The Books That Founded D&D
Dan Clore
http://tinyurl.com/y9gf2naD
The Books That Founded D&D
by James Maliszewski
Although it's commonplace nowadays to assume that J.R.R. Tolkien's The
Lord of the Rings was the primary source of inspiration for Dave Arneson
and Gary Gygax when they created the world's first tabletop roleplaying
game, Dungeons & Dragons, a careful examination of the game suggests
otherwise. There's no question that Tolkien's work did influence D&D.
The earliest editions of the game included explicit references to
Hobbits, Ents, Balrogs, and Nazg�l, for example - at least until the
Tolkien estate threatened legal action, a fact that probably encouraged
Gygax to downplay the influence of the Oxford don in later years.
Still, it's interesting that the game's original foreword, which Gygax
penned in November 1973, long before any legal concerns entered into the
picture, states: "These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who
lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures
where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon
reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt
fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their
swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and
DRAGONS to their taste." There's no mention of Tolkien there and indeed,
even with the aforementioned references to Hobbits and Balrogs and the
like, there are probably even more references to the Martian creations
of Edgar Rice Burroughs in the text of the game itself.
So, if The Lord of the Rings wasn't as influential in the creation of
D&D as some would have it, then what were the most significant literary
inspirations for the founding game of the hobby of roleplaying? Let's
first take a look at the ones Gary Gygax specifically mentions in his
foreword.
Edgar Rice Burroughs
Although perhaps best known for creating Tarzan, Burroughs also created
John Carter, a Civil War veteran who, by means of astral projection,
journeys to the planet Mars - or Barsoom, as it is known by its
inhabitants - where he wins fame, power, and the love of the
incomparable Dejah Thoris, princess of the city-state of Helium. The
Barsoom novels were hugely influential in the development of both later
fantasy and science fiction. Gary Gygax famously sent a character from
his home campaign to Barsoom as a result of a cursed scroll and
Barsoomian monsters figure prominently in the game's earliest wilderness
encounter tables.
Robert E. Howard
REH barely needs an introduction. The creator of Conan the Cimmerian,
along with Kull of Atlantis, Solomon Kane and many more memorable
characters, Howard almost singlehandedly created the genre we now call
swords-and-sorcery. Contrary to the caricatures, Howard's best stories
deftly mix daring adventures with an almost existentialist philosophy.
His characters, including Conan, are not muscle-bound blockheads but
intelligent men whose dangerous endeavors offer surprising insight into
the human condition. Even so, Conan is out to make a name for himself in
the world and makes a great model for many D&D adventurers.
L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt
Both L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt had written fantasy and
science fiction stories separately, but it was their collaboration on
the Enchanter stories that most influenced D&D. These stories introduce
a psychologist named Harold Shea who, by means of an unusual system of
symbolic logic, is able to transport himself and his companions into
parallel worlds. These worlds all have different physics from our own,
including working magic, and usually bear a close resemblance to those
of mythology, such as Norse, Irish, Finnish, etc. -- just like many D&D
settings.
Fritz Leiber
In his youth, Fritz Leiber was a correspondent of H.P. Lovecraft and
many of his fantasy tales show a definite Lovecraftian influence.
Leiber's most famous creations are Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, a pair of
roguish adventurers whose exploits in the City of the Black Toga,
Lankhmar, adeptly combined derring-do and naked self-interest. Fafhrd
and the Gray Mouser are thus prototypical D&D characters, willing to
undertake all manner of foolhardy tasks to keep themselves in wine,
women, and song. Interestingly, Leiber designed a boardgame based on his
Lankhmar tales, which TSR, the publisher of D&D, published in 1976.
While these five authors are the only ones mentioned by name in the 1974
edition of Dungeons & Dragons (along with Tolkien, whose name is
consistently misspelled as "Tolkein"), they're not the only ones whose
writings influenced the game. According to an appendix to his 1979
Dungeon Masters Guide, Gygax notes that the authors having "the most
immediate influence ... were probably de Camp & Pratt, REH, Fritz
Leiber, Jack Vance, HPL, and A. Merritt." Several of those names were
already mentioned in the original foreword to the game, but several are new.
image
Jack Vance
Of the many short stories and novels Jack Vance wrote, it was his 1950
collection The Dying Earth and its 1966 sequel The Eyes of the
Overworld, that had the most influence on D&D. Set in the impossibly far
future, when magic has returned and the sun is sputtering its last rays
of light, these books introduce a peculiar form of magic that depends on
imprinting spell formulae on the mind of a wizard, who immediately
"forgets" them after use - the very system D&D adopted. Indeed, D&D
borrows many spells and magical artifacts from these books and the
protagonist of The Eyes of the Overworld is, along with Leiber's Gray
Mouser, the prototype for the Thief character class, first added to the
game in its first supplement in 1975.
H.P. Lovecraft
Like his contemporary, Robert E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft needs little
introduction. His "Cthulhu Mythos" and the cosmic horror it embodied
have proven enormously influential in the decades since his death in
1937. Lovecraft was unique in his time for combining a Gothic literary
sensibility with a philosophy that downplayed humanity's importance in
the universe. Though Lovecraft's worldview is in some ways antithetical
to that presented in D&D, many of the game's monsters are clearly
inspired by his stories, most notably the octopus-headed mind flayers
and the ichthyoid kuo-toa, which recall Cthulhu and the Deep Ones,
respectively.
Abraham Merritt
Largely forgotten today, Abraham Merritt was a giant of early fantasy
and science fiction. H.P. Lovecraft thought highly of his stories, as
did SF pioneers Jack Williamson and Walter Shaver. Merritt's works often
involve ancient but advanced races that dwell beneath the earth or in
inaccessible locations, whose horrific societies and cultures are
stumbled upon by people from the surface world - sounds like the set-up
for many D&D adventures, doesn't it?
Poul Anderson
Anderson was equally at home in fantasy and science fiction. His
historical fantasies, most especially Three Hearts and Three Lions, were
hugely influential on D&D. Its protagonist, Holger Carlsen, is the main
model for the game's Paladin character class. Likewise, D&D's
regenerating troll and fairy swanmays owe their origins to this book.
Even more significantly, Anderson's conception of an eternal struggle
between Law and Chaos inspired British author Michael Moorcock, whose
own stories of Elric of Melnibon� would in turn inspire the earliest
versions of D&D's alignment system.
As you can see, no single author or novel is the sole source of
inspiration for Dungeons & Dragons. Instead, its origins are
multifarious, with many books providing the raw materials from which
Arneson and Gygax crafted the game that changed the world.
It's unfortunate that so many of these books and authors today are
largely unknown except to aficionados of early fantasy and science
fiction. It's my hope that, by bringing these authors to wider public
knowledge, more people might not only recognize the debt that the hobby
of roleplaying owes to their remarkable imaginations but also enjoy
their writings in their own right. Like D&D itself, whose influence
extends far beyond tabletop roleplaying games, these writers and their
ideas contributed much to contemporary popular culture and they deserve
their due.
James Maliszewski is a writer currently living in Toronto, Ontario,
Canada. His blog, Grognardia, explores the history and traditions of the
hobby of roleplaying.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"Tho-ag in Zhi-gyu slept seven Khorlo. Zodmanas
zhiba. All Nyug bosom. Konch-hog not; Thyan-Kam
not; Lha-Chohan not; Tenbrel Chugnyi not;
Dharmakaya ceased; Tgenchang not become; Barnang
and Ssa in Ngovonyidj; alone Tho-og Yinsin in
night of Sun-chan and Yong-grub (Parinishpanna),
&c., &c.,"
-- The Book of Dzyan.
Quadibloc
> http://tinyurl.com/y9gf2naD
> The Books That Founded D&D
> by James Maliszewski
>
> Although it's commonplace nowadays to assume that J.R.R. Tolkien's The
> Lord of the Rings was the primary source of inspiration for Dave Arneson
> and Gary Gygax when they created the world's first tabletop roleplaying
> game, Dungeons & Dragons, a careful examination of the game suggests
> otherwise.
> Jack Vance
>
> Of the many short stories and novels Jack Vance wrote, it was his 1950
> collection The Dying Earth and its 1966 sequel The Eyes of the
> Overworld, that had the most influence on D&D. Set in the impossibly far
> future, when magic has returned and the sun is sputtering its last rays
> of light, these books introduce a peculiar form of magic that depends on
> imprinting spell formulae on the mind of a wizard, who immediately
> "forgets" them after use - the very system D&D adopted. Indeed, D&D
> borrows many spells and magical artifacts from these books and the
> protagonist of The Eyes of the Overworld is, along with Leiber's Gray
> Mouser, the prototype for the Thief character class, first added to the
> game in its first supplement in 1975.
Indeed, I remember reading in a book about different games that the
D&D magic system was based on Jack Vance's "The Dying Earth"... and
everyone else had used a much more sensible mana point system.
Oddly enough, the author of that book's second edition was Jon
Freeman, but the original hardcover edition (which also had a slightly
different title, the paperback being sponsored by a magazine) was
written by John Jackson (and bore the title "A Player's Guide to Table
Games").
John Savard
Dan Clore
The URL is:
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Patok
>
> So, if The Lord of the Rings wasn't as influential in the creation of
> D&D as some would have it, then what were the most significant literary
> inspirations for the founding game of the hobby of roleplaying? Let's
> first take a look at the ones Gary Gygax specifically mentions in his
> foreword.
>
> Edgar Rice Burroughs
>
>
> Robert E. Howard
>
[...]
>
> L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt
>
>
> Fritz Leiber
>
[...]
>
> Jack Vance
>
[...]
>
> H.P. Lovecraft
>
[...]
>
> Abraham Merritt
>
[...]
>
> Poul Anderson
>
[...]
>
> As you can see, no single author or novel is the sole source of
> inspiration for Dungeons & Dragons. Instead, its origins are
> multifarious, with many books providing the raw materials from which
> Arneson and Gygax crafted the game that changed the world.
>
> It's unfortunate that so many of these books and authors today are
> largely unknown except to aficionados of early fantasy and science
> fiction. It's my hope that, by bringing these authors to wider public
> knowledge, more people might not only recognize the debt that the hobby
> of roleplaying owes to their remarkable imaginations but also enjoy
> their writings in their own right. Like D&D itself, whose influence
> extends far beyond tabletop roleplaying games, these writers and their
> ideas contributed much to contemporary popular culture and they deserve
> their due.
This is quite interesting. It would be even better, if the author
suggested a way of approaching these "largely unknown" authors. Of them,
I didn't know only Fritz Leiber, but haven't read their works except
Poul Anderson's. And that's because I can't. I've tried reading about
Cthulhu several times, to no avail. And I've endured reading only one or
two pieces (at most) each by Burroughs, Howard, Vance and Merritt. Being
early (or classic) writers in the genre does not, unfortunately, mean
quality writing. Or a style I can stomach.
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
Mike Schilling
> This is quite interesting. It would be even better, if the
> author
> suggested a way of approaching these "largely unknown" authors. Of
> them, I didn't know only Fritz Leiber, but haven't read their works
> except Poul Anderson's. And that's because I can't. I've tried
> reading about Cthulhu several times, to no avail. And I've endured
> reading only one or two pieces (at most) each by Burroughs, Howard,
> Vance and Merritt. Being early (or classic) writers in the genre
> does not, unfortunately, mean quality writing. Or a style I can
> stomach.
