lasted 1000 years, and the age of rebirth only a few hundred, there isn't *that* much time in an evolutionary sense to change a species that drastically. Anyway, real life peoples in cold, harsh climates tend towards the short and stocky.
And here's a *Major* contradiction.
First thread/comment http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=259729
Second thread/comment. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=262869&page=2
They can't both be true........
I'll probably come up with a few more if I really think about it.
xienwolf
Deity
Those Kael quotes don't contradict though. Each one states that Sabathiel is not in Erebus. The second goes on to state that he isn't quite in the Vault of Junil either though.
And I would say that somewhere along the lines of suspending disbelief to accept that a God plunges the world into winter for 1000 years, and can make animated Ice Golems do his bidding... we might have to accept that a race which he is influencing heavily can evolve a bit faster than normal, and by his bidding become a bit bigger & Stronger than normal.
Of course, the chances that Mulcarn would evolve a group of people are slim, being the God of Stasis and all that... So my arguement is weak.
And I would say that somewhere along the lines of suspending disbelief to accept that a God plunges the world into winter for 1000 years, and can make animated Ice Golems do his bidding... we might have to accept that a race which he is influencing heavily can evolve a bit faster than normal, and by his bidding become a bit bigger & Stronger than normal.
Of course, the chances that Mulcarn would evolve a group of people are slim, being the God of Stasis and all that... So my arguement is weak.
Nikis-Knight
Deity
Well, that depends on what Magister said that was dead on, but just looking at what Kael said, both points can be true. Some archangels enter creation all the time, but Sabathiel never has. Maybe he agress more with Cassiel than he lets on, or maybe he is stickler for little rules the others overlook.
It's artificial, not natural selection, which leads to more rapid change. Probably too fast anyway? Well, then call it a god thing; the Orcs evolved much more in the same amount of time.
Ur_Vile_Wedge
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 416
But the people of Mulcarn are the Illians, not the Doviello.........
I suppose you're right about the Sabathiel location thing. But how badly hurt / drained is he that he can't even manifest in creationm just to talk to people? Something still is making the back of my neck itch about that.
I suppose you're right about the Sabathiel location thing. But how badly hurt / drained is he that he can't even manifest in creationm just to talk to people? Something still is making the back of my neck itch about that.
xienwolf
Deity
He still talks to them. Just through the "Window" Or Divine Visions I guess.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Remember the humans of Erebus aren't quite the same as ours. They are descendants of Nemed, the original God of Life. They have been known to evolve into many forms due to contact with the other gods. Contact with Sucellus turned men into elves, and with Danalin turned them into water-breathing Aifons. Their ties to their gods often have a physical effect, for instance, look at how quickly men (and probably some dwarves and elves) turned into Orks(/Ogres/Goblins/Lizardmen). The Doviello are Camulos's people, so their tie to him may have made them grow bigger and more warlike. It is also possible that other men too used to be bigger, but diminished in the harsh conditions of the Age of Ice. The fact that Orks too are larger than men in Erebus (the opposite was true in Arda) may imply that men were of their stature before Bhall's fall.
Remember Sabathiel is an angel tied "to the strictest interpretation of the Compact." It may be that most gods interpret things more loosely, allowing their archangels to enter creation whenever they want, but that Junil is very strict and would prevent actions that seem to violate the spirit of the compact rather than just the letter of the law.
I believe it has been said that the inner sanctum of the Halls of Sabathiel are not in this dimension. It may be that the High Priests literally leave creation in order to talk to him.
Remember Sabathiel is an angel tied "to the strictest interpretation of the Compact." It may be that most gods interpret things more loosely, allowing their archangels to enter creation whenever they want, but that Junil is very strict and would prevent actions that seem to violate the spirit of the compact rather than just the letter of the law.
I believe it has been said that the inner sanctum of the Halls of Sabathiel are not in this dimension. It may be that the High Priests literally leave creation in order to talk to him.
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
I wouldn't go that far. If we replaced all prison sentences with a severely angry glare from the judge, I'd expect crime rates to increase. It's simple economics: You need to give people incentives to not do what you don't want them to do. Now, alternative forms of punishment, such as community service, might generate fewer recurring criminals, but they're still punishments.
Now, that's something I've always been curious about. Did the Orcs only acquire their protection from fire after the end of the Age of Ice? Jonas was able to burn a few priestesses alive in his 'pedia entry, but he and the severed head were unharmed once Bhall started talking.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Well, before the fall of Bhall all good people were immune to the harmful effects of fire. Obviously, the criterion of who would be immune changed drastically after that (since her angels split up and serve many deities, some flames may harm only the good and others only the evil, while most will harm anyone.
Breunor that is a very good account you have given.
A close friend of mine (from University years) is pretty much an expert on the Peloponnesian War, so I admire your reference on the subject
You make a good point about hardness of substances.
If substances were rated purely on "hardness" then diamond would make the perfect substance of war. However, despite the hardness, diamond armour or weapons would shatter with ease when utilised against (for eg) steel.
The same goes for bronze verses worked iron. My good (PhD level) metallurgist friend seems to be 100% convinced that taking an iron weapon against a bronze weapon would result in the shattering of the latter.
Also, it is well known that bronze will not keep an edge beyond the first limb or so that you manage to chop off (becoming pretty blunt for the rest of the fight). Although all weapons lose their edge over time (with lack of sharpening), iron weapons are quite likely to keep it for the duration of a fight before its owner need attend to it
Thanks for your intelligent contribution Breunor
Al
A close friend of mine (from University years) is pretty much an expert on the Peloponnesian War, so I admire your reference on the subject
You make a good point about hardness of substances.
If substances were rated purely on "hardness" then diamond would make the perfect substance of war. However, despite the hardness, diamond armour or weapons would shatter with ease when utilised against (for eg) steel.
The same goes for bronze verses worked iron. My good (PhD level) metallurgist friend seems to be 100% convinced that taking an iron weapon against a bronze weapon would result in the shattering of the latter.
Also, it is well known that bronze will not keep an edge beyond the first limb or so that you manage to chop off (becoming pretty blunt for the rest of the fight). Although all weapons lose their edge over time (with lack of sharpening), iron weapons are quite likely to keep it for the duration of a fight before its owner need attend to it
Thanks for your intelligent contribution Breunor
Al
Similar threads