One of these is very much unlike the others.
And Leiber is even more different, as his style is humorous,
unornamented, and very approachable.
Endymion9
began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence. Immediately
went out and read the entire series and loved them. Always grateful to D&D
for that.
--
--
Dennis/Endy9
~Some will sink, but we will float. Grab your coat. Let's get out of here.
You're my witness, I'm your Mutineer.~ Warren Zevon
--
Patok
> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser until I
> began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence.
> Immediately went out and read the entire series and loved them. Always
> grateful to D&D for that.
Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never heard
of, and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
Juho Julkunen
(crazy.d...@gmail.com) says...
> Dan Clore wrote:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/y9gf2naD
> > The Books That Founded D&D
> > by James Maliszewski
> >
> [...]
> >
> > So, if The Lord of the Rings wasn't as influential in the creation of
> > D&D as some would have it, then what were the most significant literary
I'd just like to point out that 'some' there is everybody except Gygax.
Yes, D&D took influences from all over the place, notably form those
mentioned in the article, but in the case of LotR Gygax protesteth too
much.
--
Juho Julkunen
DouhetSukd
A careful reading of the spells D&D v 2.0 reveals a number of spells
originating from Cugel's Saga. The Spell of Forlorn Encystement comes
to mind (9th level, you end up in statis 50 miles underground), but
there are others. Been a long time, can't recall.
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
On Lovecraft, try reading his other work - it's very varied, and he's
probably the most important twentieth-century writer in his field.
"The Colour out of Space", THE CASE OF CHARLES DEXTER WARD, "The Rats
in the Walls"... Burroughs, Merritt and even Howard are stylistically
patchy, but Vance most certainly means "quality writing" - he's an
enviably fine stylist, and at least as witty as Leiber (who is one of
the twentieth-century masters of supernatural horror and fantasy, and
no slouch in his science fiction either).
Quadibloc
wrote:
> Patok wrote:
> > And I've endured
> > reading only one or two pieces (at most) each by Burroughs, Howard,
> > Vance and Merritt. Being early (or classic) writers in the genre
> > does not, unfortunately, mean quality writing.
>
> One of these is very much unlike the others.
I suspect you mean Jack Vance. But A. A. Merritt and even E. R.
Burroughs had sometimes written well; Burroughs' first book in the
Tarzan series and in the Barsoom series weren't all that bad. I don't
know about the Conan series yet.
John Savard
David Johnston
D&D in play is a lot more like Leiber and Burroughs and than it is
like Tolkien.
Marko Amnell
<ram...@ramsey-campbell.com> wrote in message
d5bb0fe4-fb63-4f6a...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 10:13 pm, Patok <crazy.div.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> This is quite interesting. It would be even better, if the author
>> suggested a way of approaching these "largely unknown" authors. Of them,
>> I didn't know only Fritz Leiber, but haven't read their works except
>> Poul Anderson's. And that's because I can't. I've tried reading about
>> Cthulhu several times, to no avail. And I've endured reading only one or
>> two pieces (at most) each by Burroughs, Howard, Vance and Merritt. Being
>> early (or classic) writers in the genre does not, unfortunately, mean
>> quality writing. Or a style I can stomach.
>
> [...]
>
> On Lovecraft, try reading his other work - it's very varied, and he's
> probably the most important twentieth-century writer in his field.
> "The Colour out of Space", THE CASE OF CHARLES DEXTER WARD, "The Rats
> in the Walls"... Burroughs, Merritt and even Howard are stylistically
> patchy, but Vance most certainly means "quality writing" - he's an
> enviably fine stylist, and at least as witty as Leiber (who is one of
> he twentieth-century masters of supernatural horror and fantasy, and
> no slouch in his science fiction either).
Patok mentioned Cthulhu, so it sounds like he is interested in
Lovecraft's mythos stories in particular. I would
suggest that another way of approaching Lovecraft would
be to sample some of the adaptations of his mythos stories
to other media. Here are some that I've enjoyed.
Most of these can be found easily on the Internet.
"The Call of Cthulhu"
- there is finally a film which follows the plot
of the story quite closely; although released in
2005, it was produced as a black and white silent
film that looks like it was made in the 1920s,
giving it a very Lovecraftian feel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Call_of_Cthulhu_(film)
- the story was also produced as an audiobook, in
which the story is read verbatim.
"The Shadow Over Innsmouth"
- has been produced as a radio play
- the film "Dagon" is based on the story (not on
Lovecraft's short story "Dagon"), but it was
relocated to Spain, as it was a Spanish production
- the film "Cthulhu" is also based on the same story,
but the location was moved yet again, this time
from the east coast to the west coast of the U.S.
- the video game "The Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of
the Earth" is closely based on the story, down to details
like the drunk who can fill you in on the secrets of the
town's history. I have spoken with one of the designers
of the game and he seemed very pleased that I liked
the hilarious cameo appearance by G. Edgar Hoover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Cthulhu:_Dark_Corners_of_the_Earth
"At The Mountains of Madness"
- has been produced as a radio play
"The Dunwich Horror"
- was made into a movie of the same name in the 1970
(and into a very bad made-for-TV movie in 2009
which I have not seen).
There is an audio production of Lovecraft's poem
"The Fungi from Yuggoth" which includes original
music. There are also audio productions of other
mythos short pieces, such as "Nyarlathotep."
I would also recommend the interesting biography
of Lovecraft by the well-known French writer
Michel Houllebecq entitled "H.P. Lovecraft:
Contre le monde, contre la vie." An English
translation is available.
Endymion9
news:he83co$arv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Endymion9 wrote:
>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser until I
>> began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence.
>> Immediately went out and read the entire series and loved them. Always
>> grateful to D&D for that.
>
> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never heard of,
> and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
>
Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read several of
Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading Lieber. Whereas
Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself, Fafyhrd or the Mouser
can't beat two adequate swordsmen by themselves. That and Lieber's humor
are the big differences in those books, which as I said, I love both kinds.
Don't prefer one over the other.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Well, certainly they didn't take themselves very seriously, but they
*were* pretty good swordsmen..
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Mike Schilling
> "Patok" <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:he83co$arv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Endymion9 wrote:
>>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser
>>> until I began playing D&D and heard that those books were an
>>> influence. Immediately went out and read the entire series and
>>> loved them. Always grateful to D&D for that.
>>
>> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never
>> heard of, and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
>>
>
> Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read
> several of Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading
> Lieber. Whereas Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself,
> Fafyhrd or the Mouser can't beat two adequate swordsmen by
> themselves.
You are misremembering. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are, in Leiber's
own words, "the two greatest swordsmen ever to be in this or any other
universe of fact or fiction."
Juho Julkunen
(mscotts...@hotmail.com) says...
Which is plainly absurd, as neither of them is the greatest swordsman
on at least two planets.
--
Juho Julkunen
Marko Amnell
"Endymion9" <endym...@comcast.net> wrote in message
iL2dnWa7dtAYbpTW...@giganews.com...
REH is actually more realistic. A master swordsman can
defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
ten men. Just as one man can beat ten, so a hundred men can
beat a thousand, and a thousand can beat ten thousand."
http://www.bookoffiverings.com/EarthBook.htm
If Lieber were right, there would be no point in training
to fight with a sword.
David Johnston
<marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
>"Endymion9" <endym...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>iL2dnWa7dtAYbpTW...@giganews.com...
>> "Patok" <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:he83co$arv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Endymion9 wrote:
>>>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser until I
>>>> began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence.
>>>> Immediately went out and read the entire series and loved them. Always
>>>> grateful to D&D for that.
>>>
>>> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never heard of,
>>> and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
>>>
>>
>> Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read several
>> of Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading Lieber.
>> Whereas Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself, Fafyhrd or the
>> Mouser can't beat two adequate swordsmen by themselves. That and Lieber's
>> humor are the big differences in those books, which as I said, I love both
>> kinds. Don't prefer one over the other.
>
>REH is actually more realistic.
No, he really isn't.
A master swordsman can
>defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
>Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>
>"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>ten men.
If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
Otherwise not a bloody hope.
Mike Schilling
None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
him with a rock.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
Marko Amnell
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
42mlg5hgafqibgnm9...@4ax.com...
Miyamoto Musashi was one of the greatest swordsmen of
all times. On what basis do you question his opinion?
You've probably never even held a real sword in your
hands. Your experience with combat is limited to
rolling twenty-sided dice.
Also, the Roman Legions regularly defeated enemy armies
of warriors that were several times larger, winning due
to superior discipline and training.
Marko Amnell
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
heelo9$f94$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
A comment that shows you know nothing about combat.
But let's take an example from one of Howard's
stories and see if the combat is realistic or not.
Here is a fight from the short story "Queen of the
Black Coast" in which Conan fights a group of
barbarian pirates aboard a ship:
"The fight on the Argus was short and bloody. The stocky
sailors, no match for the tall barbarians, were cut down to
a man. Elsewhere the battle had taken a peculiar turn. Conan,
on the high-pitched poop, was on a level with the pirate's
deck. As the steel prow slashed into the Argus, he braced
himself and kept his feet under the shock, casting away his
bow. A tall corsair, bounding over the rail, was met in midair
by the Cimmerian's great sword, which sheared him cleanly
through the torso, so that his body fell one way and his legs
another. Then, with a burst of fury that left a heap of mangled
corpses along the gunwales, Conan was over the rail and
on the deck of the Tigress.
"In an instant he was the center of a hurricane of stabbing
spears and lashing clubs. But he moved in a blinding blur
of steel. Spears bent on his armor or swished empty air,
and his sword sang its death-song. The fighting-madness of
his race was upon him, and with a red mist of unreasoning
fury wavering before his blazing eyes, he cleft skulls,
smashed breasts, severed limbs, ripped out entrails, and
littered the deck like a shambles with a ghastly harvest
of brains and blood.
"Invulnerable in his armor, his back against the mast, he
heaped mangled corpses at his feet until his enemies gave
back panting in rage and fear. Then as they lifted their spears
to cast them, and he tensed himself to leap and die in the
midst of them, a shrill cry froze the lifted arms. They stood
like statues, the black giants poised for the spearcasts,
the mailed swordsman with his dripping blade."
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600961h.html
So, let's examine this passage. The untrained sailors are
"cut down to a man" by the savage barbarians, which
is perfectly realistic. But faced with Conan, who is
the greatest swordsman of his age and is wearing chainmail
armour while the barbarians are wearing no armour, the
fight takes a different turn. Conan is "the center of a
hurricane of stabbing spears and lashing clubs" but
he is protected by his armour ("Spears bent on his
armor") and his skill, training and experience allow
him to dodge and avoid the spears and clubs (the
weapons "swished empty air"). Quite realistically, he
manages to kill several warriors. But thown spears
are another matter entirely, and the barbarians realize
that to kill Conan they must all throw their spears
together. At this point Conan would have been killed,
but Belit, the leader of the barbarian pirates, intervenes
and saves his life.
Mike Schilling
>
> So, let's examine this passage. The untrained sailors are
> "cut down to a man" by the savage barbarians, which
> is perfectly realistic. But faced with Conan, who is
> the greatest swordsman of his age and is wearing chainmail
> armour while the barbarians are wearing no armour, the
> fight takes a different turn.
Is he wearing a helmet too? If not, a rock to the back of the head
would work pretty well.
> Conan is "the center of a
> hurricane of stabbing spears and lashing clubs" but
> he is protected by his armour ("Spears bent on his
> armor")
Bent on chainmail? What are they made of, aluminum foil?
> and his skill, training and experience allow
> him to dodge and avoid the spears and clubs (the
> weapons "swished empty air").
Including ones coming from behind? That's some dodging.
> Quite realistically, he
> manages to kill several warriors. But thown spears
> are another matter entirely, and the barbarians realize
> that to kill Conan they must all throw their spears
> together.
Right. He could dodge three at a time, but not ten.
Juho Julkunen
(t...@loft.tnolan.com) says...
You are being too moderate. Spaniard conquest of Latin America was
apparently inevitable since their ancestors settled in Europe.
But yeah, taking a fight seriously helps. It also helps if the guys
you're fighting are so hated that lot of the people you run into are
willing to lend a hand.
Diamond is an ornithologist. If he'd written a physics book no one
would give him the time of day. With history it appears you can make
shit up and be taken seriously.
--
Juho Julkunen
Juho Julkunen
(marko....@kolumbus.fi) says...
They often took a beating, too. But it is utterly irrelevant since they
were fighting in organized units rather than singly.
If you are a lone swordsman against multiple opponents, you are almost
certainly done for, no matter how good you are. Chiefly because you
only have one sword and can only face one direction.
--
Juho Julkunen
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell wrote:
>
>> So, let's examine this passage. The untrained sailors are
>> "cut down to a man" by the savage barbarians, which
>> is perfectly realistic. But faced with Conan, who is
>> the greatest swordsman of his age and is wearing chainmail
>> armour while the barbarians are wearing no armour, the
>> fight takes a different turn.
>
> Is he wearing a helmet too? If not, a rock to the back of
> the head would work pretty well.
Of course he is wearing a helmet. It's only the Conan
from Marvel Comics and the movies who wears just
a loincloth. Howard's original Conan is fully armoured
when he is expecting combat.
>> Conan is "the center of a
>> hurricane of stabbing spears and lashing clubs" but
>> he is protected by his armour ("Spears bent on his
>> armor")
>
> Bent on chainmail? What are they made of, aluminum foil?
Actually, chainmail is highly resistant to blows from
bladed weapons. In his book _Viking Weapons and Warfare_
Kim Siddorn describes experiments carried out on chainmail
armour which showed that not only can it withstand very hard
spear thrusts without being punctured, but some of the spears
used in the experiments were bent during the tests.
>> and his skill, training and experience allow
>> him to dodge and avoid the spears and clubs (the
>> weapons "swished empty air").
>
> Including ones coming from behind? That's some dodging.
He was moving constantly, and Howard writes that,
quite wisely, Conan eventually positioned himself
with "his back against the mast" to avoid being
attacked from behind.
>> Quite realistically, he
>> manages to kill several warriors. But thown spears
>> are another matter entirely, and the barbarians realize
>> that to kill Conan they must all throw their spears
>> together.
>
> Right. He could dodge three at a time, but not ten.
Conan killed at least ten men in that fight, but he
was not fighting ten men at exactly the same moment.
Much like a boxer in the ring, he was moving all
the time. As Howard writes, he "moved in a
blinding blur of steel."
Marko Amnell
"Juho Julkunen" <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
MPG.25751ee94...@news.kolumbus.fi...
That is absolutely not true. You are completely ignoring
movement in combat. In fact, there are many examples from
military history in which a single warrior defeated a large
number of opponents. Here is a list of some from the book
_Essential Militaria_ by Nicholas Hobbes (pp. 103-105).
I will exclude the cases in which the lone warrior stood
on a bridge, thus forcing all of his opponents to attack
from the same direction.
"Chorsamantis the Avar: During the siege of Rome
in AD 538, the warrior became maddened by drink
and wounds and rode out alone to the barbarian
camp. He was confronted by twenty enemy horsemen,
whom he dispatched before being overwhelmed.
"Sir William Marshall (1146-1219): By common
consent the greatest warrior of his age. His first
engagement was the Battle of Drincourt in 1167
where, though his warhorse was killed beneath
him, he managed to defeat an estimated forty other
knights in succession without pause.
"Pedro Francisco (died 1831): The 6ft 6ins, 280 lb
Portuguese American was the most famous private
soldier of the Revolutionary War. In 1779 Francisco
captured the British flag at Stony Point, the British
Army's stronghold on the Hudson River, and during
one short engagement killed eleven enemy troops
using his 6-foot-long broadsword. George Washington
said that 'Without him we would have lost two crucial
battles, perhaps the War, and with it our freedom. He
was truly a One-Man Army.'"
Marko Amnell
On the contrary, it is completely relevant because
the full quote I gave (before it was snipped out of
recognition) reads:
"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
ten men. Just as one man can beat ten, so a hundred men can
beat a thousand, and a thousand can beat ten thousand."
http://www.bookoffiverings.com/EarthBook.htm
Musashi wishes to draw certain analogies between single
combat and military strategy and tactics.
Shawn Wilson
> If you are a lone swordsman against multiple opponents, you are almost
> certainly done for, no matter how good you are. Chiefly because you
> only have one sword and can only face one direction.
On the other hand Cyrano De Bergerac (real and fictional) took on 100
swordsmen and won. Admitted he was a great swordsman, and they were
hacks, hired to overwhelm him with numbers rather than skill. And he
only killed a few, mostly after finding a place to fight from that
only allowed one at a time to approach him and only from the front.
Mike Schilling
And there's no real difference between 1000 men, highly trained tio
fight as a unit, taking on 300 and one man taking on ten.
Mike Schilling
> And there's no real difference between 1000 men, highly trained tio
> fight as a unit, taking on 300
3000, of course.
Marko Amnell
Of course there is a huge difference. As I said,
Musashi wants to draw analogies between
Marko Amnell
"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message
c32ab2ea-6032-4ab3...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
If we allow cases where the lone warrior was defending a
bridge so that his attackers could only attack him from a single
direction, then there are some other famous cases of a
single warrior defeating many opponents. It is by no
means clear that in all the cases the opponents approached
in a single file. It is entirely possible that the lone defender
had to face two or three (or even more) opponents at the same
time, but they all did approach from the same direction. Here
are these cases from _Essential Militaria_ by Nicholas Hobbes.
"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
"The Lone Viking: In 1066, Harold Godwinson's Saxon
army marched to York to fight off Harald Hardrada's
Norwegian invasion. Harold caught his enemies by
surprise, but had to cross Stamford Bridge to get to
them. However, the bridge was held by a single
Viking champion who slew the first forty men who
tried to advance. By the time a boat had been floated
under the bridge and a long spear thrust upwards the
planks to kill him, the warrior had given his comrades
enough time to ready their arms and armour and prepare
their battle formations.
"Benkei (died 1189): The Japanese warrior monk stood
on the Gojo Bridge in Kyoto and challenged all comers.
According to legend he defeated 999 warriors in single
combat before being beaten."
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>If we allow cases where the lone warrior was defending a
>bridge so that his attackers could only attack him from a single
>direction, then there are some other famous cases of a
>single warrior defeating many opponents. It is by no
>means clear that in all the cases the opponents approached
>in a single file. It is entirely possible that the lone defender
>had to face two or three (or even more) opponents at the same
>time, but they all did approach from the same direction. Here
>are these cases from _Essential Militaria_ by Nicholas Hobbes.
>
>"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
>508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
>enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
Um... that's not right. First off, he wasn't really a sentry, but
more importantly, his sons fought with him; they would switch off
defending the bridge, so that the Etruscans couldn't just tire him
out.
The Horatii were among the great heroes of Rome, so I'm surprised
Hobbes would get that wrong.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
David Johnston
The armor provides reasonable security against that sort of thing.
David Johnston
<marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
I don't question his opinion. For all I know, he was talking about
the one samurai versus 10 peasant levies. I think he probably was.
>Also, the Roman Legions regularly defeated enemy armies
>of warriors that were several times larger, winning due
>to superior discipline and training.
Roman legions fought in formation against relatively disorganized
opponents with inferior equipment and discipline most of the time.
Those are great force multipliers. A single legionaire against 3
barbarians would be ripped to pieces while a thousand legionaires
against 10 thousand barbarians would hold the line long after the foe
broke. Usually.
Mark Reichert
> In article <heelo9$f9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >David Johnston wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> >> <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >>> A master swordsman can
> >>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> >>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>
> >>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> >>> ten men.
>
> >> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>
> >None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
> >him with a rock.
>
> IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
> convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
> the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
You did notice the other two parts of the title, didn't you?
What's with the Diamond hate these days? I remember the book getting
a better reception here when it came out.
Mark Reichert
> In article <7n05f9F3kj7e...@mid.individual.net>, Ted Nolan <tednolan>
> (t...@loft.tnolan.com) says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <heelo9$f9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >David Johnston wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> > >> <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > >>> A master swordsman can
> > >>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> > >>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>
> > >>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> > >>> ten men.
>
> > >> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>
> > >None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
> > >him with a rock.
>
> > IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
> > convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
> > the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
>
> You are being too moderate. Spaniard conquest of Latin America was
> apparently inevitable since their ancestors settled in Europe.
>
> But yeah, taking a fight seriously helps. It also helps if the guys
> you're fighting are so hated that lot of the people you run into are
> willing to lend a hand.
It helps even more if they're dropping like flies thanks to you coming
from a densely populated disease ridden place, and they not.
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>REH is actually more realistic. A master swordsman can
>defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
>Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>
>"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>ten men. Just as one man can beat ten, so a hundred men can
>beat a thousand, and a thousand can beat ten thousand."
>http://www.bookoffiverings.com/EarthBook.htm
Infinite scaling does not work in IT.
>If Lieber were right, there would be no point in training
>to fight with a sword.
Suppose I only need to take out two opponents.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
David Johnston
<tednolan>) wrote:
Don't forget the guns and germs. And since the Spaniards did conquer
again and again the technological edge probably was good for something
or other.
David Goldfarb
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:38 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
><marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
>>508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
>>enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
>
>Um... that's not right. First off, he wasn't really a sentry, but
>more importantly, his sons fought with him; they would switch off
>defending the bridge, so that the Etruscans couldn't just tire him
>out.
>
>The Horatii were among the great heroes of Rome, so I'm surprised
>Hobbes would get that wrong.
Accounts vary, but none of the sources I can find in a quick search
say that Horatius Cocles was accompanied by sons. Are you thinking
of the triplet Horatii who fought the Curatii of Alba Longa? They
were much earlier.
(Livy for instance has Horatius companioned by two generals named
Spurius Larcius and Titus Herminius.)
--
David Goldfarb |"Poor dominoes. Your pretty empire took so long
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | to build. Now, with a snap of history's fingers...
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | down it goes."
| -- Alan Moore, _V for Vendetta_
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <bsfmg5dlbsatgf295...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:38 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>><marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
>>>508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
>>>enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
>>
>>Um... that's not right. First off, he wasn't really a sentry, but
>>more importantly, his sons fought with him; they would switch off
>>defending the bridge, so that the Etruscans couldn't just tire him
>>out.
>>
>>The Horatii were among the great heroes of Rome, so I'm surprised
>>Hobbes would get that wrong.
>
>Accounts vary, but none of the sources I can find in a quick search
>say that Horatius Cocles was accompanied by sons. Are you thinking
>of the triplet Horatii who fought the Curatii of Alba Longa? They
>were much earlier.
>
>(Livy for instance has Horatius companioned by two generals named
>Spurius Larcius and Titus Herminius.)
>
XXVI
But the Consul's brow was sad,
And the Consul's speech was low,
And darkly looked he at the wall,
And darkly at the foe.
``Their van will be upon us
Before the bridge goes down;
And if they once may win the bridge,
What hope to save the town?''
XXVII
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
``To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods,
XXVIII
``And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast,
And for the holy maidens
Who feed the eternal flame,
To save them from false Sextus
That wrought the deed of shame?
XXIX
``Haul down the bridge, Sir Consul,
With all the speed ye may;
I, with two more to help me,
Will hold the foe in play.
In yon strait path a thousand
May well be stopped by three.
Now who will stand on either hand,
And keep the bridge with me?''
XXX
Then out spake Spurius Lartius;
A Ramnian proud was he:
``Lo, I will stand at thy right hand,
And keep the bridge with thee.''
And out spake strong Herminius;
Of Titian blood was he:
``I will abide on thy left side,
And keep the bridge with thee.''
XXXI
``Horatius,'' quoth the Consul,
``As thou sayest, so let it be.''
And straight against that great array
Forth went the dauntless Three.
For Romans in Rome's quarrel
Spared neither land nor gold,
Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life,
In the brave days of old.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Sure, but though I don't have the book to hand, I'm pretty sure he was
making very strong claims for "steel" even when "germs" had played out.
And by "very strong" I mean more than struck me as reasonable.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I didn't hate it (or him). I just thought he went out on a limb for steel.
I can't recall the exact spot, but I remember thinking, "well, sure they
couldn't take them head on, but Fabian tactics should have worked".
Not that I claim any expertise in history *or* tactics.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Goldfarb) wrote:
>In article <bsfmg5dlbsatgf295...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:38 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>><marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
>>>508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
>>>enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
>>
>>Um... that's not right. First off, he wasn't really a sentry, but
>>more importantly, his sons fought with him; they would switch off
>>defending the bridge, so that the Etruscans couldn't just tire him
>>out.
>>
>>The Horatii were among the great heroes of Rome, so I'm surprised
>>Hobbes would get that wrong.
>
>Accounts vary, but none of the sources I can find in a quick search
>say that Horatius Cocles was accompanied by sons. Are you thinking
>of the triplet Horatii who fought the Curatii of Alba Longa? They
>were much earlier.
Ah. You know, I believe I am. Oops.
Been thirty years since I read up on this.
Juho Julkunen
No, I'm not. You can still only face one direction at a time, and
you're opponents can move too. To flank you, for example.
> In fact, there are many examples from
> military history in which a single warrior defeated a large
> number of opponents.
I don't doubt it. That's why I wrote "almost certainly".
Cherrypicking a handful of counterexamples of questionable authenticity
spread over one and a half millenia doesn't really refute that.
Here is a list of some from the book
> _Essential Militaria_ by Nicholas Hobbes (pp. 103-105).
> I will exclude the cases in which the lone warrior stood
> on a bridge, thus forcing all of his opponents to attack
> from the same direction.
I see you also excluded other impressive feats listed in the book:
"Superman: Demolished the Siegfried line before arresting Hitler in the
Eagle's Nest and flying him to Geneva to face trial for war crimes."
> "Chorsamantis the Avar: During the siege of Rome
> in AD 538, the warrior became maddened by drink
> and wounds and rode out alone to the barbarian
> camp. He was confronted by twenty enemy horsemen,
> whom he dispatched before being overwhelmed.
>
> "Sir William Marshall (1146-1219): By common
> consent the greatest warrior of his age. His first
> engagement was the Battle of Drincourt in 1167
> where, though his warhorse was killed beneath
> him, he managed to defeat an estimated forty other
> knights in succession without pause.
"In succession" does not suggest "at the same time".
Presuming, of course, that happened. The source for much of his
exploits seems to be rather suspect biography by his son.
> "Pedro Francisco (died 1831): The 6ft 6ins, 280 lb
> Portuguese American was the most famous private
> soldier of the Revolutionary War. In 1779 Francisco
> captured the British flag at Stony Point, the British
> Army's stronghold on the Hudson River, and during
> one short engagement killed eleven enemy troops
> using his 6-foot-long broadsword. George Washington
> said that 'Without him we would have lost two crucial
> battles, perhaps the War, and with it our freedom. He
> was truly a One-Man Army.'"
Good for him.
--
Juho Julkunen
Juho Julkunen
september.org>, Lawrence Watt-Evans (l...@sff.net) says...
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:38 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> >If we allow cases where the lone warrior was defending a
> >bridge so that his attackers could only attack him from a single
> >direction, then there are some other famous cases of a
> >single warrior defeating many opponents. It is by no
> >means clear that in all the cases the opponents approached
> >in a single file. It is entirely possible that the lone defender
> >had to face two or three (or even more) opponents at the same
> >time, but they all did approach from the same direction. Here
> >are these cases from _Essential Militaria_ by Nicholas Hobbes.
> >
> >"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
> >508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
> >enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
>
> Um... that's not right. First off, he wasn't really a sentry, but
> more importantly, his sons fought with him; they would switch off
> defending the bridge, so that the Etruscans couldn't just tire him
> out.
>
> The Horatii were among the great heroes of Rome, so I'm surprised
> Hobbes would get that wrong.
I can't seem to find good info on Mr. Hobbes, but he appears to be a
sports journalist. That might have something to do with it.
--
Juho Julkunen
Juho Julkunen
(da...@block.net) says...
Alexander counquered again and again without much of a technological
edge. He probably would have whupped Aztec ass, too. Competently led,
trained and organised force is a lot bigger advantage than any
technological edge.
Having your population devasteted by disease doesn't help, of course.
--
Juho Julkunen
Juho Julkunen
33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Mark Reichert (Mark_R...@hotmail.com)
says...
People are finally beginning to wise up?
--
Juho Julkunen
Juho Julkunen
(giao...@hotmail.com) says...
> Alexander counquered again and again without much of a technological
And he conquered, too.
--
Juho Julkunen
David DeLaney
>"Marko Amnell" <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>If Lieber were right, there would be no point in training
>>to fight with a sword.
>
> Suppose I only need to take out two opponents.
But ... what if one of them was armed with a banana?
Dave "all right, stop the thread, it's gotten too silly" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Mike Schilling
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:29:31 GMT, gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
> Goldfarb) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <bsfmg5dlbsatgf295...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:38 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>>> <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>> "Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
>>>> 508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
>>>> enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
>>>
>>> Um... that's not right. First off, he wasn't really a sentry, but
>>> more importantly, his sons fought with him; they would switch off
>>> defending the bridge, so that the Etruscans couldn't just tire him
>>> out.
>>>
>>> The Horatii were among the great heroes of Rome, so I'm surprised
>>> Hobbes would get that wrong.
>>
>> Accounts vary, but none of the sources I can find in a quick search
>> say that Horatius Cocles was accompanied by sons. Are you thinking
>> of the triplet Horatii who fought the Curatii of Alba Longa? They
>> were much earlier.
>
> Ah. You know, I believe I am. Oops.
Well, there are more things in heaven and earth...
Mike Schilling
> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>> "Marko Amnell" <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>> If Lieber were right, there would be no point in training
>>> to fight with a sword.
>>
>> Suppose I only need to take out two opponents.
>
> But ... what if one of them was armed with a banana?
What is it about British comedians and bananas? Pratchett must
mention the Librarian eating one (or looking for one, or being bribed
with one, or ...) at least ten times a book..
Dan Clore
> Marko Amnell wrote:
>
>> So, let's examine this passage. The untrained sailors are "cut down
>> to a man" by the savage barbarians, which is perfectly realistic.
>> But faced with Conan, who is the greatest swordsman of his age and
>> is wearing chainmail armour while the barbarians are wearing no
>> armour, the fight takes a different turn.
>
> Is he wearing a helmet too? If not, a rock to the back of the head
> would work pretty well.
Conan generally wears a helmet in Howard's stories. Howard is sometimes
criticized for calling the same helmet by the names of different types
of helmet. This contradiction supposedly lessens the verisimilitude of
the stories -- but forgets that Conan lived thousands of years before
any of those types of helmet were invented.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Dan Clore
> On Nov 23, 1:37 pm, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you are a lone swordsman against multiple opponents, you are
>> almost certainly done for, no matter how good you are. Chiefly
>> because you only have one sword and can only face one direction.
>
> swordsmen and won. Admitted he was a great swordsman, and they were
> hacks, hired to overwhelm him with numbers rather than skill. And
> he only killed a few, mostly after finding a place to fight from that
> only allowed one at a time to approach him and only from the front.
Which reminds one that Cyrano also wrote some of the greatest SF/satire
in the history of mankind. Check it out, readers.
Dan Clore
> In article <heelo9$f94$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Mike Schilling
>>> <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>> A master swordsman can defeat many less skilled opponents in
>>>> combat. To quote Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>>>>
>>>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>>>> ten men.
>>> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>> None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
>> him with a rock.
>>
> IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed
> least convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so*
> overwhelming that the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
Spaniards: And we roll another natural 20!
DM: Wow! You guys are really kicking ass. Okay, Aztecs?
Aztecs: Huitzilopochtli help us now! -- Shit! Another natural 1!!!
DM: Uh, maybe you guys should trade dice?
Spaniars: Noooo!!!!!!
Andy Leighton
Marko Amnell <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> "Benkei (died 1189): The Japanese warrior monk stood
> on the Gojo Bridge in Kyoto and challenged all comers.
> According to legend he defeated 999 warriors in single
> combat before being beaten."
Say it takes 5 minutes to defeat a warrior that would be over
83 hours of continuous fighting. So that is almost certainly going
to be fairly ritualised challenges over the course of weeks or even
months. Benkei features in many folklorish tales - that he lost the
1000th such challenge (and the "according to legend") suggests that
this story is somewhat exaggerated too.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:38 +0200,
> Marko Amnell <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> "Benkei (died 1189): The Japanese warrior monk stood
>> on the Gojo Bridge in Kyoto and challenged all comers.
>> According to legend he defeated 999 warriors in single
>> combat before being beaten."
>
> Say it takes 5 minutes to defeat a warrior
That's an **INSANELY** long period of time for a real fight. Say more
like ten seconds. This drops you down from 83 hours to about 2 hours 45
minutes.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Quadibloc
> And he
> only killed a few, mostly after finding a place to fight from that
> only allowed one at a time to approach him and only from the front.
That trick worked for the Greeks at Thermopylae...
John Savard
Marko Amnell
"David Goldfarb" <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> kirjoitti
viestiss�:KtLGD...@kithrup.com...
> In article
> <bsfmg5dlbsatgf295...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:38 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>><marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
>>>508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
>>>enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
>>
>>Um... that's not right. First off, he wasn't really a sentry, but
>>more importantly, his sons fought with him; they would switch off
>>defending the bridge, so that the Etruscans couldn't just tire him
>>out.
>>
>>The Horatii were among the great heroes of Rome, so I'm surprised
>>Hobbes would get that wrong.
>
> Accounts vary, but none of the sources I can find in a quick search
> say that Horatius Cocles was accompanied by sons. Are you thinking
> of the triplet Horatii who fought the Curatii of Alba Longa? They
> were much earlier.
Marko Amnell
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>
>
> [snip]
>
> >REH is actually more realistic. A master swordsman can
> >defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> >Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>
> >"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> >ten men. Just as one man can beat ten, so a hundred men can
> >beat a thousand, and a thousand can beat ten thousand."
> >http://www.bookoffiverings.com/EarthBook.htm
>
> Infinite scaling does not work in IT.
>
> >If Lieber were right, there would be no point in training
> >to fight with a sword.
>
> Suppose I only need to take out two opponents.
The fact is that if you need to defend yourself,
you are not likely to be attacked by just one
person, but several at the same time. There are
specific techniques that can be used to defend
against multiple attackers, such as fast movement
(of course) or using one of the attackers as a shield
against the others. Here is a real life incident of a
boxer knocking out four simultaneous attackers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoXG1HPsh28
Of course things would be somewhat different if
bladed weapons were used, but many of the
principles are the same.
Kurt Busiek
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Marko Amnell wrote:
>>
>>> So, let's examine this passage. The untrained sailors are "cut down
>>> to a man" by the savage barbarians, which is perfectly realistic.
>>> But faced with Conan, who is the greatest swordsman of his age and
>>> is wearing chainmail armour while the barbarians are wearing no
>>> armour, the fight takes a different turn.
>>
>> Is he wearing a helmet too? If not, a rock to the back of the head
>> would work pretty well.
>
> Conan generally wears a helmet in Howard's stories. Howard is sometimes
> criticized for calling the same helmet by the names of different types
> of helmet. This contradiction supposedly lessens the verisimilitude of
> the stories -- but forgets that Conan lived thousands of years before
> any of those types of helmet were invented.
His main helmet, though, for much of his early years -- apparently
picked up during his time with the Aesir, and he was still wearing it
by "Queen of the Black Coast" -- has bull horns on it, which is
apparently historically inaccurate for a non-ceremonial helmet.
Wouldn't want easy grabby bits on a helmet.
When I was writing Conan, I had his father make the helmet for him, had
him lose it in Hyperborea and then dida story where the helmet passes
from wearer to wearer until it's out by the Vilayet Sea, wherehe'd have
picked it up again when his travels reached that point, so he'd be
wearing it again by "Queen of the Black Coast." But I wasn't on the
book long enough to reunite him with his helmet again.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Marko Amnell
"Marko Amnell" <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
eafd4c63-9d3c-4b19...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
> Here is a real life incident of a boxer knocking
> out four simultaneous attackers:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoXG1HPsh28
The incident is explained in one of the comments:
"the guy who knocks out the others works as? a security
guard in bank in turkey. the cause of the fight is they
had an argument when they were driving."
David Johnston
From our perspective. From theirs, that heavy body armour and those
big shields were a big edge over the Asian forces they were fighting.
He probably would have whupped Aztec ass, too. Competently led,
>trained and organised force is a lot bigger advantage than any
>technological edge.
You know, "technology" is the "knowledge of technique". A new kind of
battlefield formation is as much a technology as is the invention of
gunpowder or iron.
Louann Miller
@mid.individual.net:
>> IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed
>> least convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so*
>> overwhelming that the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
>
> Spaniards: And we roll another natural 20!
> DM: Wow! You guys are really kicking ass. Okay, Aztecs?
> Aztecs: Huitzilopochtli help us now! -- Shit! Another natural 1!!!
> DM: Uh, maybe you guys should trade dice?
> Spaniars: Noooo!!!!!!
Don't forget:
Spaniards with mumps/measles/smallpox/flu/etc.: COUGH
Aztec Army: IZ DED UV VIRGIN-FIELD EPIDEMIC
Whether Diamond was right or wrong, he wasn't arguing for steel alone.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
>
> That is absolutely not true. You are completely ignoring
> military history in which a single warrior defeated a large
> _Essential Militaria_ by Nicholas Hobbes (pp. 103-105).
> I will exclude the cases in which the lone warrior stood
> on a bridge, thus forcing all of his opponents to attack
> from the same direction.
>
<snip examples>
Two of these are clearly cases of a warrior killing a series of
opponents instead of fighting off a group. With Chorsamantis it
isn't clear if he took on the whole group at once or in detail, and
the fact that he was a-horse changes the situation significantly.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
Wayne Throop
:: combat. In fact, there are many examples from military history in
:: which a single warrior defeated a large number of opponents.
: <snip examples>
: Two of these are clearly cases of a warrior killing a series of
: opponents instead of fighting off a group. With Chorsamantis it isn't
: clear if he took on the whole group at once or in detail, and the fact
: that he was a-horse changes the situation significantly.
Ya ya. But "movement in combat" is mostly "you move so you only face one
opponent at a time". Using local terrain, horse per above (whether to do
some of the moving, or to hide behind, or some combination), or possibly
some opponents to block the others. It doesn't strike me as prohibitively
implausible, if you are significantly more adept, and they aren't prepared
for your tactics. It *does* take some training to operate in groups,
and such training is usually focused on a set of scenarios which, if
you happen to categorize poorly into said scenarios, can be exploited.
Or so it seems to me.
But even a supernaturally enhanced warrior like for example
an Aleran metalcrafter, can't defeat 40 arrows fired from
all directions at once. Three or four arrows at once from
one direction, sure, but there *are* limits.
See also the final scene in the Jet Li movie, "Hero".
Even the mighty Brock Samson was brought down by enough tranquilizer darts.
Not that that helped the guy he caught up to before the darts went
into effect.
"A little less conversation, a little more action, please."
--- audio track to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_gfwpj2-00
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Marko Amnell
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message 12590...@sheol.org...
> :: That is absolutely not true. You are completely ignoring movement in
> :: combat. In fact, there are many examples from military history in
> :: which a single warrior defeated a large number of opponents.
>
> : <snip examples>
> : Two of these are clearly cases of a warrior killing a series of
> : opponents instead of fighting off a group. With Chorsamantis it isn't
> : clear if he took on the whole group at once or in detail, and the fact
> : that he was a-horse changes the situation significantly.
>
> Ya ya. But "movement in combat" is mostly "you move so you only face one
> opponent at a time". Using local terrain, horse per above (whether to do
> some of the moving, or to hide behind, or some combination), or possibly
> some opponents to block the others. It doesn't strike me as prohibitively
> implausible, if you are significantly more adept, and they aren't prepared
Right. You also move backwards when necessary so that no opponent
can get behind you. You can see the boxer doing that very successfully
in the youtube video of the street fight I posted a link to.
There is a description of Chorsamantis's fight against the Goth horsemen
in _History of the Wars_ by Procopius:
"A little after this an engagement took place in the Plain of Nero,
wherein various small groups of horsemen were engaged in pursuing
their opponents in various directions; in one group was Chorsamantis,
a man of note among the guards of Belisarius, by birth a Massagete,
who with some others was pursuing seventy of the enemy. And when
he had got well out in the plain the other Romans rode back, but
Chorsamantis went on with the pursuit alone. As soon as the Goths
perceived this, they turned their horses about and came against him.
And he advanced into their midst, killed one of the best of them
with his spear, and then went after the others, but they again turned
and rushed off in flight. But they were ashamed before their comrades
in the camp, who, they suspected, could already see them, and wished
to attack him again. They had, however, precisely the same experience
as before and lost one of their best men, and so turned to flight in
spite of their shame, and after Chorsamantis had pursued them as far
as their stockade he returned alone. And a little later, in another
battle, this man was wounded in the left shin, and it was his opinion
that the weapon had merely grazed the bone. However, he was
rendered unfit for fighting for a certain number of days by reason of
this wound, and since he was a barbarian he did not endure this
patiently, but threatened that he would right speedily have vengeance
upon the Goths for this insult to his leg. So when not long afterwards
he had recovered and was drunk at lunch time, as was his custom,
he purposed to go alone against the enemy and avenge the insult to
his leg; and when he had come to the small Pincian Gate he stated
that he was sent by Belisarius to the enemy's camp. And the guards
at the gate, who could not doubt the word of a man who was the
best of the guards of Belisarius, opened the gates and allowed
him to go wherever he would. And when the enemy spied him, they
thought at first that some deserter was coming over to them, but
when he came near and put his hand to his bow, twenty men, not
knowing who he might be, went out against him. These he easily
drove off, and then began to ride back at a walk, and when more
Goths came against him he did not flee. But when a great throng
gathered about him and he still insisted upon fighting them, the
Romans, watching the sight from the towers, suspected that the
man was crazy, but they did not yet know that it was Chorsamantis.
At length, after making a display of great and very noteworthy
deeds, he found himself surrounded by the army of the enemy,
and paid the penalty for his unreasonable daring. And when
Belisarius and the Roman army learned this, they mourned
greatly, lamenting that the hope which all placed in the man
had come to naught."
http://bulfinch.englishatheist.org/Procopius/Book6.htm
So, according to Procopius, Chorsamantis pursued a group
of seventy fleeing Goth horsemen alone, and was attacked
twice by the group of horsemen but bravely advanced into
their midst and killed one of their best men, which made
the rest of the Goths turn and flee. It is not clear how many
opponents were attacking him at the same time in these
two fights.
Then comes the fight described by Nicholas Hobbes but
unfortunately all Procopius says about it is that "twenty men,
not knowing who he might be, went out against him. These
he easily drove off..." It is not clear what the fight was like.
Did Chorsamantis fight several horsemen at the same time
in close quarters, or did he face only one at a time? (perhaps
because he was moving to avoid them so that he only had
to face one at a time) We just don't have any detailed
description of the action. Procopius does say that before
being killed because he was surrounded by the Goth army
he made "a display of great and very noteworthy deeds"
which presumably means he defeated many more Goth
warriors even after he drove off the initial twenty.
* * *
I also recall another fight where one warrior defeated several
others. It is in _Egil's Saga_. I won't quote the full passage but
you can read it here: http://tinyurl.com/ydcudnx
In this fight, Egil wears no body armour, wearing only a
helmet and carrying the usual Viking shield. But he is expecting
trouble so he improvises some novel chest protection:
"Egil picked up a great slab of stone, held it in front of his
chest and belly, then tied the bast rope round it and wound
the rope all the way up to his shoulders."
With the front of his body thus protected by the slab of stone,
the fight takes place:
"They all bore shields and helmets, and weapons for hacking
and lunging, with Egil taking the lead. As they approached
the ridge, the lower ground was wooded but there were no
trees on the slopes. While they were making their way up
the slope, seven men came running out of the wooded part
and up the steep rise after them, shooting. Egil turned and
they took their stand on the path. Then other men attacked
them from the bluff above, pelting them from there with stones,
which was a great deal more dangerous.
"'Get into the lee of the bluff, now,' said Egil, 'do what you
can to protect yourselves while I try to scale it.'
"They did that, and when Egil got beyond the rise there
were eight men there waiting for him. They all set on him
together and tried to overpower him, but there's no need to
tell any more about the exchange of blows than the outcome,
that Egil killed them all. Then he went himself to the edge of
the bluff and started hurling stones so that there was no
withstanding him. Three of the Vermalanders were struck
down and the other four got away into the wood, bruised
and battered."
Then a bit later more Vermalanders surprise Egil and his
men as they are walking along a path:
"Egil and his men carried on with no suspicion of this plan
until they came to the narrow track, when some men attacked
them from behind, lunnging at them with weapons. Egil and
his men turned to face them and defend themselves. Then
other men came at them, the ones who had been on the far
side of the bluff, and when Egil saw this he faced them
himself. Before many blows had been struck, some had been
killed by Egil on the path and others had withdrawn to the
level ground, with Egil chasing after them. Ulf was killed
there, and before it was all over Egil had cut down eleven
men. After that he went over to the place where his companions
were defending the path against eight attackers, with damage
to both sides. When Egil came up, the Vermanlanders ran
for their lives, and as the forest was very close at hand five
of them managed to get away, all wounded, but the other
three were killed. Egil had a number of wounds himself,
but none of them were serious, so now they continued
their journey."
So, twice Egil fights several men alone and wins. The first
time, he fights eight men who "all set on him together and
tried to overpower him." This is a clear example of one
warrior fighting several opponents at the same time.
Nevertheless, Egil kills them all.
Then, Egil's party is suprised on the path and attacked
from both sides at once. Egil faces the attackers from one
direction alone, while his companions face the attackers
from the other direction. Just as in the first fight, Egil fights
several opponents at the same time and wins, killing
some while the rest flee.
If you accept _Egil's Saga_ as a reliable source, then here
is a clear case of one warrior defeating several opponents
at the same time. The account seems perfectly plausible
to me. Egil was a huge and powerful man and a highly
skilled, intelligent and experienced warrior. He had
wisely protected the front of his body with a stone so
that his vital organs could not be harmed from the front.
Like the Viking champion in 1066 who alone prevented
the Saxons from crossing Stamford Bridge, he was able
to defeat many lesser opponents. How wide was Stamford
Bridge in 1066? Probably wide enough that the lone Viking
champion had to fight more than one opponent at the same
time as they tried to cross the bridge. Nevertheless, he
managed to defeat forty opponents before he was killed
by a long spear thrust upwards from a boat under the bridge.
Marko Amnell
"Sean O'Hara" <sean...@gmail.com> wrote in message
7n2sshF...@mid.individual.net...
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Marko Amnell declared:
>>
>> That is absolutely not true. You are completely ignoring
>> movement in combat. In fact, there are many examples from
>> military history in which a single warrior defeated a large
>> number of opponents. Here is a list of some from the book
>> _Essential Militaria_ by Nicholas Hobbes (pp. 103-105).
>> I will exclude the cases in which the lone warrior stood
>> on a bridge, thus forcing all of his opponents to attack
>> from the same direction.
>>
>
> <snip examples>
>
> Two of these are clearly cases of a warrior killing a series of opponents
> instead of fighting off a group.
You are referring to William Marshal and
Peter Francisco. In fact, at least according to
one account, Marshal fought off over thirteen
attackers alone who had surrounded him:
"The next day, young Marshal could not be held
back in the battle. The new knight spurred his destrier
forward, desperate to be the first into the enemy
packed streets of Drincourt. The chronicles tell
us that he fought like a lion, and felled many of
the foe. His fierce attack so impressed his noble
cousin that it brought him to say, 'He is the only
knight in battle this day.'
"Before long, William�s drive left him surrounded
by a large band of footmen. The Histoire de
Guillaume le Mareschal tells us, 'More than
thirteen of them formed a band to knock him off
his horse, but he held on by the breast piece of
its harness.' With sword and broken lance he
fought his way clear. But his horse was less
fortunate - dying from its wounds shortly thereafter."
http://threeriver.org/marshal/marshal_1.shtml
It is true that Marshal probably defeated the
forty or so knights at the battle in succession.
However, it is entirely possible that some of
the fights involved Marshal fighting more than
one opponent at a time, as he was pushing
deep into the enemy army.
* * *
It is true that Peter Francisco probably killed
the eleven men at the capture of Stone Point
in succession. But Francisco also later defeated
eleven soldiers alone in an incident that came
to be called "Francisco's Fight." Here is
wikipedia's description of it:
"Francisco's Fight is the name commonly given to a
skirmish between Tarleton's Raiders and Peter Francisco
during the American Revolutionary War in July 1781.
"The common version is that Francisco had been badly
wounded in the leg by a bayonet during the Battle of
Guilford Courthouse and had been ordered home to
recuperate by his commanding officer. While passing
through the settlement of Ward's Tavern in present-day
Nottoway County, Virginia, Francisco encountered a
band of 11 Raiders at Benjamin Ward's tavern. They
promptly took him into custody. One of the 11, commonly
said to be the paymaster, was told to take charge of the
prisoner of war, while the others went into the tavern
for a few drinks.
"Much of what happened next is known only from
Francisco's later account, which he wrote in an
attempt to receive a congressional pension for his
services. According to this account, the paymaster
told Francisco to hand over his valuables; Francisco
responded that he had none. The paymaster, in response,
pointed to Francisco's silver shoe buckles, and ordered
him to take them off. Francisco responded that he would
not, but that the man could have them if he could take
them. The dragoon then bent over to remove the buckles,
in the process tucking his sword under one arm. Francisco
promptly pulled the sword away and cleft the man's
head in two with it; when the dragoon tried to pull out
his pistol, Francisco cut off his hand, and the man died
not too long after.
"While this was happening, the other Raiders had
exited the tavern upon hearing the commotion. Francisco
promptly turned his attention to them, killing a second
and (probably) mortally wounding a third. Of the
remaining eight, he wounded six. The others fled to
their regiment, which was visible in the distance. As
Tarleton approached, Francisco decided to try and
keep a larger battle from breaking out. He ran to a
nearby grove of trees and shouted into them, calling
a nonexistent Continental regiment to come and fight
Tarleton. The British colonel did not want a fight,
and turned his men away."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco%27s_Fight
Joseph Nebus
Might it be a lingering Austerity Britain thing? I recall some
vague talk from a book about bananas (well, about United Fruit, but it
comes to much the same thing) mentioning what a big deal an early cargo
of bananas in postwar Britain was, as the promise of bananas for every
wife and child represented the good life which was to come in the new
welfare state.
(The author mentioned being disappointed when he learned that
Fyffes was just a branch of the United Fruit empire of America, rather
than a home-grown British brand such as Ford or Woolworth's.)
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Busiek
My vote: "Bananas" sounds funnier in a British accent than in an
American accent.
"Pop-Tarts" sounds funnier in American, but only just.
Dorothy J Heydt
Joseph Nebus <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>David DeLaney wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>>> "Marko Amnell" <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>>> If Lieber were right, there would be no point in training
>>>>> to fight with a sword.
>>>>
>>>> Suppose I only need to take out two opponents.
>>>
>>> But ... what if one of them was armed with a banana?
>
>>What is it about British comedians and bananas? Pratchett must
>>mention the Librarian eating one (or looking for one, or being bribed
>>with one, or ...) at least ten times a book..
>
> Might it be a lingering Austerity Britain thing? I recall some
>vague talk from a book about bananas (well, about United Fruit, but it
>comes to much the same thing) mentioning what a big deal an early cargo
>of bananas in postwar Britain was, as the promise of bananas for every
>wife and child represented the good life which was to come in the new
>welfare state.
Probably connected with the fact that during World War II, when
all kinds of shipping was being sunk and Britain went on short
rations, the few bananas that did get in were available only for
young children. How old is Pratchett? Is he old enough to have
been a child in the 1940s, or even in the early 1950s when
rationing was still on?
There's a line in Tolkien's "On Fairy-Stories" saying that a
story about the Archbishop of Canterbury slipping on a banana
peel would not necessarily be taken as mythical. Unless it was
contained in a tale about how he was warned in a dream that he
would fall if he wore gaiters on a Friday. Or unless it was
supposed to have happened during the war.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Walter Bushell
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2009 19:18:01 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
> >In article <heelo9$f94$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>David Johnston wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> >>> <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >>>> A master swordsman can
> >>>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> >>>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
> >>>>
> >>>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> >>>> ten men.
> >>>
> >>> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
> >>
> >>None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
> >>him with a rock.
> >>
> >
> >IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
> >convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
> >the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
>
> Don't forget the guns and germs. And since the Spaniards did conquer
> again and again the technological edge probably was good for something
> or other.
And the natives didn't have metal weapons of any kind, not copper nor
tin nor bronze. Stone weapons and leather armor. The Spanish probably
had better tactics.
Still it does seem strange.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mgjmg5lhhr3di6m3k...@4ax.com>, David Johnston
> (da...@block.net) says...
> > On 23 Nov 2009 19:18:01 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> > <tednolan>) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <heelo9$f94$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > >Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>David Johnston wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> > >>> <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > >>>> A master swordsman can
> > >>>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> > >>>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> > >>>> ten men.
> > >>>
> > >>> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
> > >>
> > >>None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
> > >>him with a rock.
> > >>
> > >
> > >IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
> > >convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
> > >the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
> >
> > Don't forget the guns and germs. And since the Spaniards did conquer
> > again and again the technological edge probably was good for something
> > or other.
>
> Alexander counquered again and again without much of a technological
> edge. He probably would have whupped Aztec ass, too. Competently led,
> trained and organised force is a lot bigger advantage than any
> technological edge.
>
> Having your population devasteted by disease doesn't help, of course.
Alexander was not facing the kind of odds the Spanish were.
Mike Schilling
\> Probably connected with the fact that during World War II, when
> all kinds of shipping was being sunk and Britain went on short
> rations, the few bananas that did get in were available only for
> young children. How old is Pratchett? Is he old enough to have
> been a child in the 1940s, or even in the early 1950s when
> rationing was still on?
Born in '48, so perhaps just. The Pythons are 5-10 years older.
John F. Eldredge
> Still it does seem strange.
From what I have read, the Aztecs and Mayans had developed copper tools,
but had not yet discovered bronze. Copper won't hold much of an edge, so
the edged weapons mostly used flint or obsidian bound to a wooden shaft.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
rexg...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
Food rationing in the UK ended (according to online sources) in 1954.
Check out just what those rations were, I heard a story (presumably an
urban myth) that Churchill once scarfed down a weeks rations and
called it a decent breakfast.
Regards
Rex
Juho Julkunen
(pr...@panix.com) says...
> > Alexander counquered again and again without much of a technological
> > edge. He probably would have whupped Aztec ass, too.
>
> Alexander was not facing the kind of odds the Spanish were.
Neither were the Spanish, really.
That is to say, they did make quite a lot native allies.
--
Juho Julkunen
Andy Leighton
> (The author mentioned being disappointed when he learned that
> Fyffes was just a branch of the United Fruit empire of America, rather
> than a home-grown British brand such as Ford or Woolworth's.)
That statement is doubly ironic because Fyffes *is* actually a real proper
English brand. Just one that belonged to a company which had a large
amount of stock (45% according to wikipedia) bought by United Fruit very
early in its existence. It is now an Irish company.
M J Carley
>That statement is doubly ironic because Fyffes *is* actually a real
>proper English brand. Just one that belonged to a company which had
>a large amount of stock (45% according to wikipedia) bought by United
>Fruit very early in its existence. It is now an Irish company.
Making Ireland the largest exporter of bananas in Europe.
--
Si deve tornare alle basi: Marx ed i Clash.
Michael Carley: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
Jack Campin - bogus address
> >vague talk from a book about bananas (well, about United Fruit, but it
> >comes to much the same thing) mentioning what a big deal an early cargo
> >of bananas in postwar Britain was, as the promise of bananas for every
> >wife and child represented the good life which was to come in the new
> >welfare state.
Probably not so much the welfare state as the British Commonwealth -
trade with the Caribbean could be expected to resume as normal with
U-boats out of the picture.
> There's a line in Tolkien's "On Fairy-Stories" saying that a
> story about the Archbishop of Canterbury slipping on a banana
> peel would not necessarily be taken as mythical.
Slipping on banana peels was a standard plot device in the "Beano".
That was probably where Tolkien got it - his essay was written a year
after the Beano started.
You have to wonder what other influence there might have been. Frodo,
Bilbo,... Beano. Maybe the Fellowship of the Ring was partly derived
from the Bash Street Kids?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Robert Bannister
I bet you can get an obsidian edge a lot sharper than bronze and even if
bits break off, you've still got a pretty sharp edge.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> David DeLaney wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>>> "Marko Amnell" <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>>> If Lieber were right, there would be no point in training
>>>>> to fight with a sword.
>>>> Suppose I only need to take out two opponents.
>>> But ... what if one of them was armed with a banana?
>
>> What is it about British comedians and bananas? Pratchett must
>> mention the Librarian eating one (or looking for one, or being bribed
>> with one, or ...) at least ten times a book..
>
> Might it be a lingering Austerity Britain thing? I recall some
> vague talk from a book about bananas (well, about United Fruit, but it
> comes to much the same thing) mentioning what a big deal an early cargo
> of bananas in postwar Britain was, as the promise of bananas for every
> wife and child represented the good life which was to come in the new
> welfare state.
And I still remember my first banana at the end of the war - I didn't
like it and I still prefer not to eat them.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
How did Britney Spears get into it?
--
Rob Bannister
John F. Eldredge
I have read that obsidian and flint will both fracture into edges sharper
than you can grind on a steel knife. On the other hand, a steel knife is
unlikely to shatter if you drop it.
Mark Reichert
wrote:
> In article <1e760f48-ccc1-429d-a504-536917163...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> Mark Reichert <Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 23, 2:28 pm, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> In article <7n05f9F3kj7e...@mid.individual.net>, Ted Nolan <tednolan>
> >> (t...@loft.tnolan.com) says...
>
> >> > In article <heelo9$f9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> > Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >David Johnston wrote:
> >> > >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> >> > >> <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >> > >>> A master swordsman can
> >> > >>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> >> > >>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>
> >> > >>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> >> > >>> ten men.
>
> >> > >> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>
> >> > >None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
> >> > >him with a rock.
>
> >> > IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
> >> > convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
> >> > the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
>
> >> apparently inevitable since their ancestors settled in Europe.
>
> >> But yeah, taking a fight seriously helps. It also helps if the guys
> >> you're fighting are so hated that lot of the people you run into are
> >> willing to lend a hand.
>
> >It helps even more if they're dropping like flies thanks to you coming
> >from a densely populated disease ridden place, and they not.
>
> Sure, but though I don't have the book to hand, I'm pretty sure he was
> making very strong claims for "steel" even when "germs" had played out.
> And by "very strong" I mean more than struck me as reasonable.
I'll listen to it again at work (I have the audiobook), but I don't
remember that claim. He spent a whole lot more time on the
domesticability of flora and fauna and how that affect who developed
dense populations and who didn't, and who was able to substitute
animal power for human power.
Mark Reichert
> In article <0d6677c7-878d-47ff-9fe7-fb02af56e1d0@
> 33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Mark Reichert (Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com)
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 1:18 pm, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> > > In article <heelo9$f9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> > > Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >David Johnston wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> > > >> <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > > >>> A master swordsman can
> > > >>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> > > >>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>
> > > >>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> > > >>> ten men.
>
> > > >> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>
> > > >None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
> > > >him with a rock.
>
> > > IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
> > > convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
> > > the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
>
>
> > What's with the Diamond hate these days? I remember the book getting
> > a better reception here when it came out.
>
> People are finally beginning to wise up?
It would be nice to have some evidence to go with that, both in the
"wising up" and what failures of the book would cause them to do so.
I still remember an interview with Diamond and someone championing the
Greeks as being the foundation of Western Civilization success.
Despite repeated attempts by Diamond and even the moderator at one
point, the guy would never either understand or own up to the fact
that the Fertile Crescent domestication package and the Greeks own sea
based trade born of geography put them in a position to innovate their
society that way.
Arindam Banerjee
>
> "Juho Julkunen" <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> MPG.25751ee94...@news.kolumbus.fi...
>> In article <7n05k1F...@mid.individual.net>, Marko Amnell
>> (marko....@kolumbus.fi) says...
>>>
>>> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
>>> 42mlg5hgafqibgnm9...@4ax.com...
>>> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>"Endymion9" <endym...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> >>iL2dnWa7dtAYbpTW...@giganews.com...
>>> >>> "Patok" <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >>> news:he83co$arv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> >>>> Endymion9 wrote:
>>> >>>>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser
>>> >>>>> until
>>> >>>>> I
>>> >>>>> began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence.
>>> >>>>> Immediately went out and read the entire series and loved them.
>>> >>>>> Always
>>> >>>>> grateful to D&D for that.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never
>>> >>>> heard
>>> >>>> of,
>>> >>>> and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read
>>> >>> several
>>> >>> of Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading Lieber.
>>> >>> Whereas Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself, Fafyhrd or
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> Mouser can't beat two adequate swordsmen by themselves. That and
>>> >>> Lieber's
>>> >>> humor are the big differences in those books, which as I said, I
>>> >>> love
>>> >>> both
>>> >>> kinds. Don't prefer one over the other.
>>> >>
>>> >>REH is actually more realistic.
>>> >
>>> > No, he really isn't.
>>> >
>>> > A master swordsman can
>>> >>defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
>>> >>Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>>> >>
>>> >>"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>>> >>ten men.
>>> >
>>> > If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>>>
>>> Miyamoto Musashi was one of the greatest swordsmen of
>>> all times. On what basis do you question his opinion?
>>> You've probably never even held a real sword in your
>>> hands. Your experience with combat is limited to
>>> rolling twenty-sided dice.
>>>
>>> Also, the Roman Legions regularly defeated enemy armies
>>> of warriors that were several times larger, winning due
>>> to superior discipline and training.
>>
>> They often took a beating, too. But it is utterly irrelevant since
>> they were fighting in organized units rather than singly.
>
> On the contrary, it is completely relevant because
> the full quote I gave (before it was snipped out of
> recognition) reads:
>
> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> beat a thousand, and a thousand can beat ten thousand."
> http://www.bookoffiverings.com/EarthBook.htm
"My good blade carves the casques of men,
My tough lance thrusteth sure.
My strength is as the strength of ten
Because my heart is pure."
>
> Musashi wishes to draw certain analogies between single
> combat and military strategy and tactics.
>
>
>
Juho Julkunen
@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Mark Reichert
(Mark_R...@hotmail.com) says...
> On Nov 23, 11:14 pm, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <0d6677c7-878d-47ff-9fe7-fb02af56e1d0@
> > 33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Mark Reichert (Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com)
> >
> > > What's with the Diamond hate these days? I remember the book getting
> > > a better reception here when it came out.
> >
> > People are finally beginning to wise up?
>
> It would be nice to have some evidence to go with that, both in the
> "wising up"
That's merely optimism on my part.
> and what failures of the book would cause them to do so.
I guess the big one would be Diamond proposing a grand unified theory
of human history while being mostly ignorant on the subject. The list
of stuff he gets wrong is extensive. He cherrypicks his evidence. I
won't claim he's being deliberately dishonest; he may just not know
better.
It is not suprising he should get things wrong. He is, after all,
writing on a number of subjects he is not an expert on. What is
surprising is that so many people find his armchair philosophy
compelling.
It's possibly because history, sociology and anhtropology are soft
sciences. If he'd written a book proposing TOE while demonstrating
similar command of the field of physics, no one but cranks would have
given him the time of day.
Or maybe it's because of his reassuring message that no people are
inferior to others. And the slightly disturbing message that there's no
reason to feel too guilty about imperialism: that wasn't really our
fault; just the ineviteble result of geographical determinism.
--
Juho Julkunen
Arindam Banerjee
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:6plPm.57591$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Some musings on this, based upon the battle in Kurukshetra as described in
the Mahabharata...
The battle between the Kauravas and Pandavas was a "dharmayuddha" or battle
according to righteous conduct. This was similar to knightly encounters,
when honour was the primry issue.
In dharmayuddha the outcome of battle was left to the Gods to decide. The
participants had to do their best, according to custom and were absolutely
bound by honour. For instance, the enemy that ran away, or surrendered,
could not be killed.
Probably the most famous incident there was the death of Abhimanyu, the son
of Arjuna.
Dronacharya, the Kaurava general, had constructed the chakra-vyuha, or
circular formation. This was the most feared formation, and why it was so I
would like to talk about.
As we know from Cannae, usually the last thing a formation wants is
envelopment by the enemy - the enemy attacking it from all sides at once
that is. But, the chakravyuha invites it. It is a circular formation,
which could be thin, with reserves in the centre with the general right
inside issuing commands. The chakravyuha can move in any direction as a
whole, and upon engagement rotates in a clockwise manner, just like the
chakra, thus adding an angular component to the attack.
Normal frontal manoevers - the press of battle - of the kind commonly used
in ancient and even medieval Europe, may well be expected to pierce the
line. But that is just what could be disastrous. As the line is pierced,
the intruders are flanked and then cut off. from the main body They are
enveloped by the reserves within the chakra, and cut down.
To get into the chakra, with a large force that would break it up, was the
task of a skilled warrior. Arjuna could do this, and also his son
Abhimanyu. But Arjuna also knew the art of getting out of the chakra, which
Abhimanyu did not know.
Since Arjuna wasn't there - he had gone off to fight a challenge with
suicidal warriors - Abhimanyu was asked to lead the charge. It so happened
that he was the only one to break into the chakra - the others were outed.
Abhimanyu fought and beat off the greatest warriors of the Kaurava camp. At
one time he was engaged by seven of their best archers. But he was so fast,
he held his own against all of them, to their wonderment. When he ran out
of weapons, he was asked to surrender but he refused. In the end, he defied
his enemies with a chariot wheel. Then one of the Kaurava princes got into
a close engagement with him, and killed him.
To many Indians, the death of Abhimanyu was symbolic of the fall of Arya
(noble) conduct. Increasingly, wickedness or lack of principle became
manifested. It was no longer a dharmayuddha. Dronacharya was killed when
he gave up his arms and was about to die in a yogic manner, after being told
a lie by none less than Yudhishthira (the embodiment of truth). Karna was
killed when he was helpless. Duryodhana was mortally hurt by a blow given
below the belt. Infuriated, Ashwatthama the son of Dronacharya made a night
attack upon the sleeping enemy and killed very many of them. And this was
the start of this KaliYuga or the present period when humans are only 25%
good.
Arjuna and Ashwatthama (the Kshatriya and the Brahmin) met in battle. Their
weapons would destroy the world, so the Gods interfered. Their Divine
Wisdom was that Ashwatthama, the beloved son of Dronacharya, would never
die. But he had to give up his power, which lay in a strange gem embedded in
his head. And Lord Krishna, using all his powers, brought back Parikshit,
the son of Abhimanyu, back to life. Ashwatthama had uttered a spell, and a
blade of grass had penetrated the womb of Abhimanyu's widow, killing his
unborn son. Parikshit would become the ancestor of all the kings of India.
However, the ancient glory was never rekindled. Certainly the concept of
dharmayuddha is totally gone, today.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.
David Johnston
<giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <53d657e0-4569-46a5-ada8-a38ff577ff44
>@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Mark Reichert
>(Mark_R...@hotmail.com) says...
>> On Nov 23, 11:14�pm, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > In article <0d6677c7-878d-47ff-9fe7-fb02af56e1d0@
>> > 33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Mark Reichert (Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com)
>
>> >
>> > > What's with the Diamond hate these days? �I remember the book getting
>> > > a better reception here when it came out.
>> >
>> > People are finally beginning to wise up?
>>
>> It would be nice to have some evidence to go with that, both in the
>> "wising up"
>
>That's merely optimism on my part.
>
>> and what failures of the book would cause them to do so.
>
>I guess the big one would be Diamond proposing a grand unified theory
>of human history while being mostly ignorant on the subject. The list
>of stuff he gets wrong is extensive.
Where can I find this list?
erilar
"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> I have read that obsidian and flint will both fracture into edges sharper
> than you can grind on a steel knife. On the other hand, a steel knife is
> unlikely to shatter if you drop it.
But how many surfaces are hard enough to break it? Not all of them.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Marko Amnell
> As we know from Cannae, usually the last thing a formation wants is
> envelopment by the enemy - the enemy attacking it from all sides at once
> that is. But, the chakravyuha invites it. It is a circular formation,
> which could be thin, with reserves in the centre with the general right
> inside issuing commands. The chakravyuha can move in any direction as a
> whole, and upon engagement rotates in a clockwise manner, just like the
> chakra, thus adding an angular component to the attack.
>
> Normal frontal manoevers - the press of battle - of the kind commonly used
> in ancient and even medieval Europe, may well be expected to pierce the
> line. But that is just what could be disastrous. As the line is pierced,
> the intruders are flanked and then cut off. from the main body They are
> enveloped by the reserves within the chakra, and cut down.
Avoiding encirclement is certainly the usual rule, but there are other
formations that fight perfectly well when facing enemies from all
sides, such as the Roman tortoise http://tinyurl.com/yzbqm2c
or British infantry squares, which were so successful against
French cavalry at Waterloo. http://tinyurl.com/yz4wers
Infantry squares have a long history:
"The formation was described by Plutarch and used by the Romans,
and was developed from an earlier circular formation. In particular,
a large infantry square was utilized by the Roman legions at the Battle
of Carrhae against Parthia, whose armies contained a large
proportion of cavalry.
"The Han Empire's mounted infantry forces effectively utilized
tactics involving highly mobile infantry square formations in
conjunction with light cavalry in their many engagements
against the primarily cavalry Xiongnu nomad armies in the 1st
century CE. Infantry squares were used in the siege of the nomads'
mountain settlements near the Gobi region, where Han
forces repelled nomad lancer attacks.
"The square was revived in the 14th century as the schiltron,
and later appeared as the pike square or tercio, and was widely
used in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_square
It should be noted that, of course, the Romans were
defeated at Carrhae because their infantry square could
not protect their infantry from the missile attacks of the
Parthian mounted archers.
Another similar formation that is less well known was the
organisation of columns on all sides of a protected convoy by
Colonel N�grier in the late 19th century in Algeria. Here is
a quote from _Wars of Empire_ by Douglas Porch (p. 119):
"... N�grier subsequently reorganized his convoy defence as
a 'mobile echelon' of mule-mounted Foreign Legionnaires
and artillery that could swing to defend against attack from
any direction, while permitting the column a more flexible
marching formation over irregular terrain."
This followed earlier successful attacks by Bou Amama on
French convoys, in which the troops protecting the convoy
were lured away by the enemy, leaving the convoy unprotected.
Juho Julkunen
(da...@block.net) says...
I don't know of any one exhaustive list. A fair range of subjects is
concerned, after all.
As for examples, any decent review will have some, including the
generally positive ones. (Ranging from "it is inevitable that Professor
Diamond uses very broad brush-strokes to fill in his argument" to
"Diamond seemed to be terribly confused about the course of 2,500 years
of Western history".)
--
Juho Julkunen
Quadibloc
> In article <cbatg5tq5fert7u6fm0rcfb3t0ebt67...@4ax.com>, David Johnston
The part I rejected about his book was the claim that his thesis could
be expected to be successfully extended further in the direction of
establishing a more complete geographical determinism of history.
But while I reject the idea that history is *solely* determined by
geography, I think that it is indeed valid to say that the influence
of geography has tended to be neglected, and thus, while his book
needs to be taken with a grain of salt here and there, it is both a
valuable contribution and *mostly* correct.
The people who develop the most technology first are the lucky ones
that had more plant and animal products to draw on, a larger
population size to find inventors in, and so on and so forth. So we
finally have a fleshed-out and detailed explanation of European
hegemony which doesn't require a resort to the theory of superior
white brains.
One that is in harmony with the facts - rather than requiring them to
be twisted badly in the name of political correctness.
Where he goes wrong is simply in the need to make his theory all-
embracing. Sure, given the broad-level differences in opportunity,
geniuses among the Australian Aboriginies would not have had the
opportunity to make a big impact on the world. But the fact that this
genius was born in Greece instead of Rome, or that genius in England
instead of France, can still have an impact on the future as well -
and it is in falling prey to an emotional or ideological need to deny
this that he falls down.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Certainly the concept of
> dharmayuddha is totally gone, today.
Yes, that's true enough.
In the Middle Ages, wars between rival fiefdoms were conducted in a
conventional and limited manner. The wars were always fought at the
appropriate time of year not to interfere with food production, and so
as not to inflict insupportable hardship on the peasantry, and while
one princedom might grow at the expense of another, the lives of the
feudal lords were safe.
From today's point of view, the exile of Napoleon, a vestige of this,
seems incredible. You started a war against our country, and in that
war, one of our citizens was killed. Right, that's first degree
murder, off to the electric chair with you.
That isn't *yet* quite how it happens in practice, but certainly
that's the rule that the popular sentiment in the United States would
favor as fair. No king or emperor is so high that he is above the law,
and the law forbids killing innocent people who are minding their own
business. Wearing funny costumes doesn't make a bit of difference.
Or, in the early history of Islam, the forces of Muhammad fought a
battle against those of a prince and were defeated; once defeated,
they were left to go their way, but it was said "until next year"...
the prince took that to be a rhetorical device, but precisely a year
later, the forces of Muhammad showed up... and thus won total victory
against an unprepared foe.
Nuclear weapons have, of course, the capability of mass destruction.
And World War II showed us how awful the consequences of defeat in a
war can be, how evil and ruthless an enemy can be.
So, yes: today, war is not a game. It is a serious business, and the
issue is to win. Because every human life is immensely valuable, and
so wars should not be started at all - thus, woe betide those who do
start them (unnecessarily for an aggressive purpose - or make it
necessary to start them for a defensive purpose).
John Savard
John F. Eldredge
> In article <7n6156F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>
>> I have read that obsidian and flint will both fracture into edges
>> sharper than you can grind on a steel knife. On the other hand, a
>> steel knife is unlikely to shatter if you drop it.
>
> But how many surfaces are hard enough to break it? Not all of them.
My post was somewhat misleading. Knapping a piece of flint or obsidian
into a knife-edge involves pressing down against the surface in such a
way as to induce a series of conchoid (C-shaped) fractures. You end up
with a series of arcs, each of which has an extremely sharp edge. This
does not necessarily require a tool made of a material harder than the
flint or obsidian. You do not knap a piece of flint or obsidian by
simply dropping it. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapping>.
On the other hand, if you _do_ accidentally drop such a knife onto a hard
surface, it may well fracture into a collection of fragments that aren't
a useful size or shape. Metal tools aren't as easily damaged.
Mark Reichert
> In article <mgjmg5lhhr3di6m3k3ffo0n14ojne33...@4ax.com>, David Johnston
> (da...@block.net) says...
>
>
>
> > On 23 Nov 2009 19:18:01 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> > <tednolan>) wrote:
>
> > >In article <heelo9$f9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > >Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>David Johnston wrote:
> > >>> <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > >>>> A master swordsman can
> > >>>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> > >>>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>
> > >>>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> > >>>> ten men.
>
> > >>> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>
> > >>him with a rock.
>
> > >IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
> > >convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
> > >the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
>
> > again and again the technological edge probably was good for something
> > or other.
>
> trained and organised force is a lot bigger advantage than any
> technological edge.
And a better equipped force that knows how to use it has an even
bigger force multiplier.
I don't know enough about the equipment differences in Alexander's
time to know how they affected the outcome, but some hundreds of years
earlier, the heavy bronze armor and shields of the Greeks were a
decided advantage over the Persians. One of the more ridiculous
things about 300 is the absence of the armor. At least they let them
keep the shields.
David DeLaney
>"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> As we know from Cannae, usually the last thing a formation wants is
>> envelopment by the enemy - the enemy attacking it from all sides at once
>> that is. But, the chakravyuha invites it. It is a circular formation,
>> which could be thin, with reserves in the centre with the general right
>> inside issuing commands. The chakravyuha can move in any direction as a
>> whole, and upon engagement rotates in a clockwise manner, just like the
>> chakra, thus adding an angular component to the attack.
>>
>> Normal frontal manoevers - the press of battle - of the kind commonly used
>> in ancient and even medieval Europe, may well be expected to pierce the
>> line. But that is just what could be disastrous. As the line is pierced,
>> the intruders are flanked and then cut off. from the main body They are
>> enveloped by the reserves within the chakra, and cut down.
>
>Avoiding encirclement is certainly the usual rule, but there are other
>formations that fight perfectly well when facing enemies from all
>sides, such as the Roman tortoise http://tinyurl.com/yzbqm2c
>or British infantry squares, which were so successful against
>French cavalry at Waterloo. http://tinyurl.com/yz4wers
ObSF: "And the 'edgehog can never be buggered at allllll!"
Dave "though that's PROBABLY not what she was singing about, I'd put her up
against many sergeants any day" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.